What's your opinion on medical marijuana?

Post Reply New Topic

Well whether you disagree or not, pot smokers are twice as likely to develop schizophrenia than non-smokers, and genetics alone is at this point only considered to fully-account for 50% of schizophrenia cases. A causal effect between MJ and schizophrenia has been considered anecdotally evident for decades, and the chicken vs egg specifics empirically-concluded since a very large study of 4,000 young adults was published in the May issue of last year's Archives of General Psychiatry, finding that the risk of any one individual being diagnosed with schizophrenia was directly-proportional to their marijuana usage. This is consistent with a 2007 study done by Cardiff University's School of Medicine in Wales finding a more than 40% increase in likelihood of developing a psychotic illness later in life when young people smoked pot regularly, even if they later quit, and a 2005 study at Albert Einstein College of Medicine utilizing diffusion tensor imaging to show VISIBLE abnormalities in a pathway critical to auditory and visual functioning between cannabis-exposed patients and their non-drug using peers.

It's not an issue of "attempt", "blaming", or "cop-outs"- those are simply the facts.

It could vary well be that cannabis in COMBINATION with genetics triggers psychosis, but that would mean my original point still stands-
you take the risk when you smoke the drug.

I question the validity of the study you're citing.

Well, there are several studies to that effect-
do you have a problem with their methodology, or...?

Their methods AND their conclusions. Anyway, my head hurts right now so I'm not going to go in depth about my conclusions.

Those 'facts' you are referring to don't prove anything. The mj smokers that develop schizophrenia may have developed the psychosis had they never tried the drug once, these studies are literally just pulling 'statistics' out of the air and are manipulated to tell everyone that 'drugs are bad, don't take them unless you want to end up on a funny farm etc'.

Why do many substance abusers be it drugs, alcohol, cigarettes or something else, have such addictive personalities? It's because they were already flawed characters to begin with.

Though this topic is a segway.....

substance abusers could be anyone, no they do not have to have "flawed characters"

take someone who breaks their arm or gets their wisdom tooth and gets some vicodin.

they don't use it but eventually they get curious and try one and enjoy it.

then they use the rest of their prescription.

after they finish with it they seek more from illegal sources.

had they not taken the drug then they would not have been seeking it.

drugs have specific neurotransmitters they release or recepters they activate in the brain which are addictive to all humans, nomatter their character.
I would guess that it's a lot fewer people who wouldn't take a drug again once they actually took most drugs out there.
(people who do not take any at all would not be in this survey)

there is a reason joggers enjoy jogging...the "runners high" is the same type of reaction in the brain as some drugs but to a lesser extent. if people enjoy jogging and continue to do it...you wouldn't call them "flawed characters" they just happen to partake in a more acceptable high. Same thing with coffee..

Onto the psychosis topic...most people will not get psychosis from smoking pot.
However, it DOES increase the risk. Someone does not have to already have it.

Let's put it this way....your brain is a certain way and it will think a certain way until you introduce something new to it.
Joggers can get a joggers high but they will never get a heroine high from jogging.
Once this new element is introduced to the brain this will add something to how the brain works permanently from this experience.
Maybe in a tiny way like the thought like "wow I never knew I could get this high..."
Or could be in a large way like "wow I gotta get me some more of that...."
Or could be like "Hey....I don't remember letting anyone in my car....who's that person sitting next to me?"
Or it could be in a negative way like "wow I really hate this, I am never doing this again."
More likely it's option 1, 2, and 4.
Very rarely it's option 3 and if it is option three it's typically a much less exagerated form of option three.

If there is no element introduced there is no added reaction.
This isn't saying genetics dont play a part, but genetics dont play the whole part and sometimes none at all.
There will ALWAYS be a reaction though when you introduce a drug even one as "simple" and "natural" as weed.

I support the idea of marijuana use in general...so take that for what it is worth becasue I am probably leaving this site in the next couple days.

I support the idea of marijuana use in general...so take that for what it is worth becasue I am probably leaving this site in the next couple days.

Why?

I mainly support the idea of people having choices.

I think those who oppose medical marijuana are closed-minded bigots, because most people who oppose marijuana also oppose same-sex marriage.

I think marijuana definitely has therapeutic purposes and know it has medicinal purposes but I generally think it should be completely legalized and skip the nonsense about classification of it or talk of decriminalization.

It has a rightful medical use.

So yes.

Yes, weed should be 100% legal. It's a drug that, even though it has some negatives to it, can be used responsibly, just like alcohol or tobacco. Marijuana is seen as the main drug that needs to be fought by law enforcement, but there's no reason for that. Drugs like methamphetamine or ecstasy are FAR worse.

Yes, I'm out on whether it should be legalized based on the effect it has on individuals,
but it's quite obvious that much of the cultural prejudice against that comes from the (fallacious) perception on the part of many that it would constitute a "slippery slope" toward illegalizing drugs with worse effects,
and (this is my personal opinion as a hippie) decades-long establishment fear of the counter-cultural movement it's often-associated with.

Unless you plan on indicting the methodology or conclusions of cross-discipline large scale studies on the subject, they do.

You can develop lung cancer without having ever smoked, liver disease after a life absent of alcohol, and type-II, insulin-resistant diabetes without eating tons of junk. "Your genes load and cock the gun. Your choices pull the trigger." (And in this case, only half of Schizophrenia cases are accounted-for by genes versus other factors.)

If drawing conclusions based on extensive cross-discipline peer-reviewed studies of the relationships between variables qualifies, yes, I suppose they are.

...sounding mighty paranoid.

That wouldn't account for observable difference in brain structures between smokers and non-smokers,
and it's silly to say that drug users are inherently "flawed", both because it takes accountability away from their choices, and because it implies there's not a very strong of escapism from lives which in many cases are truly horrible to live.

I suppose I'll throw my two cents into the fountain as well.

First off, I have noticed that I can not find a good, solid argument on why it should not be legalized and regulated. No it's not perfect, stoners who preach to me that it's "not addictive" are dead wrong. Anything can be addictive, once our minds anchor a positive feeling to it you will crave more. It does effect the mind in negative ways, and there isn't any type of smoke you can inhale that isn't harmful in some way to your lungs. Also, those worried about people taking it too far recreationally have a good right to worry, because you can always count on some people to take things too far, but with regulation comes laws. It's not legal to drink and drive, and people showing up to work drunk won't be employed for long. The same rules would probably apply to pot, seeing that although in my opinion being high is much less harmful than being drunk, it is still a mind altering drug and precautions should be taken, whether prescribed or not.

My opinion is, these arguments are weak at best. Most medicine can be harmful to you if abused, that is why doctors write prescriptions. Also if it were legalized completely, it would be regulated the same as alcohol. In addition it would boost our economy and make way for new types of businesses and more jobs.

I guess what I'm trying to say is I don't think it's for everyone, but it is simply impossible to miss that the benefits out weigh the negatives by a landslide. I will always support legalization.

It's gonna take a while, but I honestly think it's just a matter of time before we are all telling stories to our grand kids about how we used to have to walk 5 miles uphill in the snow just to get a gram of what they can get at the corner store.