|
|
Post by oldpunkette on Mar 25, 2007 11:59:08 GMT
Yes Sandy, there is a 'link' between cannabis and schizophrenia, but I think there is a huge amount of media hype building this up into 'dope causes madness' type scare-stories. Today the leading theory of why people get schizophrenia is that it is a result of a genetic predisposition combined with an environmental exposures and / or stresses during pregnancy or childhood that contribute to, or trigger, the disorder. Already researchers have identified several of the key genes - that when damaged - seem to create a predisposition, or increased risk, for schizophrenia. The genes, in combination with suspected environmental factors - are believed to be the factors that result in schizophrenia. These genes that seem to cause increased risk of schizophrenia include the DISC1, Dysbindin, Neuregulin and G72 genes, but it has been estimated that up a dozen or more genes could be involved in schizophrenia risk. See our Schizophrenia Genetics news for the latest information in this fast-moving area. One of the most positive areas of schizophrenia research today is in the area of identification of early risk factors for development of schizophrenia, and prevention of schizophrenia in those people who are predisposed to the disease. (source: Neuropsychiatry Review). For more information see Schizophrenia Causes and Prevention. One of the most easily avoided factors linked to development of schizophrenia are brain-altering street drugs like marijuana and cannabis. (I didn't write that obviously, I copied it from here: www.schizophrenia.com/szfacts.htm)So people have the propensity for it. Cannabis use is one factor likely to bring it on, but just one. Cannabis use does not CAUSE schizophrenia. The vast majority of happy hash-heads don't become mentally ill as a result. |
|
sandywinder
Madrigal Member 
Holistic Philosopher
The private sector makes boxes, the public sector ticks them
Posts: 16,929
|
Post by sandywinder on Mar 25, 2007 12:02:50 GMT
The problem with the 'drugs' debate is just that . . it's about 'drugs'. It's madness to have a single policy or even a single approach to drugs which are as diverse in their effects, culture and usage patterns as heroin, ecstacy and cannabis. Cannabis does not turn someone into a violent killer. But it is not surprisign that someone with the propensity to become a violent killer uses cannabis. Half the blooming population use cannabis! (Well, a substantial minority.) Cannabis use - even regular, daily smoking - does not affect the ability of users to hold down jobs, even very responsible jobs. There is no social stigma in winding down with a joint after work. It may not turn you into a violent killer in MOST cases, nor indeed does it cause MOST cannabis users to kill people in accidents cause by being slow-witted from its affects. But then again most people who drive after few drinks will not in MOST cases lead to accidents either. And as I have just shown with the last post on schoolchildren, cannabis DOES indeed affect the brain's functions. Anyone who really thinks otherwise is fooling themselves. |
|
sandywinder
Madrigal Member
Holistic Philosopher
The private sector makes boxes, the public sector ticks them
Posts: 16,929
|
Post by sandywinder on Mar 25, 2007 12:07:47 GMT
The problem with the 'drugs' debate is just that . . it's about 'drugs'. If you were seriously worried about drugs likely to cause violence then you would be talking about alcohol, alcohol and alcohol. INDEED we should be talking about alcohol. I agree completely. This show just what effect drugs do have on people. They also wreck lives and lead to diseases. I have never been hypocritical in saying that illegal drugs are wrong and alcohol is no problem. Alcohol though in moderation does not lead to ill health. However my idea of moderation and somebody else's is probably quite different. I would not suggest banning alcohol any more than legalising cannabis or any already illegal drug. But I would make people pay far more for the pleasure of drinking it. Lunch calls. |
|
Daz Madrigal
lounge lizard
a Child of the Matrix
Posts: 11,120
|
Post by Daz Madrigal on Mar 25, 2007 12:10:45 GMT
Its a complex issue.
Even moreso than GW. A subject that is becoming mindbogglingly difficult to fathom as the sheer weight of pro GW evidence/propaganda would give my postman nightmares were it to be delivered.
Marijuana may not cause Schizophrenia by itself.
How do we know it doesn't 'worsen' the effects'. A large number of people recover from the illness to live reasonably normal lives. Who is to to say that prolonged use of cannabis would not interfere with this recovery in some respect.
Why for example is cannabis strictly prohibited by Care centres for Drug users?
|
|
Daz Madrigal
lounge lizard
a Child of the Matrix
Posts: 11,120
|
Post by Daz Madrigal on Mar 25, 2007 12:20:02 GMT
The problem with the 'drugs' debate is just that . . it's about 'drugs'. If you were seriously worried about drugs likely to cause violence then you would be talking about alcohol, alcohol and alcohol. INDEED we should be talking about alcohol. I agree completely. This show just what effect drugs do have on people. They also wreck lives and lead to diseases. I have never been hypocritical in saying that illegal drugs are wrong and alcohol is no problem. Alcohol though in moderation does not lead to ill health. However my idea of moderation and somebody else's is probably quite different. I would not suggest banning alcohol any more than legalising cannabis or any already illegal drug. But I would make people pay far more for the pleasure of drinking it. Lunch calls. Once you let the genie out of the bottle its extremely problematic to shove it back in again. The legalisation isn't the point because if 'anyone'..even an OAP with Arthritis 'wants' cannabis then it is readily available, quite possibly from a few contacts on the Internet. I'm not quite suggesting that its common practice nowadays to distribute Hash cakes at the Womens Institute but certainly if anyone under 60 wanted to get your hands on some he/she really wouldnt have to go out of their way yo get hold of it. It is already readily available and probably a lot closer to home than the local pharmacy. |
|
sandywinder
Madrigal Member
Holistic Philosopher
The private sector makes boxes, the public sector ticks them
Posts: 16,929
|
Post by sandywinder on Mar 25, 2007 13:21:43 GMT
(Well, I am the mother of two people who are expressedly NOT allowed to get out their faces, but that's only cause they're young. When I was freaking out about my kids the other day with a group of girl friends we all started talking about what we were up to at their ages, and the conversation ended with us ashen-faced to say the least!) That's about it OP, when it is SOMEBODY ELSE'S child it is OK for them to become drug addicts or alcoholics but when it is your own you are not quite so keen. Am I right? |
|
sandywinder
Madrigal Member
Holistic Philosopher
The private sector makes boxes, the public sector ticks them
Posts: 16,929
|
Post by sandywinder on Mar 25, 2007 13:31:10 GMT
Yes Sandy, there is a 'link' between cannabis and schizophrenia, but I think there is a huge amount of media hype building this up into 'dope causes madness' type scare-stories. Today the leading theory of why people get schizophrenia is that it is a result of a genetic predisposition combined with an environmental exposures and / or stresses during pregnancy or childhood that contribute to, or trigger, the disorder. Already researchers have identified several of the key genes - that when damaged - seem to create a predisposition, or increased risk, for schizophrenia. The genes, in combination with suspected environmental factors - are believed to be the factors that result in schizophrenia. These genes that seem to cause increased risk of schizophrenia include the DISC1, Dysbindin, Neuregulin and G72 genes, but it has been estimated that up a dozen or more genes could be involved in schizophrenia risk. See our Schizophrenia Genetics news for the latest information in this fast-moving area. One of the most positive areas of schizophrenia research today is in the area of identification of early risk factors for development of schizophrenia, and prevention of schizophrenia in those people who are predisposed to the disease. (source: Neuropsychiatry Review). For more information see Schizophrenia Causes and Prevention. One of the most easily avoided factors linked to development of schizophrenia are brain-altering street drugs like marijuana and cannabis. (I didn't write that obviously, I copied it from here: www.schizophrenia.com/szfacts.htm)So people have the propensity for it. Cannabis use is one factor likely to bring it on, but just one. Cannabis use does not CAUSE schizophrenia. The vast majority of happy hash-heads don't become mentally ill as a result. Yes OP and alcohol probably couldn't be proved to cause hangovers for a long time. This is the LATEST news about it, OP. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070324132832.htmStill not conclusive proof but then there is no conclusive proof that CO2 causes Global Warming either, even though it is as obvious as alcohol causing hangovers. So maybe we should all just sit back and forget about that as well. At least until the problem has become so bad that it is far too late to bother. |
|
sandywinder
Madrigal Member
Holistic Philosopher
The private sector makes boxes, the public sector ticks them
Posts: 16,929
|
Post by sandywinder on Mar 25, 2007 13:44:51 GMT
INDEED we should be talking about alcohol. I agree completely. This show just what effect drugs do have on people. They also wreck lives and lead to diseases. I have never been hypocritical in saying that illegal drugs are wrong and alcohol is no problem. Alcohol though in moderation does not lead to ill health. However my idea of moderation and somebody else's is probably quite different. I would not suggest banning alcohol any more than legalising cannabis or any already illegal drug. But I would make people pay far more for the pleasure of drinking it. Lunch calls. Once you let the genie out of the bottle its extremely problematic to shove it back in again. The legalisation isn't the point because if 'anyone'..even an OAP with Arthritis 'wants' cannabis then it is readily available, quite possibly from a few contacts on the Internet. I'm not quite suggesting that its common practice nowadays to distribute Hash cakes at the Womens Institute but certainly if anyone under 60 wanted to get your hands on some he/she really wouldnt have to go out of their way yo get hold of it. It is already readily available and probably a lot closer to home than the local pharmacy. And this is why it is becoming such a huge problem. The authorities have just given up on cannabis. Year after year they have got more lenient with people who use it and deal in it. Now everybody knows that whatever you do you will not stop people using cannabis any more than cigarettes or alcohol but with ALL three you can reduce the problem. This has already been shown with tobacco. For once joined up thinking has been used and it has worked. The outrageous amount of alcohol consumption could also be reduced if the authorities wanted to do it. The way to do this would be similar to the ways they have already successfully reduced tobacco use. Taxes being the major one. The cost of alcohol in real terms is far cheaper than it was twenty years ago. Penalties for crimes involving alcohol should be increased with heavier fines and even imprisonment. Advertising and sponsorship of alcoholic products could be stopped. There should be more education in schools of the dangers. There should be more TV advertising campaigns to warn of the dangers of alcohol abuse. They should ask 'soap' program makers to feature people dying of liver disease and alcoholics. How many of these soaps revolve around PUBS where copious amounts of what appears to be alcohol are consumed? What signal does that send out? These are just the tip of the iceberg as regards alcohol reducing measures. Does it not seem a little daft to people that we are taxing people who have the nerve to own houses (council taxes) while people who are destroying the environment (CO2 emissions and oil companies) and damaging society (drinks companies) are allowed to make huge profits each year? And I am not exactly your average socialist. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpunkette on Mar 25, 2007 14:33:00 GMT
Sandy, this is probably going to horrify you. If I had the choice and had to decide whether my daughters were going to drink alcohol or they were going to smoke spliff, but not both, I would choose for them to smoke spliff every single time.
As you (or was it Billy) pointed out, the genie is out the bottle and it will not go back. Cannabis use is far too widespread now for the police to clamp down on it in any meaningful way. They can't even clamp down on the supply line because, increasingly, people are growing their own at home. A mate of mine who is a polis was up in the Police helicopter above Glasgow one night, and he said that even he was astonished at the number of attics and out-houses that could be seen from the air that were lit up like the Blackpool illuminations, because cannabis was being cultivated there. (Apparently you have to keep the lights on.)
My bloke rented out a flat he owned once, and the tenant did a runner. When we went into the flat it was utterly trashed. But he had clearly been using it as a hash factory. There were lights, stems, magazines, hooks in the kitchen cupboards where it had been hung to dry, etc. etc. We were really peed off at the guy (he owed gothboy 3 months rent) so we phoned the Police and told them. They told us outright that they were not interested, even though we were able to supply a name and a family home address for the missing tenant. (A guy called Joel Chelilah by the way - never let a flat to a man of that name.)
The police did not give a stuff.
You are not going to bea ble to reverse this. So you need to come to terms with the fact that marijuana use is widespread, and therefore the best argument might be to put it on some kind of legal footing.
It seems that there is a SUGGESTION that hash CAUSES Schizophrenia (rather than just unlocking an underlying propensity). The causation link is still not 100%, but I will concede that it is possible that this is not just a silly moral panic, but a genuine medical issue.
OK. So what? Chips cause obseity. Smoking causes cancer. Alcohol causes violence (and hangovers - although mine today is a nice fuzzy one and not a churning paranoid one). Climbing mountains is dangerous. Driving a car is dangerous.
Just because something is dangerous to the person who uses it is nto a good enough reason to ban it.
Thinking more widely, of all illegal drugs, I think we can safely conclude that the lauded 'War Against Drugs' has been lost. So we need to move on and try some harm-limitation policies instead.
|
|
|
|
Post by piccione on Mar 25, 2007 14:40:43 GMT
///Interesting article, Piccolo.///
Yes it is interesting but it wasn’t actually a ‘find’ Daz. I’ve had it on file for while after having /specifically/ looked for it a few years ago....
///The majority are obviously no-hopers…///
I’d be very interested to learn how /you/ know that when no-one else knows /for sure/ how many non-addicted/recreational opiate users there are. /Estimates/ based on a number of sample studies account for around 85-90% of ‘invisible’ i.e. occasional/recreational users (IV-use and smoking) in Britain who do /not/ enter’ the system’ (as ‘problem users’), and who indeed ///…hold down very good jobs whilst on heroin..////. Even if this is an over-estimate, the number of non-addictive, recreational users by far outweighs that of ‘problem users’.
There is a book (by Virginia Berridge) on the extensive use of opiates in Britain at the beginning of the 19th century. Society didn’t fall apart due to this excessive use, because opiate use itself does not ///….causes crime, death, homelessness, family break-up and heartbreak/// (punky’s words). The criminalization of (compulsive) street heroin use (‘brown’) is the major cause for that – i.e. social issues of stigmatisation, exclusion, costs of addiction etc as well as the dangers of adulterants and unsafe methods of use. The Swiss ‘experiment’ (and others) showed quite clearly that such issues can be substantially reduced by controlled distribution of ‘clean’ heroin.
///Its interesting that far from the need for money coming from drugs...it has been discovered that the majority are already stealing before being 'hooked' on drugs and even continue 'after' getting off drugs./////
This goes back to /your/ interpretation of ‘drug-related’ crime stats. As punky says, it’s the ‘chicken and egg’ question. A career criminal leads a very ‘stressful’ life-style and moves in ‘social circles’ where they are likely to associate with dealers. These two factors combined put a career criminal ‘at risk’ of using heroin (or /any/ drug/s for that matter) as a ‘coping strategy’. And whereas the crime they commit might be totally unrelated to their actual heroin use, it’s very likely to go down as ‘drug-related’ crime in the stats.
///It still leaves the problem that these ppl will need money to pay for a drug habit and that can only increase the amount of crime committed.///
Since ‘problem users’ are the minority, this type of crime (and it’s mostly /petty/ crime) is also the minority. Personally I’m far more concerned about turf war-related and organised ‘drug-related’ crime, including violent/gun crime and money laundry. And that includes ‘high-rank’ white collar crime. But we are less concerned about that aren’t we....
|
|
|
|
Post by piccione on Mar 25, 2007 14:42:30 GMT
///I have heard it said that there are people who only take heroin recreationally at the weekend (most recently by a Professor at a Yooni, so it must be true)…////
Yes it /is/ true punky. ‘Chasing the dragon’ is used as a means of ‘come down’ after use of psychedelics and stimulants in /some/ clubbing scenes. Having said that, most psychedelic users do not want to be associated with regular (IV) opiate users, /even/ if they recreationally use ‘brown’ as a ‘come-down’ drug.
|
|
|
|
Post by piccione on Mar 25, 2007 14:46:29 GMT
Sands
///I see now Piccy that your megalomania knows no bounds.///
Well Sands if you think that critical analysis of reporting and data makes me a ‘megalomaniac’ I’m quite happy to accept your ‘professional’ diagnosis. As soon as you come up with a realistic, informed, supported, consistent and unbiased argument I’ll be happy to consider it /seriously/. Or do you expect me to be convinced by selected 'bite-sized' biased reporting – from the err ‘experts’ of the Readers Digest....?
On the other hand I could argue that your point-blank refusal to consider any arguments and sources that do not support your agenda qualifies you as the first candidate for the ‘ideological detoxification’ programme. I’ll put in a good word for you since I should hate to see you being criminalized for your addiction....
////…and the scientists who link cannabis to schizophrenia and other mental problems are all wrong////
Now where did I say that Sands? It’s /your/ interpretation of that link I disagree with – and you’re hardly a ‘scientist’ are you....
Link….////About five years ago, Julie Lynn-Evans became aware that cannabis was not the mild and harmless drug that she had always thought it to be…////
Err Sands…we’ve been through this article /ages/ ago - when /you/ posted the link.....
Is this a sign of desperation - or ‘merely’ one of dementia....?
|
|
|
|
Post by piccione on Mar 25, 2007 14:48:38 GMT
////So people have the propensity for it. Cannabis use is one factor likely to bring it on, but just one. Cannabis use does not CAUSE schizophrenia.
The vast majority of happy hash-heads don't become mentally ill as a result.////
<sigh of relief>
Now doubt punky Sands will tell you that you are a ‘megalomaniac’ for saying that.
Join the club....
For some reason Sands has a complete ‘blocker’ regarding the fact that these findings are related to /heavy/ cannabis use.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpunkette on Mar 25, 2007 15:48:26 GMT
///I have heard it said that there are people who only take heroin recreationally at the weekend (most recently by a Professor at a Yooni, so it must be true)…//// Yes it /is/ true punky. ‘Chasing the dragon’ is used as a means of ‘come down’ after use of psychedelics and stimulants in /some/ clubbing scenes. Having said that, most psychedelic users do not want to be associated with regular (IV) opiate users, /even/ if they recreationally use ‘brown’ as a ‘come-down’ drug. I had a junkie friend once, called Kevin the Junkie. He had started off taking smack to come down off of e's, but he ended up sleeping in a skip. |
|
|
|
Post by swiveller on Mar 25, 2007 19:17:03 GMT
<< I’d be very interested to learn how /you/ know that when no-one else knows /for sure/ how many non-addicted/recreational opiate users there are. /Estimates/ based on a number of sample studies account for around 85-90% of ‘invisible’ i.e. occasional/recreational users (IV-use and smoking) in Britain who do /not/ enter’ the system’ (as ‘problem users’), and who indeed ///…hold down very good jobs whilst on heroin..////. Even if this is an over-estimate, the number of non-addictive, recreational users by far outweighs that of ‘problem users’. >>
The same applies across the board.
Fine then.
It woould be very surprising if these "recreational" users inject heroin and that it isn't noticed eventually by thiose nearest to them or that the usage of it isn't spotted by Doctors. I'm sure there are recreational users who have enough discipline(?) to simply use it over the weekend and possibly they don't inject but smoke it. Most of us would "assume" heroin addicts to be in general "losers".
Its a generalisation but its an expensive habit and all but the very few can readily afford it, hence they turn to crime. There may be a few Rock Stars who are in a postion to be able to easily afford it and be accepted as normal..as in Pete Doherty etc..
As for those middle aged Fathers and Mothers who use heroin..I suggest - without the aid of statistics and numerous graphs - that they are in the minority. As would anyone else similarly sensible!
|
|
