Let me break down the logic of the people who dismiss pot-schizophrenia link studies.

[howard112211]

I see a number of recurring themes and I am tired of replying to all of them individually. The posts that we see each time something about the pot-schizophrenia link gets posted are usually variations of a number of things.

“This is bullshit!“

That is not an argument. It is simply a contradiction.

“But it is obviously bullshit!“

If it is so obvious, care to explain why?

“This mixes correlation with causation!“

That is a bold assumption. Most people conducting research are trained to distinguish the two.
Funding agencies would likely not fund research that made such an amateur mistake.

“But scientists and funding agencies have an agenda and mix correlation and causation on purpose“

That is not an argument. That is an accusation. If you make such an accusation the burden of proof lies with you. Furthermore, this can be used against just about anyone or anything: „Evolutionists are just paid hacks who get paid to hate Jesus“. „My parents are getting paid by the government
to tell me to not look for black helicopters“. It is a one-size-fits-all way to dismiss things one doesn't like and not very sensible. If scientists are not credible then evolution may be wrong too.

“Pot legalization is a liberal issue. Liberals should be anti-authoritarian“

Dismissing an argument based on ideology. Fail.

“Why do you want to keep pot illegal? The war on drugs is hurting us all“

Whether or not pot should be legal is an entirely different question. We are discussing
whether a link to schizophrenia exists. Not the sociological impact of pot laws.

“But all you have is anecdotal evidence. Providing one example is not enough.“

Actually, to prove that something exists one example IS enough. One single unicorn, provided
it is a real unicorn (and not a horse with a glued on horn),
proves that a unicorn can exist. As long as
one is not making any statement of how frequent something occurs, a sample size of one is sufficient to prove existence.

“But your unicorn has its horn glued on“

Again you are accusing me of lying and not making an argument. I will stop talking to you now because based on this reply there is no ground for discussion.

“But I have smoked pot for 30 years and nothing has ever happened to me.“

It doesn't work this way. You don't prove a negative by providing examples of cases where something didn't happen. I have never been hit by lightning in nearly thirty years. That doesn't mean people don't get hit by lightning. A single case of rabbit bones in the praekambrium would cause evolution theory serious trouble however.

“Oh please, not this shit again“

Above you were asking for a larger sample size. Actually, the frequency with which something gets discussed is not necessarily „correlated“ with how true it is.

“I like to smoke pot“

Then smoke it. No one is telling you not to. But don't dismiss rational arguments based on emotion.

“People who smoke pot are trying to self-medicate their pre-existing schizophrenia“

Where is the evidence for that? I think the above scientists (which you have already accused
of lying and mixig correlation and causation) would probably be able to recognize this.
It's just as reasonable to claim that smoking tobacco doesn't cause lung cancer, but actually
prevents it, and the cigarette smokers are self medicating.

“But alcohol is much wose than pot“

Whether true or not true, this is entirely irrelevant to this discussion and a completely unrelated issue.

“Why are we not seeing such a study on alcohol?“

I don't know. It doesn't matter. Conduct one if you want.


AND of course:

“I found a spelling mistake or a nitpick in your reasoning and are therefore gonna dismiss the whole thing“

Needle in the haystack. Get's used against global warming science too.

AND my very favorite:

“Your are just a drive by hit and run poster with a low post count. Why are you not
staying and replying to every single post in this thread“

Attacking the messanger because you don't like the message. I have other things to do. I may or may not reply to some of the posts later this evening, based in part on how reasonable I find their argument.

[amyrose2712]

1. Is this regarding a study you can link to? I have not heard this but

I have come across the same thing in regards to Cannabinoid Hyperemesis. Which is something I just recently discovered I have been suffering from for many long years.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=cannabinoid+hyperemesis&hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS329US329&um=1&ie=UTF-8&oi=scholart

[LeftishBrit]

114. Here's a summary of some of the evidence

http://www.schizophrenia.com/prevention/streetdrugs.html

Note that there *doesn't* seem to be real evidence that cannabis is likely to increase the risk of psychosis in an adult with no obvious risk factors. It is young teenagers, and people who are already at strong genetic risk for schizophrenia, who may be at risk from using it.

Note also that the sale of tobacco and alcohol to minors is forbidden, despite the legal status of these drugs. Saying that smoking cannabis may be risky to young teenagers is not the same as saying that it should be illegal for everyone. There seems to me to be very little logical reason for banning cannabis, when tobacco and alcohol are legal.

Everything has its risks, and many things are particularly risky for children. Aspirin is one of the most widely used legal medical drugs and is available over the counter - but it is is known to have risks, and is strongly discouraged for use for children under 12.

[amyrose2712]

129. Yes, side effects of antidepressants: may cause suicidal thougts...

and for one asthma medication I heard them say, Contains solumedrol(not sure exactly). Solumedrol may increase the risk of asthma related deaths. Nice, huh.

[RainDog]

147. here's information that provides proof the psychosis study is bullshit.

http://www.alternet.org/story/145879/anti-pot_propaganda_as_stupid_as_ever_--_yet_our_alarmist_media_continues_to_hype_it

written in response to the issue referenced in this one.

In fact, it was only in September when investigators at the Keele University Medical School in Britain smashed the pot = schizophrenia theory to smithereens. Writing in the journal Schizophrenia Research, the team compared trends in marijuana use and incidences of schizophrenia in the United Kingdom from 1996 to 2005. Researchers reported that the “incidence and prevalence of schizophrenia and psychoses were either stable or declining” during this period, even tho use of cannabis among the general population was rising.

here's an interesting quote:

Dr. Tod Mikuriya, former director of marijuana research for the entire federal government, wrote in 1996: ”I was hired by the government to provide scientific evidence that marijuana was harmful. As I studied the subject, I began to realize that marijuana was once widely used as a safe and effective medicine. But the government had a different agenda, and I had to resign.”

I take it that the fake conclusions from bogus studies, the aggravation with those who do not buy into the propaganda, and the fact that two states are looking at total legalization means that the fake drug warriors have lost and they don't want to admit it.

The rest of us know it, tho. The majority of Americans know it and have for the last decade.

[NoSheep]

153. +1

[ixion]

2. And here's my thing:

One conveniently-timed government study does not override thousands of years of cultural evidence.

That is: People have been smoking marijuana since the Dawn of Man, with no pronounced incidence of psychosis. Quite the opposite, in fact. So when I read about a study that tries to insinuate that marijuana causes psychosis, my reaction is that the study is flawed, because it doesn't reconcile with historical data.

Nice try, though.

[Deep13]

123. Well, yes it does.

Cultural evidence is not evidence. You may as well say there is no such thing as lead poisoning because the Romans made their pipes out of it. It may just be that no one has ever recognized the connection before.

Also, it's my understanding that Mary Jane is a new world plant. If true that would limit precolumbian use to those already in the Americas. My recollection is that most of those societies either kept no records or else few survive. So I doubt your claim that MJ use goes back to the beginning of time. And even if it does, it is not necessarily the same stuff that exists now. Anyway, argiculture has existed for thousands of years, and people still have wheat allergies. I doubt there are extensive premodern documents demonstrating these allergies. I am far more doubtful that anyone would ever diagnose psychosis in premodern times, let alone link it to cannibis, especially when it is such a rare result.

[RainDog]

127. Cannabis originated in China and existed 3000 years before the common era

...it's interesting that people would think it's a new world plant, tho... which is why scientists think the plant should be referred to as cannabis, rather than marijuana. Marijuana was a name used to identify the plant with Mexicans in the U.S. and used as a scare tactic (i.e. Mexicans will get high and rape your women! crap.)

anyway, cannabis has origins in south and central asia.

from wiki-

Evidence of the inhalation of cannabis smoke can be found as far back as the 3rd millennium B.C., as indicated by charred cannabis seeds found in a ritual brazier at an ancient burial site in present day Romania.<6> Cannabis is also known to have been used by the ancient Hindus of India and Nepal thousands of years ago. The herb was called ganjika in Sanskrit गांजा ganja in modern Indic languages. The ancient drug soma, mentioned in the Vedas as a sacred intoxicating hallucinogen, was sometimes associated with cannabis.

Cannabis was also known to the ancient Assyrians, who discovered its psychoactive properties through the Aryans.<14> Using it in some religious ceremonies, they called it qunubu (meaning "way to produce smoke"), a probable origin of the modern word "cannabis".<15> Cannabis was also introduced by the Aryans to the Scythians and Thracians/Dacians, whose shamans (the kapnobatai—"those who walk on smoke/clouds") burned cannabis flowers to induce a state of trance.<16> Members of the cult of Dionysus, believed to have originated in Thrace (Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey), are also thought to have inhaled cannabis smoke. In 2003, a leather basket filled with cannabis leaf fragments and seeds was found next to a 2,500- to 2,800-year-old mummified shaman in the northwestern Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region of China.<17><18>

Cannabis is a multi-use plant and its use as hemp was critical to the development of society and culture throughout the world. one reason I think it should be a legal plant is the industrial uses of hemp. Ford made a biodegradable car body out of hemp in the 1940s. Hemp can replace petrol-produced products - I'm not talking about fuel for cars. I'm talking about things made out of plastic. Hemp is a replacement for petrol-derived plastic products.

Hemp oil is the best form of EFAs for humans.

Hemp paper doesn't degrade like wood pulp paper. Legalizing hemp could help preserve our forests and the useful function they serve releasing oxygen into the air, absorbing co2, and mitigating things like soil erosion. hemp is an annual crop rather than a slow growth tree. The logging industry would suffer and I know they don't want the competition.

The economy would greatly benefit by opening this new market to farmers and manufacturers. Many people would be enthused by this turn toward less hysterical attitudes. Hemp was essential for our victory in WWII and could help undercut our addiction to oil - and the perception that we must force oil-producing nations to bend to our will. That in itself would be great for the economy b/c we wouldn't spend so much of the national budget on the military (theoretically, tho I'm sure certain people in our society would find a new existential threat du jour) and we would also defund big oil by having an industry that can compete with them in many sectors of their markets... which, again, if you're a capitalist, why would you side with those who want protected markets for themselves by making other products illegal to produce (as in grow.)

Our fellow citizens who have skills in manufacturing could be put to work creating an American product.

some hemp history:

8000BC
Civilization, agriculture and hemp textile industries begin in Europe and Asia.

3727BC
Cannabis called a "superior" herb in the world's first medical text, Shen Nung's Pen Ts'ao, in China.

1500BC
Cannabis-using Scythians sweep through Europe and Asia, settle down everywhere, and invent the scythe.

500BC
Gautama Buddah survives by eating hempseed.

450BC
Herodotus records Scythians and Thracians as consuming cannabis and making fine linens of hemp.

300BC
Carthage and Rome struggle for political and commercial power over hemp and spice trade routes in Mediterranean.

100BC
Paper made from hemp and mulberry is invented in China.

100AD
Roman surgeon Dioscorides names the plant cannabis sativa and describes various medicinal uses. Pliny tells of industrial uses and writes a manual on farming hemp.

500AD
First botanical drawing of hemp in Constantinopolitanus

600AD
Germans, Franks, Vikings, etc. all use hemp fibre.

1150AD
Moslems use hemp to start Europe's first paper mill. Most paper is made from hemp for the next 700 years.

1492AD
Hempen sails, caulking and rigging ignite age of discovery and help Columbus and his ships reach America.

[Deep13]

134. I'm all for a less hysterical attitude.

Even if heavy use causes serious side effects in a few people, that is not necessarily a good enough reason to ban it. The fact that some people are lactose intolerant does not mean milk ought to be banned. And of course, whatever medical problems it might cause, it is still FAR less dangerous than either alcohol or tobacco. That is a public policy argument. It really has nothing to do with whether or not marijuana is correlated with psychosis in some people. It either is or it is not.

If it is, then further investigation is needed to determine if there is causation. If so, is it all weed, just skunk weed, only in people with certain hereditary risk factors, heavy use, occasional use, old people, teenagers or what? The facts, whatever they are, have to be discovered. And a predetermined policy conclusion has no bearing on what those facts are.

[Wizard777]

148. It's also a sacrament in Zoroastrianism. The Green Hom or Green Homa.

Most of the terms associated with many drugs are religious terms. Including marijuana. That means Mary's dung. There are very old legends associating the plant with either the Virgin Mary or Mariama Magdalena. But the legends are associated with gnostic christianity. The Gnostic's believe that after Jesus was crucified both Mary's left the Middle East and went to South America. One of the things they brought with them was hemp seeds.

[old mark]

3. Rec. I agree with you. There are lots of studies that link recreational drug use

including pot to increased mental and emotional problems of all types. I KNOW from experience as a former smoker that my thinking progressively changed for the better after I stopped smoking about 30 years ago. Pot is certainly less harmful physically and mentally than alcohol is, but as you state, that's 2 seperate issues.
I do believe in legalizing pot for recreational use, but I have no illusions that it is "harmless", even though some of its effects may be beneficial and certainly fun.

mark

[SpiralHawk]

4. You got issues, buddy.

[Tiggeroshii]

5. The studies I have seen specifically would note the individuals who are likely to become

schizophrenic from smoking pot also have a family history of schizophrenia. But it is true -at least from the psych people i've talked to, that there is definitely a link between the two.

[elocs]

6. Anything that is even slightly negative about pot will get nowhere on DU. Period.

Any facts or studies will simply be derided and dismissed as bullshit. That simply is a fact of life here.

[Stuckinthebush]

143. I've noticed that too

Curious. You'd think that pot was the best thing since sliced bread. I've seen it hurt some people and I've seen it used harmlessly.

Nevertheless, peer reviewed scientific studies should be taken more seriously than my anecdotal evidence.

[LeftishBrit]

7. A few points here...

(1) There is some pretty strong evidence that cannabis use *before the age of 15* is associated with an increased risk of schizophrenia. It is not clear (as researchers admit) whether this means that it is causal. There is far more likelihood that an adolescent with mental health problems would self-medicate with drugs than that someone with increased vulnerability to lung cancer would be more likely to smoke. But on general principle, I would not think it advisable for youngsters to use cannabis (or alcohol if it comes to that).

(2) The strongest evidence for some sort of causal role is in the case of people who *already* have a genetic risk for schizophrenia. If you have a close biological relative with schizophrenia, then you have a higher-than-average risk for developing schizophrenia yourself, but it is greatly increased if you also smoke cannabis, especially at a young age.

Therefore, it is doubtless wisest not to smoke cannabis when still a young adolescent; and in particular best to avoid it if you have a close relative with schizophrenia, or if you have already experienced transient psychotic symptoms. There is little evidence that smoking cannabis as an adult increases the risk of mental illness, at least in those who are not already at strong genetic risk.

Being aware of potential risks does not mean banning the substance. Everything has risks. We don't ban alcohol or tobacco; though we do ban their sale to young people under 18. I would support something similar for cannabis. (BTW there *have* been studies of alcohol in this connection, and underage use of alcohol *is* a strong predictor of increased risk of schizophrenia.)

[elocs]

14. Everything has risks, but to DU pot is everything.

There is not a drug or substance in existence that no matter how good or miraculous does not have a negative effect or hurt some who use it. The trouble is that common sense assessment cannot be accepted here at DU when it comes to marijuana where even the smallest of negative effects of its use cannot be accepted and are viewed as a threat to its use and acceptance as the perceived wonder substance of humanity.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

25. try reading the science

You have no clue what you are talking about but that never seems to stop many people here at DU.

[elocs]

70. So then, unlike anything else, pot has absolutely no risks, no downside,

no negative effects on anyone? Somebody does need to try reading science, but not me.

[uncle ray]

98. that is not a widely held belief on DU.

you bait and bait and eventually some lone poster makes some comment that may not be fully informed, and you twist that into "pot can do no harm! all of DU szys so! OMG!" the widely held belief on DU is, of course, that cannabis is not perfect, it certainly has some side effects, if slight, however the benefits to most individual users outweigh the risks.

i find it curious and amusing that a bunch of potheads routinely knock down your strawman.

[Romulox]

106. I've noticed that most of the anti-pot zealots argue with straw men.

Who are you debating here? Yourself? :hi:

[madokie]

8. So

you're going to school us?:rofl: and yes at you

[Warren Stupidity]

9. The recent publicized study, like all before it failed to

demonstrate causation. The study did not even rule out other confounding factors. The other thing these studies invariably don't bother to note is the actual risk that might be involved if it turns out that pot is causing the problem - because that risk is vanishingly small. If there is a 1/100000 chance of developing psychosis, for example, and if pot increase that risk by 30% there is now a 1.3/100000 chance of developing psychosis. By all means let us continue to lock people up to keep them safe!

[RainDog]

10. People who are opposed to pot use the same sorts of arguments

And those come from people who have no experience or understanding of what it's like to ingest pot.

Those people think that smoking pot is like drinking alcohol. People are not hung over after smoking pot. People do not have shaky hands if they smoke too much pot. People who smoke too much pot go to sleep and wake up without any indication that they had smoked pot other than having had a long night's sleep. that's it.

The two experiences are VASTLY different and the aftermath of the two experiences are vastly different.

Yet I've seen people on this board talk about not wanting a surgeon to work on them if they'd smoked pot the night before (btw, there are quite a few doctors who smoke pot to relax, according to their self-reported admissions online).

Anyway, I just thought it was useful to point out that one reason people here also dismiss the anti-pot arguments is because the people making them don't know what they're talking about many times.

As far as this study, there are numerous studies that indicate cannabis has a medicinal value - EVEN IN THE CASE OF MENTAL ILLNESSES as well as cancer, MS and more.

So, if the evidence is contradictory, it seems valid to look at the thing based upon its value to society. Cannabis is a valuable plant for society.

Cannabis is valuable to society as hemp (industrial uses, petrol-products replacement) and as medicine.

Therefore, studies of adolescents (who shouldn't ingest pot) who either were likely genetically disposed to schizophrenia/psychosis anyway (isn't there a HUGE genetic component to schizophrenia) compared to studies that demonstrate that the value of cannabis in the treatment of other illnesses amounts to very little other than saying a subset of the population that is already disposed to schizophrenia might be self-medicating to deal with those symptoms and might have problems with that. is it the self-medication or the pre-existing illness?

AT THE SAME TIME, there is a study that demonstrates the value of cannabis for psychosis.

The point is not that the study has merit or not. The point is that the parameters of the story indicate that adolescents should not smoke pot (or drink alcohol.)

And a BIG reason that people are automatically dismissive of any studies that demonstrate the negative aspect of cannabis is the 70 year history of propaganda against the plant.

Ronald Reagan was all over a study that said cannabis kills brain cells. This was touted as truth. Do you know how the researchers arrived at that conclusion?

They put masks on monkeys and filled them with cannabis smoke until the monkeys suffocated. Suffocation kills brain cells. The study had nothing to say about cannabis.

Yet that study was cited as proof. -- the history of this moment of propaganda via science by conservatives is well documented so you can find it for yourself.

If this 70 year history of lies did not exist, you would not find so many people discounting the latest anti-cannabis story. But that history does exist. The stories about the value of cannabis do not get the same hysterical reporting that anti-cannabis stories do.

[trumad]

11. Shit just makes me hungry.

[marmar]

12. Schizophrenic unicorns smoke pot?

This post makes me want to light one up.

:smoke:

[the other one]

13. The problem with studies

The US govt does not sanction studies that look for positive effects or benign-ness. If you want permission and more importantly money, you must first take a position that is looking for something negative. I take all US based studies with a whole lot of salt for this reason.

In other words, the studies are politically motivated and therfore biased from the start.

It is up to the researcher to divulge if the study was simply gathering data, or if they were paid to find certain data. It is my job to remain sceptical.

It's YOUR study, YOU prove lack of bias.

Unrec because I think YOU are biased, and you fail to disclose what your purpose
is, unless it is to make pro-pots look bad, and that my friend is worse than any of the psuedo reasons you half- describe.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RainDog]

33. you are not informed

the FIRST study on the medical outcomes for cannabis in TWENTY YEARS in the U.S. was just recently published here.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/02/18/1st-medical-trial-of-pot-in-20-years-finds-it-does-relieve-pain/

There is extensive research from Israel and Europe that has overwhelmingly found medicinal value in cannabis.

Therefore, the extensive studies that reveal the value of cannabis, along with the one just recently announced here indicate that cannabis is a plant that has value to society as medicine.

I'm not a pot smoker so fire away.

[Bluenorthwest]

43. Cite this substantial government research please

Declaring that such research exists is just that, a baseless and unproven declaration. In this case, that declaration is coupled with personally based snarks. This indicates a clear predisposition to reach certain conclusions.
So show us all of this substantial research you dream goes on. You declared that it exists, I say it does not. Prove that it does.
Even the survey I think you are discussing in the OP is from another country. Show us the research to which you so boldly declare as substantial, along with your wise cracks and poor syntax.
Ready? Begin!

[Vickers]

15. I'm convinced!

:rofl:

You need to loosen up and go smoke a bowl, Mr. Uptight.

[Lerkfish]

16. gotta love the guy that argues with himself and loses the argument.

:)

[The Straight Story]

17. Show any study on christians being bad, smoking cigs, etc and people here lap it up though

and if you question such a study they laugh at you and call you biased.

I am fine with pot being legal, but I get what you are saying about reactions to things which skewer the golden calf.

[RainDog]

22. just for the record

the recent "atheists and liberals are more intelligent" post got knocked down by many here - the same people who knock studies like this one.

[WeDidIt]

18. No links, so my only conclusion is a series of strawmen

Link to the assertions or I can only conclude you are intellectually dishonest.

[Vinnie From Indy]

19. Let me break down this post

An attention hound posts a bit of flamebait without a single reference or link to any scientific study or ANYTHING that supports his point by point diatribe.

It is almost as if the OP were stoned when they wrote it!

[WeDidIt]

20. Let me break it down even further

"Strawman"

Knock down strawman.

"Strawman"

Knock down strawman.

"Strawman"

Knock down strawman.

"Strawman"

Knock down strawman.

"Strawman"

Knock down strawman.

"Strawman"

Knock down strawman.

"Strawman"

Knock down strawman.

"Strawman"

Knock down strawman.

"Strawman"

Knock down strawman.

"Strawman"

Knock down strawman.

"Strawman"

Knock down strawman.

"Strawman"

Knock down strawman.

"Strawman"

Knock down strawman.

"Strawman"

Knock down strawman.

"Strawman"

Knock down strawman.

"Strawman"

Knock down strawman.

"Strawman"

Knock down strawman.

"Strawman"

Knock down strawman.

"Strawman"

Knock down strawman.

"Strawman"

Knock down strawman.

"Strawman"

Knock down strawman.

[ProfessorGAC]

21. Actually It Was Simpler Than That

Your post suggests there were multiple strawmen. There weren't. There was one. The same one just kept getting stood up so it could get knocked down again. You made it look harder than it was.
GAC

[seabeyond]

23. the point. we smoked pot. we know many who smoked pot. no psychosis. no fear from study

it is really that simple

scientist can say tell they are blue in the face if we do we die.... when we see we do and no one dies??? no one is going to worry over much. except those with agendas

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

24. Ahh, the Hot Topic Anarchist strikes again

There's no fooling you, Bunky: you know the truth!


:eyes:

I love that you completely ignore the fact that alcohol use is FOUR TIMES the predicator for schizophrenia than cannabis use. Are you are real assclown or do you just play on DU?

[Lint Head]

26. Marijuana has been tagged as antisocial when it fact it is a social drug

that permeates society. I known personally many powerful and upwardly mobile people that smoke pot to relax. The problem the socalled
'establishment' has with it is that it can have the effect of making a person think. When someone smokes pot they are in control of their thoughts as opposed to someone controlling their thoughts. The powers that be do not want a society of free thinkers.
Some here will say that pot is a dumb drug and makes you lazy but, as the unicorn example was used, there are many examples of artists writers and yes even scientists using pot as a vehicle for creation.
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=457029004&blogId=492725109
http://www.angelfire.com/dragon/legalize/famous2.htm

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wildbilln864]

136. Some Pot Smokers of Note...

LINKY :hi:

[Forkboy]

29. Don't smoke it then.

[ashling]

30. Your explanation of the logical fallacies will go right over the head

of many who have a stake in this argument.

I think this is a great list and can easily be adapted to any argument.

[RainDog]

31. including those opposed to sane cannabis policy n/t

or rather, ESPECIALLY those opposed, based upon the numerous studies that make this one insignificant.

[ProfessorGAC]

83. That's The Problem With It

It can be applied to ANY argument. That means it's generic, two dimensional nonsense that doesn't actually apply to the topic to which it pretends to apply.
GAC

[hughee99]

110. The thing about logical fallacies is that they are generic

and could apply to an argument on any topic.

The fact that the same logical fallacy can be found in arguments on any topic doesn't mean they're not applicable, just because they're not specific.

I'm not saying there is or is not a causal link here, but the OP does point out what appears to be to be a number of logical fallacies in arguments he claims to have seen, but also makes a few of his own.

[ashling]

117. Exactly

That is exactly the point of my response....not to take a stand on the issue one way or the other.
It's just good to keep in mind for any discussion or arguement.

A response of "Bullshit" may make the responder feel better, but it does not move the discussion.

[DaveinJapan]

32. Rec. Not because I necessarily agree with the argument

but because the argument was offered rationally point by point.

It's okay to disagree (I certainly do!), but the knee-jerk "un-rec cause I don't like it!" vibe totally sucks, and shuts down healthy discussion imho.

[superduperfarleft]

34. You nailed it.

The DU pro-pot brigade is exactly why, although I like pot, I hate potheads. You say one critical thing about it and it's as if you've personally insulted them. I've actually seen people attacked (yes, attacked) here for saying that their marijuana use may have resulted in a psychotic break.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[superduperfarleft]

38. I'm a fake leftist because I respect critical thinking

as opposed to knee-jerk pro-pot no matter what? You have a pretty warped idea of what a leftist is then. The anti-intellectualism that rears its ugly head everytime DU tries to discuss pot reminds me more of the teabaggers than leftists.

[retread]

54. I have no idea how to discern real vs fake leftists. I must have missed the leftist quiz

when it was given.
However, if I were you I wouldn't be so quick to imply this op is an example of "critical" thinking worthy of respect.

[superduperfarleft]

55. Doubting a study because it disputes your preconceived notions

is the exact opposite of critical thought. Seems to me that this reaction is what the OP was addressing.

Doubting the motives of the people who created the study is a legitimate concern, but it doesn't in itself dispute the data presented. Neither does presenting anecdotal evidence that "I smoked every day for a billion years and didn't have a problem."

Acknowledging that there may be risks for certain people when it comes to marijuana use doesn't imply that one is in favor of jack-booted thugs kicking in people's doors to confiscate a bong.

The "fake leftist" crap was just a more creative version of the "Freeper!" accusation hurled against anyone with whom one disagrees here.

[retread]

56. My problem is using the op as an example of critical thinking. Much better stated here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7824275&mesg_id=7824629

[superduperfarleft]

73. I don't agree with that criticism.

The OP is responding to a very common sentiment on DU when it comes to pot, and many other things that are held up as DU's sacred cows.

He makes a valid point that people should simply refute the conclusions of the study as opposed to engaging in ad hominem attacks against the people making those claims.

[retread]

124. One more time and then I'm done! It does not matter if you or I agree with the OP's conclusions.

He does not arrive at those conclusions by logical argument. You defended his conclusions by citing his OP as an example of critical thinking which it most certainly is NOT.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ThomWV]

35. My goodness are these people taking it easy on you. Your arguments are sophomoric at best

You don't know the difference between an assertion, an assumption, and an accuastion. You demand evidence and offer none while ridiculing demands for same. And in the middle of this chaotic jumble you repremand others for not understanding how to present a proper argument.

There are people who have responded to your post that, in meaner moments, have eaten new posters alive for just this sort of tripe - they've taken it awfully easy on you. Be thankful.

[Viking12]

39. My thoughts exactly.

That's the longest screed of logical illiteracy I've ever seen.

[Vinnie From Indy]

68. Amen!

Thanks Thom! Well said!

[Wizard777]

149. Exactly! He's using skepticism on the skepticism instead of proving the point.

It's like using a double negative in logic. Double negatives aren't good in grammar and it's even worse in logic.

[Dogmudgeon]

37. Excellent!

Now if only the pro-Pot coalition would learn to argue like that, they might rack up a few wins.

I don't know of ANYONE in brain science or pro-legalization who makes the case that there is NO risk in using Cannabis. There are two issues: harm from use, and the consequences of illegality. When one tries to argue both of them mixed in, what happens is "The Stupid".

Note to Pro-Legalization Folks: If you learn how to argue this way, you WILL make enormous advances in ending the War On Drugs. And at that point, it will be easy to treat the small number of people who have suffered adverse reactions to Cannabis.

--d!
Pro-Science, Pro-Legalization

[Bluenorthwest]

60. The movement is science based

And reason coupled with observation would show you that the marijuana reform movement has achieved many major victories. You say 'might rack up a few wins'. Odd, considering the large number of states that have enacted Medical Marijuana laws, each of those states a 'win racked up'.
If any other political movement had even half the success of the marijuana reform movement, we would have a far better nation.

When some unproven and uninformed poster hands out notes, it seems reasonable to ask that poster to share stories of the great wins 'racked up' in your own field of political focus. Clearly, you have had more success than making new laws in more than a dozen states, changing the national perception of your issues, and so forth. Share with us that which gives you standing to lecture others.
Ready? Begin!

[retread]

40. You left out the "Create Straw Men and then knock them down argument". Your

OP is a perfect illustration of this technique.

My favorite part of your diatribe is when you say you will only deign to respond to replies you deem "reasonable".

[spanone]

41. ah, the pot police

[tekisui]

42. I looked at the study and connections were weak.

They only studied about 500 individuals. They only looked at the first time an individual smoked. They did not look at how much had been smoked since then.

Only some 66 of the 500 had what they termed 'nonaffective psychosis'. There was a higher rate of psychosis for those who smoked earlier. But again, the number was very small. They didn't report on how many of the remaining 434 had smoked or when they had first smoked. They didn't include other drugs.

The results could be interpreted that those with psychotic tendencies may be more likely to experiment with marijuana at an earlier age. There is no evidence of causation.

[superduperfarleft]

44. It took 62 posts before someone offered a reasoned argument.

Thank you.

[tekisui]

48. Certain subjects get people to respond purely on emotion.

I don't fault people for responding that way, but the OP makes good points. That isn't the way to win an argument.

[superduperfarleft]

50. I'm actually pro-legalization of ALL drugs, and also doubted the motives of the study.

But since I don't have a background in statistics or medicine, I declined to weigh in. What the OP is calling out is the knee-jerk reactions (see the veiled accusations thrown at me of "freeper!"), not the people who had legitimate reasons to doubt the study.

The pro-pot people are in the right, they just have to learn how to convey that in a way that won't alienate people.

[Common Sense Party]

76. Crystal meth should be legalized? And what? The FDA will regulate it?

I don't think so.

[superduperfarleft]

77. Who are you to tell someone they can't poison themselves? n/t

[Common Sense Party]

78. There are plenty of other poisons around they can use.

And those poisons don't turn trailers and apartments into toxic dumps that are uninhabitable for years to come.

[superduperfarleft]

80. There's already laws against endangering children and your neighbors.

How is continuing the status quo of treating addicts like criminals working out as far as reducing meth use?

[Common Sense Party]

81. Not well. I just don't see how decriminalizing it helps anyone.

[superduperfarleft]

84. It would allow addicts to get treatment without fearing jail time.

It would probably prevent trailer labs, since legalization would lower the cost and it wouldn't be as easy a moneymaker.

What about crack? Cocaine? PCP? LSD? What drugs specifically would you keep illegal, and how do you think laws regarding their use will help to curb use anymore than marijuana prohibition has helped to curb marijuana use?

[Common Sense Party]

93. If you can point to a society that has hard drugs like that legal and

regulated, and it has been shown to lower crime and addiction rates over decades, I'd think about legalizing any of them.

[superduperfarleft]

95. Alcohol causes far more damage than marijuana.

(I know you're not advocating for marijuana prohibition, but bear with me)

Withdrawal from alcohol can actually cause death, as opposed to cocaine.

Should we make alcohol illegal, by your reasoning? Why isn't alcohol considered up there with cocaine, which many people can use recreationally?

[Common Sense Party]

99. Personally, I think it should be much more regulated than it is now.

I believe alcohol abuse does unbelievable amounts of damage to people, families and innocent bystanders.

But, I don't drink, so I may be a bit biased.

[superduperfarleft]

100. Well, then we fundamentally disagree. Nice talking to you, though. n/t

[Common Sense Party]

101. That's it, then? Okay. Nice talking to you, as well.

Seriously, if you do find some studies of societies with great long-term results from legalized cocaine, PCP, meth, etc., please let me know about them.

[superduperfarleft]

102. I doubt there are any, which is why I bowed out.

My position is based purely on speculation.

[RainDog]

128. Portugal is an example

from Scientific American:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization

In the face of a growing number of deaths and cases of HIV linked to drug abuse, the Portuguese government in 2001 tried a new tack to get a handle on the problem—it decriminalized the use and possession of heroin, cocaine, marijuana, LSD and other illicit street drugs. The theory: focusing on treatment and prevention instead of jailing users would decrease the number of deaths and infections.

Five years later, the number of deaths from street drug overdoses dropped from around 400 to 290 annually, and the number of new HIV cases caused by using dirty needles to inject heroin, cocaine and other illegal substances plummeted from nearly 1,400 in 2000 to about 400 in 2006, according to a report released recently by the Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C, libertarian think tank.

...Walter Kemp, a spokesperson for the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, says decriminalization in Portugal "appears to be working."

from Time Magazine:

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

Compared to the European Union and the U.S., Portugal's drug use numbers are impressive. Following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%. Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana.

...The Cato paper reports that between 2001 and 2006 in Portugal, rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%; drug use in older teens also declined. Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8% (although there was a slight increase in marijuana use in that age group)

[Common Sense Party]

130. Very interesting.

Of course, the cynic in me wonders about the merits of a right-wing libertarian think tank study, but it does show promise--but it's pretty short-term. I'd like to see drug use and addiction go down over successive generations.

Alcohol is legal here, but has alcoholism declined since prohibition ended? I don't know.

[RainDog]

131. Addiction v use are two different things

I don't know enough about addiction studies to know numbers for addiction, i.e. the sort of use that interferes with ones ability to function in society because use of that substance overrides family, job and community concerns.

But use doesn't equal addiction so it's hard to compare the two, it would seem to me.

As far as I know, from the studies I've seen, marijuana is not physically addicting in the way that alcohol is.

People may smoke habitually, but that is not the same as addiction. As in, someone may like to eat cheerios for breakfast and make sure they have a box on hand so that they can have their bowl every morning. This is a habit. If the cheerios truck couldn't get to town and there were no cheerios for days, that person's habitual use would be stopped but that person would not be addicted to cheerios. they may be grumpy cause they like cheerios, but that's not a physical addiction (I suppose this could be argued against for those with wheat allergies but, you get the drift of what I'm talking about, I'm sure.) Habitually marijuana use, in other words, is like the cheerios scenario. People do not go through physical withdrawal. Some people may go through mental withdrawal, but that rises to the level of habit, not addiction.

The Netherlands does not have legal cannabis but they have gone through stages of liberalizing their enforcement of laws regarding it. Here's some info from a three decade-long look at cannabis usage there.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/ille-e/presentation-e/korf-e.htm

Most probably cannabis use among youth in the Netherlands so far evolved in two waves, with a first peak around 1970, a low during the late 1970s and early 1980s, and a second peak in the mid 1990s.

It is striking that the trend in cannabis use among youth in the Netherlands rather parallels the four stages in the availability of cannabis identified above. The number of adolescent cannabis users peaked when the cannabis was distributed through an underground market (late 1960s and early 1970s). Then the number decreased as house dealers were superseding the underground market (1970s), and went up again after coffee shops took over the sale of cannabis (1980s), and stabilised or slightly decreased by the end of the 1990s when the number of coffee shops was reduced.

A 2008 study from the World Health Organization

http://www.mpp.org/library/toward-a-global-view-of.html

The U.S. has some of the world's most punitive drug policies and also the world's highest rates of marijuana and cocaine use, according to this World Health Organization survey of 17 countries, conducted by some of the world's leading substance abuse researchers. The Netherlands, where adults are allowed to possess and purchase small amounts of marijuana from regulated businesses, has a marijuana use rate less than half of ours.

[Common Sense Party]

140. Oh, I wasn't even counting pot. I was only talking about the harder stuff

And with some of those--meth, specifically--use pretty much does equal addiction.

[RainDog]

141. okay, but ten years of permitted cannabis usage in the NL = lower rates of usage

that is incontrovertible.

in the case of Portugal, if you merely look at the success they've had thus far, compared to the dismal outcomes of attempting to criminalize addicts rather than treat them as people with health problems...

I don't see any rationale to continue with the policies we currently employ. There is no "win" in the war on drugs. It is a nasty way to deal with people with medical problems - the sort of view of people that lacks any way for them to overcome because the goal is punishment, not treatment, not harm reduction.

At the same time, the propaganda is so thick, so many people are invested in keeping themselves employed by treating the ill as criminals that I have little hope for the U.S. to enact sane drug policy beyond the current trend to inject some reality into the cannabis scheduling and illegality.

I also think prostitution should be legal.

I don't want to be one, don't want to visit one, but I think society is better served when prostitutes receive health care, must meet certain guidelines for doing business. I'm not sure if prostitution is a victimless crime since it seems so many prostitutes have been abused as children. But the law doesn't stop that former abuse and the way the system is set up at this time, prostitutes continue to be re-abused by the way things are done now.

It really comes down to whether you want to punish people or minimize damage, imo.

[Flaneur]

118. Actually, crystal meth is a Schedule II controlled substance.

Your doctor can prescribe it to you. It's called Desoxyn and manufactured by Abbot Labs.

[Bluenorthwest]

66. That one is just skipping all the reasoned replies

and also refusing to answer any questions. An argument or discussion is by nature a two way street, not one person shouting names and ignoring responses that are a challenge.

[superduperfarleft]

72. Sorry, when someone peppers their replies with "Deal with it! Nanny nanny boo boo!"

I tend to ignore them. But I'll make an exception in your case.

[RainDog]

49. you must not have read the entire thread

because I offered a reasonable argument in post #10 which deals with the issue of cannabis as problematic for a subset of the population.

but I also noted the many studies that indicate a benefit for others as a medicine.

then I noted that the issue becomes one of benefit to society. we can look at cannabis and see it has a benefit to society for both medicinal and industrial uses.

therefore, if we did a cost/benefit analysis of prohibition, it is obvious that cannabis should be decriminalized at the least, tho legalization makes the most sense in terms of money saved, lives ruined, etc. all because of a 70 year crusade to demonize pot since the feds wanted to stay in biz after prohibition ended.

if you look at WHY cannabis was criminalized, that in itself is a profound reason to legalize it based upon our governing philosophy.

[superduperfarleft]

52. You're right, I missed that. Very good points.

Looks like I knee-jerked myself when I anticipated the reactions to the OP.

[RainDog]

53. thank you.

:pals:

[seabeyond]

59. or previous 61 thru experience and common sense didnt need to find the flaws in study

because they knew from instinct it was there somewhere....

reality does not support study

[Beetwasher]

97. There's Also Comorbidity With Alcohol And Other Substances

In addition, I'd be interested in seeing replication of these data in further studies before I'd give this particular study any significance.

[anigbrowl]

116. Entirely agree. If only everyone stuck to *reasoned* arguments.

I'm about as pro-pot as they come. I'm advocating on behalf of a local dispensary at city hall this month. I am part of the effort to 'tax and regulate' pot that's on November's ballot in California. I put in money and time to this issue every week. today I'm writing up an analysis of how this latest mini-controversy has played out in the media.

But refuting to debating poor science is only possible by adhering to a higher standard of reason and logic, especially when presenting to a general audience that may not know or care much about the principles of safe access or legalizations. Ranting and venting about the issue doesn't convince anyone, but makes it easy for opponents of pot to dismiss all advocates as silly stoners. If you want to rant or vent...please, stay home. Don't come to a public policy meeting if your purpose is to vent. Send a donation to NORML instead, or show your support by just showing up with a pot-t-shirt.

There's nothing more depressing than building and presenting a fact-based argument for a more liberal policy only to be followed by someone who rambles incoherently about how unfair it all is or suchlike. Passion and sincerity are all very well, but they mainly impress other people who hold the same views. They're not so good at convincing skeptics or neutral folk to liberalize marijuana use.

The OP is right: fallacious arguments do nothing to further your cause, and in fact undermine the efforts of people who invest time in preparation and presentation.

[clu]

45. i start thinking some crazy stuff when i smoke the good stuff

but i'm not smoking at this point in my life.

[bamacrat]

46. I would say that anyone who is inclined to be or has a history of schizophrenia should not use....

any mind altering substance. Be it pot, alcohol, coke etc. If the mind is weak anything can trigger it, pot is just a scapegoat because it is illegal and so many people want it legalized. I would bet stress can induce schizophrenia about as much as pot can.

[RainDog]

51. exactly. n/t

[Fumesucker]

47. You missed an argument.

The government has been caught lying time after time after time after time for over seventy years about pot, due to the current totally illegal nature of pot the government has to approve all scientific studies of that plant, a great many of us do not trust the government approved studies because of the proven fact it has been lying since well before we were born.

Err.. This argument is undeniably true, I wonder why you didn't include it in your list?

Do you believe proven liars?

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

57. a much larger more comprehensive study has debunked this

pretty effectively.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19560900

Schizophr Res. 2009 Sep;113(2-3):123-8. Epub 2009 Jun 27.
Assessing the impact of cannabis use on trends in diagnosed schizophrenia in the United Kingdom from 1996 to 2005.

Frisher M, Crome I, Martino O, Croft P.

Department of Medicines Management, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK. [email protected]

A recent systematic review concluded that cannabis use increases risk of psychotic outcomes independently of confounding and transient intoxication effects. Furthermore, a model of the association between cannabis use and schizophrenia indicated that the incidence and prevalence of schizophrenia would increase from 1990 onwards. The model is based on three factors: a) increased relative risk of psychotic outcomes for frequent cannabis users compared to those who have never used cannabis between 1.8 and 3.1, b) a substantial rise in UK cannabis use from the mid-1970s and c) elevated risk of 20 years from first use of cannabis. This paper investigates whether this has occurred in the UK by examining trends in the annual prevalence and incidence of schizophrenia and psychoses, as measured by diagnosed cases from 1996 to 2005. Retrospective analysis of the General Practice Research Database (GPRD) was conducted for 183 practices in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The study cohort comprised almost 600,000 patients each year, representing approximately 2.3% of the UK population aged 16 to 44. Between 1996 and 2005 the incidence and prevalence of schizophrenia and psychoses were either stable or declining. Explanations other than a genuine stability or decline were considered, but appeared less plausible. In conclusion, this study did not find any evidence of increasing schizophrenia or psychoses in the general population from 1996 to 2005.

PMID: 19560900

[saltpoint]

58. It seems as if it would be relatively simple to demonstrate that people

who do not smoke pot are victims of schizophrenia, likely in large numbers, and that schizophrenia is its own biochemical predisposition.

Early-onset Axis I diagnoses occur in people who do not smoke marijuana. If that percentage is shown to be high or relatively high, the arithmetic alone dissuades me from fleeing in terror at the legalization of marijuana. I'm inclined to support its legalization, in fact, and may responsible clinicians monitor it and may it be appropriately taxed to help pay for infrastructure and education, etc.

We know that booze bashes livers and unless I'm mistaken it's quite legal and readily available for purchase at this hour, and more to the point at hand, afflictions of the liver and other organs occur in patients who do not drink.

[Bluenorthwest]

64. One would also assume that it would be a cake walk to

take a 'study' of a nation or region with little or no pot use, and show us that they have less schizophrenia. But they don't, because they can't. If they could, they would.

[saltpoint]

137. Agreed. It would be practical -- and clarifying -- if in cultures

with little or no pot use the incidence of Schizo Spectrum Disorders was the same or higher than in cultures where marijuana smoking is more prevalent, that would just about wrap it up for this argument.

[pipi_k]

61. I never really liked pot much anyway, but....

maybe the only thing this study really proves is that there's a whole lot of fucked up people in the world.

I mean, seriously...before anyone had even heard of marijuana (in some areas of the world) people were having "visions" and hearing "voices". Did Joan of Arc really see visions, did she smoke pot, or was she having psychotic breaks from reality? Who knows?

We've got RW religious nuts running around in this country seeing Jesus in toasted bread...The Virgin Mary in windows and oil stains in the driveway. Talking to God (and getting answers back). Are these people all smoking pot?


Maybe in a world that's become noisy and overcrowded, there are just more messed up people in it, and maybe a lot of those people smoke pot. I mean, there could be other reasons for the alleged correlation, right?

[baldguy]

62. Mood altering drugs have psychological effects

some of which may be detrimental in a relatively small number of people. Why is this surprising?

The cultivation, manufacture, sale & personal use one of these drugs is illegal, while the cultivation, manufacture, sale & personal use of others is a major industry & source of tax revenue - and this situation exists largely through an accident of history. That doesn't make the first drug any more dangerous, or the second any more safe. The obvious inequality should not be dismissed so lightly.

[Fumesucker]

65. The illegal status of cannabis was no accident, it was entirely deliberate..

And brought about for reasons of power, bigotry and money.

[retread]

63. Other studies show it is dangerous for strawmen to smoke pot. n/t n/t

[Cal Carpenter]

67. I find it interesting

that you put forth all this effort, but didn't show a single scrap of evidence for the point you seem to be trying to make, ie a link between schizophrenia and pot use.

I have no dog in this race other than curiosity, so I am not trying to imply that there is not a connection there, just that you sure as hell didn't convince me of anything. Except maybe that you are as much about 'attacking the messenger' as those you accuse...

[tekisui]

71. On top of that, it was a hit-and-run post.

No response to the real arguments put forth in this thread.

[Juneboarder]

87. As well...

the OP made no further comments to any of the further posters.

[Moochy]

120. But he's busy and tried to immunize himself against this criticism in his post

Also, they work in shifts.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

69. Pssst....

You hit the nail pretty much on the head.

Unfortunately, you've violated one of the DU Ten Commandments--thou shall not disparage pot--so unfortunately you've been damned. But I hear you, I really do.

[NoodleyAppendage]

74. Causation needs to be substantiated by Prospective Research Studies

Most of the pot and schizo connection research has been epidemiological, which can only show correlation. To demonstrate a causal link, one must perform a prospective study in humans (i.e., a placebo control double-blind protocol with psychosis sx. as outcome variables). To my knowledge such a study has not been conducted, so you are stuck arguing a correlative connection. Sorry those are the facts.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

75. What have YOU been smoking?

It's obviously caught up with you... :rofl:

[Echo In Light]

79. Who gives a fuck? un-rec

[liberal_at_heart]

82. flame bait. Sorry not biting.

[Juneboarder]

86. Maybe you should just chill out,

take a hit, and forget about it. Seriously... debating over marijuana is way low on the totem pole when considering health care and the state of our economy.

:hi:

[Moochy]

88. Speaking of Schizophrenia...

some seems to have a case of screenname-does-not-fit-my-slipped-opinions

[laughingliberal]

90. Let me break down my opinion of your post: Unrec. nt

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NashVegas]

92. Your Contradiction

“But I have smoked pot for 30 years and nothing has ever happened to me.“

It doesn't work this way. You don't prove a negative by providing examples of cases where something didn't happen. I have never been hit by lightning in nearly thirty years. That doesn't mean people don't get hit by lightning. A single case of rabbit bones in the praekambrium would cause evolution theory serious trouble however.

======

“People who smoke pot are trying to self-medicate their pre-existing schizophrenia“

Where is the evidence for that? I think the above scientists (which you have already accused
of lying and mixig correlation and causation) would probably be able to recognize this.
It's just as reasonable to claim that smoking tobacco doesn't cause lung cancer, but actually
prevents it, and the cigarette smokers are self medicating.


I've seen way more people claim smoking cigarettes is a form of self-medication than cancer prevention. Likewise, just because YOU never saw a case of someone self-medicating via smoking MJ doesn't mean the practice doesn't exist. As a former MJ smoker (decades ago) I can say my then-usage was most definitely a form of self-medication (although I don't know that schizophrenia was an issue), as it was with many of my more honest friends.

[Maru Kitteh]

94. I recced this because it was an entertaining read and you did a good job

of addressing the general kind of response that post and others like it tend to generate. It's amusing.

I have no opinion on whether or not regular use may contribute to schizophrenia. I haven't read the study and I probably won't. If it's true, or not true, more studies will be done and consensus will emerge. I have no skin in the game.

[groovedaddy]

96. pot-schizophrenia link? My understanding (based on the experience of my daughter

having gone through psychosis several years ago) is that there is no causal relationship between pot and schizophrenia. If a person is genetically predisposed to this disease, then pot or other drugs can trigger psychosis. Keep in mind that not all psychosis is schizophrenia related. Many of the drugs used to treat psychosis can actually trigger it.
I don't think pot is a panacea by any stretch, but it is medicine and much easier, and often more effective on humans than many of the pharmaceuticals being used for various illnesses.

[Renew Deal]

103. I love that potheads believe smoking cigarettes is bad 4 your health, but smoking weed is just fine.

:rofl:

[Romulox]

105. Link to a study that establishes your point? nt

[uncle ray]

107. who said that?

where?

and being you just came out of your cave, i'm sure it will be news to you, but there are other ways to consume cannabis, such as ingesting or vaporizing it.

[pipi_k]

108. I wouldn't say that either one is exceptionally healthy, but...

cigarettes contain a whole lot of additives...

http://quitsmoking.about.com/cs/nicotineinhaler/a/cigingredients.htm

Over 500, according to the list in the link above.

Pot...well, maybe the worst that can be said is that it probably contains some form of pesticide. Or not, if it's grown organically.



Oh, and just for the record...I haven't smoked pot in nearly 30 years. Never really liked it anyway. So I'm not exactly a "pothead" who's out to defend my habit or anything

:+

[Echo In Light]

111. Why do you "love" that? Why is it any of your concern?

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

115. who said a damn thing about smoking?

Seriously: find ONE post that discusses smoking as a medical benefit. ONE.

[Romulox]

145. I knew you couldn't provide any link to back up your assertion. nt

[Romulox]

104. Put up or shut up: provide evidence of a causal connection, or this is all just blather.

:hi:

[walldude]

109. Ok well then here's an argument you can deal with

It's none of your fucking business whether or not I smoke pot. You can cite every study, you can call me every name in the book, you can use real facts or make shit up, what it boils down to is who the fuck do you think you are? Who fucking cares what you think about pot? You can claim whatever the fuck you want, I notice you posted no credible studies or links, well here's a credible study for you. I've been smoking for over 20 years. I've never lost my mind, or a job, I've never hurt anyone, and I've had some of the best times of my life and created some amazing music while high. So tell me again why I should listen to some pathetic half assed nobody on the internet?

Maybe instead of your pathetic attempts to try and scare pot smokers, you could just keep your ignorant nose the fuck out of my business.

Oh and I just fucking love your final comment. You have an hour to put together this post but you have "other things to do" when it comes to actually defending this pathetic tripe. Unless it's a post you deem worthy or "reasonable". You sir, are an ass.

[hughee99]

112. A few logical problems with the OP...

“This mixes correlation with causation!“
That is a bold assumption. Most people conducting research are trained to distinguish the two.
Funding agencies would likely not fund research that made such an amateur mistake.

Why can it be assumed that a "funding agency" would not fund research that would make this sort of mistake? "Funding agencies" fund biased research all the time. While it's not fair to assume the study is biased, it's not accurate to assume that it's not, either.

“But all you have is anecdotal evidence. Providing one example is not enough.“
Actually, to prove that something exists one example IS enough. One single unicorn, provided
it is a real unicorn (and not a horse with a glued on horn),
proves that a unicorn can exist. As long as
one is not making any statement of how frequent something occurs, a sample size of one is sufficient to prove existence.

Yes, one example is enough to prove something exists, but from the studies I've seen (I'm not sure which you're referring to specifically), NONE has conclusively proved a causal link. In my opinion, none has had a sufficient methodology or sample size to conclusively prove a correlation. If a unicorn exists, it's proof, but the studies (the one's I've seen anyway) do nothing more than suggest there MIGHT be a link, and possibly warrant further, in-depth study.

[howard112211]

113. Here I reply to some of the issues raised in this thread:

Basically, two additional points were made that I would like to address.

"Where are your links? Why are you not providing evidence? What is your agenda?"

I don't provide evidence, because I have no other evidence than "anecdotal evidence"
that makes me nod every time I hear about a study that shows a connection between
schizophrenia and pot, such as the one that was posted here earlier. I have a story.
I will not post that story here however, since all that would do is generate further
replies that accuse me of lying or misinterpreting what I have seen.

"If you have bad reactions to pot, then simply don't smoke it. I don't have these reactions and
will continue to smoke it."

Exactly. Thank you for agreeing with the point I was trying to make: Bad reactions are possible.

[Romulox]

121. Wait a minute--your ENTIRE rant is based on "anecdotal evidence"?

You didn't do too well in statistics class, did you? :rofl:

[Warren Stupidity]

133. I have a friend who almost died from a bad reaction to fish.

On the other hand the fish prohibition movement is just not happening.

There is no lethal dosage of marijuana. Why is that?

[Therellas]

119. not believing in america causes impotence.

ive seen it a million times.


imo with pot there is a lot of "you get what you expect".
if you think it gonna freak you out... it will.
if you think it makes you happier it will.
if you think it will make food tastes better....it will.
if you subconsciously think it causes promiscuity....
and you sleep around or make some other bad decision ...
....you were already a slut haha.just kidding

unlike alcohol you instead turn into an introverted intellectual
instead of a loud idiot.

booze causes the gay and teen abortions.
not really.
just throwing that in.

in a related story i would like to share ,
which is really at the root of the problem here imo
( planting the seeds of fear and doubt in the minds of your team mates.)

so here goes short and sweet k

in Australia aboriginal shamans sometimes place a death curse on someone with a stick .
an incantation and a stick wave.
and then everyone else in the tribe knows
and acts accordingly.
guess what happens to the person who was cursed....
the person always dies within a week.
but its not really from the curse is it?
no.
they die from how everyone treats them but mostly because they actually BELIEVE it.
so it happens.
they "manifest it".

this happens still today and was recently put on the Australian books as being an illegal act.
pretty crazy huh.
i thought it was.

oh and the real problem with pot is it doesn't lead mental illness OR to harder drugs .
it leads to carpentry.

[retread]

125. "ive seen it a million times." Not first hand I trust? n/t

[Mopar151]

122. Ok, so you ducked the issues in the other thread.

You did'nt reply to the issues raised there in this one either. "Based in part in how reasonable I find their argument" - I'm bettin' you won't reply to the most reasoned ones here either. Insulting folks who make reasonable observations about your posts does NOT help your cause. Try using deductive instead of inductive logic, and stop being so naieve about the relationship between funding and outcomes. Oh yeah - anomolies, or statistically invalid examples, do not prove a damm thing in studies of this sort.
So weed makes your cousin Zeke wig out? Then she ought to stay away from it. Probably ought to be careful about SSRI's, too, and generally be wary of lots of stuff.

[Tsiyu]

126. Very, very good try. Now let's break down the logic

of people who feel they must generalize about, dismiss and ridicule their fellow human beings.

Many of your bold-faced statements could be made in any number of threads, scientific, political, cultural, on DU. We have a particular way of communicating on this site. But why would you ascribe them solely to people who refuse to believe an already refuted conclusion concerning one particular study? Because the substance studied was cannabis? Are you a cannabis hater? C'mon! You can tell us!

Sweeping generalizations attempting to portray anyone expressing pro-cannabis sentiments as "illogical with flawed reasoning" don't make your happy little study believable. People who use cannabis medically already read up on the studies done in various parts of the world. They are quite aware of the scientific research.

Their " You've gotta be bullshitting me" reactions are not merely "contradiction." They may also be made based on that person's own research and knowledge of other studies - research which contradicts this latest study you currently champion.

I could go step by step through your post, but you already know what your agenda is. I can't help with it in any case.

But really, really nice try Cap'n.

Not sure what your agenda is but you are definitely good at weilding a very, very broad brush.

[TexasObserver]

132. You represent well 80 years of discredited fearmongering.

There's a reason no one with any sense believes as you do.

They know better.

[ecstatic]

135. good post. k&r--I am for legalization by the way

But we can't pick and choose which science we will accept and which we will reject. If smoking weed comes with health consequences, people should know and acknowledge that.

[Happy Hippy]

138. :-)

Wasn't there a movie about this type of post? Troll Food? Oh wait....that was Soul Food.

[Orsino]

139. That one example proves existence is irrelevant to your point.

One example never has, and never will, prove causation--or even correlation.

[Odin2005]

142. I would argue that it causes Schizophrenia in people that were already pre-disposed to developing it

I tend to notice this a lot with this kind of study in general, not just with pot. They get cause and effect mixed up. There are many examples unrelated to pot, but I can't remember them off the top of my head right now, maybe I'll remember by afternoon when I'm awake. I think one had to do with LSD and psychosis.

I agree with you, though, that many of the people going after this study are just being knee-jerk.

[elocs]

144. I don't believe that marijuana 'causes' schizophrenia, but it can 'trigger' it

in those who are genetically predisposed. That's not exactly a great comfort to those who have a loved one whose schizophrenia is triggered by pot use because they will simply be dismissed as people whose evidence in only anecdotal.

Rarely here at DU will you ever see a study about anything negative concerning marijuana, even in a small way, be logically questioned but the usual m.o. here is to name-call and trash the OP. This thread is a most perfect example of that.

Aspirin has been called one of the wonder drugs of all time, but its use has sent thousands of people to the hospital with adverse reactions to it and it has caused thousands of deaths over the years. Penicillin was also a marvelous lifesaver, but its use also resulted in the deaths of some people. No, marijuana apparently stands alone in history as the only substance that is free of any risk or negative effects. That is very comforting, very comforting indeed.

[pipi_k]

152. I can't even count the number of times

I've heard people say that they only started having panic attacks after smoking pot. Upon questioning, they realize that other people in their family likely suffered from some anxiety disorder as well (making it genetic) and, rather than actually causing their panic disorder, pot merely triggered it in people who were predisposed to it anyway.

Given the "proper" circumstances (like extreme stress, etc) their PD might have come out some other time.

And for people who already had PD, it also triggered some real bad stuff. Did for me. I just can't tolerate the stuff, although I don't have a problem with people who do use it.

[ProgressOnTheMove]

146. I think it should be available for health and tax revenue but just like alcohol all things in...

moderation. If a person as a excess of alcohol it also leads to forms of paranoia but only used to excess. All I'd ask is don't intake either alcohol or pot around any election time. Clear thinking is the wisest move during those particular weeks, otherwise live be free.

[icymist]

150. You've had an entire argument with yourself. Have you been smoking pot?

I sometimes talk to myself too, but my doctor said it was okay as long as I didn't answer myself.

[Dappleganger]

151. Here's my problem with the study...

schizophrenia symptoms begin to typically show up during adolescence, and not all at once. It's widely accepted that there is a very strong tendency of people w/schizophrenia to self-medicate as well. Isn't it reasonable to assume that people who are using and showing diagnosed w/schizo probably had struggles with the symptoms BEFORE they began using pot?

Pot also has tends to have very high usage among people with ADHD (self-medication, once again). It's highly doubtful that using pot caused their symptoms with ADHD.

I'm not a scientist but find this topic quite interesting and am willing to read up more on it.

[NoSheep]

154. Howard..I think you need to take a penalty bong-hit.

[LanternWaste]

155. The smell of Sacred Cow grilling...

The smell of Sacred Cow grilling on open flames, with sides of righteous indignation, pomp and a few holy defenses peppered throughout the thread, served with a light, fruity wine to wash the thread down with.