Propaganda Resist the lure of cannabis

[honourableone]

Due to the claimed positive aspects of using cannabis, some individuals have criticised the Government for re-classifying it as a class B drug.
While I am sure many thousands of people derive pleasure from its use and many others will testify to its pain-relieving properties, we should not underestimate the serious health issues it can cause.
A recent television documentary stated that about one per cent of all cannabis users were at risk of developing psychosis.
I believe this figure is grossly underestimated, not only from first hand experience, but from talking to friends and relatives, many of whom know of, or have heard of, someone who has become ill as a result of its use.
My own brush with this evil drug – and I don't use this term lightly – came a few years ago when someone close to me suffered from what is known in the medical profession as a psychotic episode, as a result of smoking it.

My life has not been the same since. I could write several lines describing how this person was affected, but to keep it short, imagine someone who keeps drifting in and out of a drunken state, someone who claims they are being watched so they won't open the curtains, preferring to sit in the dark; they say they hear voices and laugh to themselves for no apparent reason; they claim that the voices from the television or radio are speaking directly at them. Then there are the bouts of semi-depression, sometimes brought on by something quite simple as an unhappy scene on the television.
Because of this, you are in constant fear for their safety and have to keep a close watch on them.
After six weeks of 24-hour support and prescribed medication, this person nearly made a full recovery. Sadly though, they did not accept that the use of cannabis had brought about their illness and started to smoke it again.
The earlier symptoms soon returned and so several more anxious weeks were spent watching over him, until eventually, the stress of it all made me ill.
I had little choice, but to carry on as the alternative was to have him admitted to a psychiatric hospital.
After four months or so, and with the aid of medication, constant supervision and keeping him away from cannabis, he eventually recovered. Two years on, he is free of both cannabis and the prescribed drugs and has got his life back on track. He has had a lucky escape.
For those who say there is no proven link between psychosis and cannabis. I say these people are deluded.
For anyone who is, or might be, considering using cannabis, I would say don't – there are better things you can legitimately buy without risking your health or the health of those who care about you.


By the Leicester Mercury, 14th February 2009
Original Source: http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.u...l/article.html

[Felix Guattari]

Is this an article? Like, from a paper?

Basic recap of argument:

Some people say cannabis isn't bad for you, but they are wrong because I knew this one guy who went crazy and he smoked cannabis. QED.

Cute, kinda.

[honourableone]

I'm almost completely sure that all articles from that website go into the "Leicester Mercury", and even if that isn't the case the newspaper company runs the website. The paper usually focuses more on small local news stories over general articles though.

It's sad when people know so little, think they know a lot more, and then try to spread their ignorance. It's so depressing how many supposedly well informed cannabis articles there are that actually use the word "evil".

[cannabis-sam]

Well for a start THERE IS NO PROVEN LINK BETWEEN CANNABIS AND PSYCHOSIS this is not saying it does not cause mental illness, it also doesn't say it does, it is unclear and to state it as a fact that cannabis causes mental illness in a large amount of people, against all scientific evidence which shows the correlation exists but is small. Also it seems there is a genetic predisposition to mental illness that can be brought out by cannabis use. You will talk to many people who know someone who became mentally ill after smoking cannabis, that doesn't mean they started smoking cannabis therefore it must be the causal factor in there illness anyone who believes this sort of evidence is deluded, many factors can contribute to mental illness. The predisposition rather than causal factor seems to be more likely to me, so yeah for some people cannabis might trigger underlying mental health issues but to claim using purely anecdotal evidence and weak statistical links doesn't prove a thing and is very misleading.

I'm not one (although my name probably suggests it) that jumps on the "cannabis is harmless it's just a plant" bandwagon like many seem to. I'll look at the evidence and when I'm convinced beyond reasonable doubt, from proper scientific studies that prove this one way or the other I'm going to keep an open mind.


Damn I got all riled up there and I realize that it wasn't actual your opinion honourableone I nearly gave you negative rep for that post.

Reputation Comments on this post:

	Excellent, unbiased view, something we need more of
	Well thought out opposition to knee-jerk cannabis phobia.

[nibble]

Originally Posted by cannabis-sam

Well for a start THERE IS NO PROVEN LINK BETWEEN CANNABIS AND PSYCHOSIS this is not saying it does not cause mental illness, it also doesn't say it does, it is unclear and to state it as a fact that cannabis causes mental illness in a large amount of people, against all scientific evidence which shows the correlation exists but is small. Also it seems there is a genetic predisposition to mental illness that can be brought out by cannabis use. You will talk to many people who know someone who became mentally ill after smoking cannabis, that doesn't mean they started smoking cannabis therefore it must be the causal factor in there illness anyone who believes this sort of evidence is deluded, many factors can contribute to mental illness. The predisposition rather than causal factor seems to be more likely to me, so yeah for some people cannabis might trigger underlying mental health issues but to claim using purely anecdotal evidence and weak statistical links doesn't prove a thing and is very misleading.

I'm not one (although my name probably suggests it) that jumps on the "cannabis is harmless it's just a plant" bandwagon like many seem to. I'll look at the evidence and when I'm convinced beyond reasonable doubt, from proper scientific studies that prove this one way or the other I'm going to keep an open mind.


Damn I got all riled up there and I realize that it wasn't actual your opinion honourableone I nearly gave you negative rep for that post.

This I wholeheartedly agree with, great post.

[TMcK]

You know, I have personally come to the conclusion that most "psychosis" is simply the term straight people (in the drug sense, not the sexuality sense) use to describe people who, through the use of various drugs and plants, has completely broken their ties to the illusionary culture that they rarely, if ever, question.

SWIM could EASILY be written off as completely insane, but he sees reality for what it really is: a continuous experience of Now, without boundaries or limitations. Culture acts as a prison for the unimaginative and the un-illuminated, replacing the primary power of direct experience of Nature and the mind with a set of cheap parlor tricks, memes, symbols and poorly wrought metaphors. SWIM would argue that he is actually COMPLETELY SANE, and that a majority of the non-drug people are the sick ones, the insane ones. SWIM isn't proclaiming that he somehow has his all shit figured out, but SWIM is fully AWARE of this fact, and bases all his arguments and observations on personal experience, reason and evidence, rather than simply buying into whatever the folks with the most money want to sell him.

If anyone HAS become psychotic as a result of cannabis use, I would suggest that it had more to do with their mental state without the drug, than the drug itself. Any set of circumstances can and will set a person off if they are predisposed toward mental illness; even a mild psychotropic like "evvvvvvvil" cannabis has the effect of perturbing normal brain activity, and in a truly unhinged individual, psychosis is almost guarenteed. But notice that caffine, sugar, and red meat all have compunds in them which perturb normal brain activity, as well.

TMcK added 2 Minutes and 3 Seconds later...

I would have to say that biggest risk I'm aware of with cannabis is that one is burning and inhaling smoke. This is easily circumvented by way of eating or vaporizing.

Reputation Comments on this post:

you got something there, breaking the ties to culture can lead to anxiety and depersonaliztion

[AquafinaOrbit]

I love how his response to people saying their is no proven link between cannabis and this illness is simply saying their stupid for not believing it.

[Sven99]

I don't care how dangerous cannabis is. It is made more dangerous by its prohibition.

The prohibitionists like the keep the focus of the debate on the dangers of cannabis because it draws it away from the bigger picture. When debating a prohibitionist, refuse to let them suggest that you think cannabis is safe. On the contrary. The fact that cannabis is unsafe means that we need to regulate its supply instead of leaving it in the hands of criminals.

[TMcK]

I think the more cogent point is simply this: what gives any person, company, agency or collective the authority to dictate what an individual puts into his or her body? For that matter, who is actually brazen enough to say that some plants are a-ok, and others are off limits, simply because of largely misapprehended (among the uninitiated) and unreasonably feared psychoactivity? Notice that Strychnos toxifera - a plant loaded with strychnine - is perfectly legal to grow. Same with Hemlock. And yet, either of these are utterly lethal.

Even some commonly used plant drugs are dangerous... Poppies and datura plants both have incredibly low LD-50's, and yet because these are pretty, pretty flowers, and not as commonly known for the effects, they are overlooked.

Personally, I feel suicide - getting off the path here, know - is a civil rights issue, and should be entirely up to the individual, but the point remains that a select few with a lot money to put toward swaying public opinion are making blanket decisions about what ALL people should and shouldn't do. Another point I'd ask you all to consider is the fact that while cannabis, indoles, tryptamines, etc are proven to be relatively harmless, and are maintained and schedule 1 and schedule 2 drugs, caffeine, red meat, refined sugar, nicotine and alcohol (all proven to be exceptionally harmful to the human body) are not only tolerated, but PROMOTED. Nicotine not so much anymore, but you see my point.

These drug laws are completely arbitrary, and they only serve to disempower those among us who would cut their own swathe through the woods, rather than follow the majority path.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Impressively well written arguments, coming from a logical yet personal perspective that lay bare the bare bones of the ...

[Sven99]

Originally Posted by TMcK

I think the more cogent point is simply this: what gives any person, company, agency or collective the authority to dictate what an individual puts into his or her body? For that matter, who is actually brazen enough to say that some plants are a-ok, and others are off limits, simply because of largely misapprehended (among the uninitiated) and unreasonably feared psychoactivity? Notice that Strychnos toxifera - a plant loaded with strychnine - is perfectly legal to grow. Same with Hemlock. And yet, either of these are utterly lethal.

Even some commonly used plant drugs are dangerous... Poppies and datura plants both have incredibly low LD-50's, and yet because these are pretty, pretty flowers, and not as commonly known for the effects, they are overlooked.

While I agree with you, its not an argument that holds much ground in a debate. If you bring it up in a debate of drug policy it tends to put people off as thinking you're a crazy libertarian. Drug discrimination is a terrible thing, but its possibly the one kind of discrimination left thats socially acceptable.

Once the prohibition laws are repealed, we'll be in a much better position to fight against drug discrimination.

[TMcK]

Originally Posted by Sven99

While I agree with you, its not an argument that holds much ground in a debate. If you bring it up in a debate of drug policy it tends to put people off as thinking you're a crazy libertarian.

I know! I'd find it hilarious if it didn't affect SWIM's personal life and choices so heavily. It reminds me of a quote by Timothy Leary, who said, "LSD has been found to occasionally cause psychosis in people who haven't used it."

Reputation Comments on this post:

Great quote and highly appropriate

[welshmick]

Originally Posted by TMcK

I know! I'd find it hilarious if it didn't affect SWIM's personal life and choices so heavily. It reminds me of a quote by Timothy Leary, who said, "LSD has been found to occasionally cause psychosis in people who haven't used it."

Likes it


SWIM smokes cannabis a lot and we are OK

[TMcK]

Originally Posted by welshmick

Likes it


SWIM smokes cannabis a lot and we are OK

As a newbie, SWIM is still getting used to the linguistic style adopted in the attempt to keep from self-incriminating, and kind of feels foolish when he's doing it, and cannot help but want to giggle when reading it.

SWIM thinks it's because he is reminded of Gollum. In fact, SWIM is fairly tempted to replace SWIM with SMEGOL and start referring to cannabis as 'his precious".

TMcK added 1 Minutes and 11 Seconds later...

"What's reefers precious?"

"MARI-WAH-NAH. Smoke it, vape it, cook it in some butter!"

[razorwiredildo]

Originally Posted by honourableone

A recent television documentary stated that about one per cent of all cannabis users were at risk of developing psychosis.

That is technically not a lie but it is very fucking misleading. The risk of developing psychosis is about 1% for the general population.

[Sven99]

Originally Posted by TMcK

As a newbie, SWIM is still getting used to the linguistic style adopted in the attempt to keep from self-incriminating, and kind of feels foolish when he's doing it, and cannot help but want to giggle when reading it.

SWIM thinks it's because he is reminded of Gollum. In fact, SWIM is fairly tempted to replace SWIM with SMEGOL and start referring to cannabis as 'his precious".

TMcK added 1 Minutes and 11 Seconds later...

"What's reefers precious?"

"MARI-WAH-NAH. Smoke it, vape it, cook it in some butter!"

SWIM is a commonly used non-incriminating indicator, but its not required, and by no means the only option. If you know somebody called Smeagol you can certainly talk about their drug habits

My left shoe enjoys a joint now and then...

And just to add: Win

[Insomniacsdream]

"A recent television documentary stated that about one per cent of all cannabis users were at risk of developing psychosis.
I believe this figure is grossly underestimated, not only from first hand experience, but from talking to friends and relatives, many of whom know of, or have heard of, someone who has become ill as a result of its use."

Wow that last sentence's conclusion is derived from a very reliable source.

[fearnloathinginNCL]

When presented with the usual cannabis/psychosis argument by folks, I always point them in the direction of this, from the british journal of psychiatry:

"http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/184/2/110"

"Causal association between cannabis and psychosis: examination of the evidence"

"...Cannabis use appears to be neither a sufficient nor a necessary cause for psychosis. It is a component cause, part of a complex constellation of factors leading to psychosis."

[honourableone]

Originally Posted by Insomniacsdream

"A recent television documentary stated that about one per cent of all cannabis users were at risk of developing psychosis.
I believe this figure is grossly underestimated, not only from first hand experience, but from talking to friends and relatives, many of whom know of, or have heard of, someone who has become ill as a result of its use."

Wow that last sentence's conclusion is derived from a very reliable source.

Agreed. The author both refutes scientific evidence based on something so insubstantial, and fails to realise that the few cannabis users who experience problems (not neccesarily associated with use) are more likely to be known about than the many more cannabis users who don't develop problems and thus attract less attention to themselves.

[Lewwy]

to the starter

are u sure that the guy did just have schizophrenia? because all thos symptoms sound like that of the psychological disorder.
it is a posibility that the acutal drug had nothing to do with it

anyways good for the guy beeing clean now!

[cannabis-sam]

To the starter.

Are u sure that the guy did just have schizophrenia? Because all those symptoms sound like that of the psychological disorder.
it is a possibility that the actual drug had nothing to do with it

anyways good for the guy being clean now!

You've made the same mistake I did mate, this is a news article (clue being in it being posted in the NEWS section). I nearly gave hounarable one negative rep because I thought he'd written this. Maybe a header would help?

By the way when I quoted you I couldn't resist correcting your spelling, grammar, capital letters and full stops. I know I'm probably a bit of a grammar fascist but it was irritating me.


This post has made me sound like a proper big twat.

[TMcK]

Originally Posted by cannabis-sam

You've made the same mistake I did mate, this is a news article (clue being in it being posted in the NEWS section). I nearly gave hounarable one negative rep because I thought he'd written this. Maybe a header would help?

I was thinking it would have helped to put it into quotes, like this:

A newspaper article I read said:

blah blah blah

That would remove any confusion, I think.

[nibble]

Originally Posted by TMcK

I was thinking it would have helped to put it into quotes, like this:



That would remove any confusion, I think.

You think the fact that it is in the news section would remove confusion, but I guess not...

[honourableone]

Originally Posted by TMcK

I was thinking it would have helped to put it into quotes

This used to be done a lot, but the rules of the news sections now mean there is a specific way threads must be presented. There is a sticky on it. It's helpful in most cases with more straight forward news stories, but with actual opinion based articles there has obviously been some confusion. All first posts of threads in the news section have to be articles, so I have never had a problem here.

[TMcK]

Makes sense. I was more referring to "less people would have been confused" than "it should have been done". I read your original post, and was confused for a moment until I realized WHERE it was posted, and then it made perfect sense to me.

Sorry if my post implied something other than that.

[cannabis-sam]

Time for my favorite emoticon: