Early Marijuana Use Increases Psychosis Risk in Young Adults

[statman]

What about anti-depressants that can actually induce suicidal thoughts?

The 'findings' that anti-depressants cause suicide are about 90% legal wagon-circling and 10% actual scientific finding. At this point, the relationships are weak - based mostly on anecdotal evidence and non-controlled samples with very small sample sizes - and not much really proving a cause and effect relationship.

[RobinFinderson]

I can't believe I'm actually agreeing with RF on something but my inner libertarian screams out against the war on drugs as a stupid waste of time and money.

Interestingly, Robin, you're libertarian when it comes to drugs yet you're also perfectly willing to be authoritarian by supporting mandates and dictates and restrictions on freedom when it comes to things such as Title IX and other forms of repressive social engineering. You certainly seem to have taken Emerson's famous words to heart:

BFM, I partially salute you!

Obviously, you are right, inasmuch as you agree with me here. But you are totally off on Title IX. Title IX does not derive its legitimacy because it is restrictive. Title IX derives its legitimacy from a contract -- if an institution agrees to receive federal funding, it must also agree not to discriminate based on sex. The legitimacy of Title IX is that federal tax dollars should not be used to create favored classes based on sex. Other parts of the Civil Rights act extend the same expectations to matters of race, religion, sex, color or nation of origin. This is important stuff.

That we have come to primarily understand Title IX as a restriction on men's college sports is really interesting. At the heart of the controversy is the matter of sport as a legitimate collegiate field of study. It is legitimate (in my opinion), but things are made more complex by the ability of some sports, due to cultural interest, to be able to generate massive amounts of money.

But the complexity of the problem created by culture and market force should not roil the waters regarding the legitimacy of Title IX. It is good law made difficult by vestigial sexism in our cultural landscape.

[tooblue]

Then maybe this will make you laugh too... another possible explanation for the results of this study is that people choose to self-medicate to deal with the symptoms of their psychosis. In this case the MJ could be used for its legitimate medicinal properties, even though the drug itself is illegal. This wouldn't even need to be happening consciously to be a possibility. In the same way that some people theorize that pregnant women sometimes develop cravings for dirt and chalk because they need some mineral in the dirt to contribute to the development of the fetus, maybe people with psychosis naturally gravitate to weed. Why do you think our species evolved to have cannabinoid receptors if our bodies weren't designed to use it?

Your argument is weak as compared to that of study when you fully consider that there certainly are other effective methods of self medication that have nothing to do with drugs of any kind. You speak as though marijuana is an 'only alternative' and therefore by default it needs be legitimized. You sound more like a pharmaceutical exec selling his latest wonder drug to psychiatrists than a libertarian. Realistically your support of legalization only proposes the exchange of one economic system for another. It's not a solution.

Furthermore, cravings are not equivalent to behavior. In fact it can be argued that the craving is a sign of a wholly rational mind coming to terms with the distress it or the body it is connected to may be going through and not an expression of need for any one thing.

[statman]

Your argument is weak as compared to that of study when you fully consider that there certainly are other effective methods of self medication that have nothing to do with drugs of any kind. You speak as though marijuana is an 'only alternative' and therefore by default it needs be legitimized. You sound more like a pharmaceutical exec selling his latest wonder drug to psychiatrists than a libertarian. Realistically your support of legalization only proposes the exchange of one economic system for another. It's not a solution.

Furthermore, cravings are not equivalent to behavior. In fact it can be argued that the craving is a sign of a wholly rational mind coming to terms with the distress it or the body it is connected to may be going through and not an expression of need for any one thing.

Que?

[tooblue]

Que?

So there are no self-medication alternatives other than marijuana or alcohol, or caffeine or ... ? And what would be the real benefit of legalization? More tax revenue?

[statman]

So there are no self-medication alternatives other than marijuana or alcohol, or caffeine or ... ? And what would be the real benefit of legalization? More tax revenue?

Self-medication alternatives aren't "provided." They are sought out by those who need them. Whatever works is used - alcohol, marijuana, paint thinner, etc. It's not like there is some list of 'drugs to be used for illegitimate purposes' that makes a decision to self-medicate better or worse. The best decision would be to seek medical treatment and have a doctor proscribe drugs for a condition and to take those drugs while under his care.

One of the biggest issues with this ideal is that kids (and adults) who self-medicate often have disorders that are still clinically undetectable, so seeking medical help is actually not going to do anything. So they go to the self-treatment option...

As I mentioned previously, there are all kinds of disorders that are associated with higher levels of drug-use, including relatively common ones like ADD, ADHD, anxiety disorders, OCD, etc, and right up to the big ones like bipolar disorder, szichophrenia, etc. And a whole lot of those who ultimately are diagnosed with such disorders have self-medicated prior to a clinical diagnosis. The current thought on such cases is that the drug use was 'caused' by the developing condition, not the other way around...

[myboynoah]

Do you support banning smoking? How about drinking? What about premarital sex? There's a big cost to medicare for unwed welfare moms.

I did say "maintaining restrictions." Where there are legal restrictions on these activities, then my answer is yes, I support maintaining those restrictions.

how about lortab? What about anti-depressants that can actually induce suicidal thoughts?

Yes, I support maintaining restrictions on the illegal sale of these products.

[BlueHair]

Your argument is weak as compared to that of study when you fully consider that there certainly are other effective methods of self medication that have nothing to do with drugs of any kind. You speak as though marijuana is an 'only alternative' and therefore by default it needs be legitimized.

I'm always amazed at how many people want the government to tell them what they are allowed to eat, drink, or smoke. We don't need government to decide what we're allowed to consume. It's an incredible waste of taxpayer money to wage an unwinnable war against a relatively harmless plant.

[BlueHair]

So there are no self-medication alternatives other than marijuana or alcohol, or caffeine or ... ? And what would be the real benefit of legalization? More tax revenue?

The benefit of legalization would be an increase of liberty and a decrease of senseless government intrusion.

[tooblue]

The benefit of legalization would be an increase of liberty and a decrease of senseless government intrusion.

Of course it would ... be a tax boon and perhaps help Obama pay for universal health care!

[Mormon Red Death]

So there are no self-medication alternatives other than marijuana or alcohol, or caffeine or ... ? And what would be the real benefit of legalization? More tax revenue?

More tax revenue and cost savings of not having to police marijuana use.

[tooblue]

Self-medication alternatives aren't "provided." They are sought out by those who need them. Whatever works is used - alcohol, marijuana, paint thinner, etc. It's not like there is some list of 'drugs to be used for illegitimate purposes' that makes a decision to self-medicate better or worse. The best decision would be to seek medical treatment and have a doctor proscribe drugs for a condition and to take those drugs while under his care.

One of the biggest issues with this ideal is that kids (and adults) who self-medicate often have disorders that are still clinically undetectable, so seeking medical help is actually not going to do anything. So they go to the self-treatment option...

As I mentioned previously, there are all kinds of disorders that are associated with higher levels of drug-use, including relatively common ones like ADD, ADHD, anxiety disorders, OCD, etc, and right up to the big ones like bipolar disorder, szichophrenia, etc. And a whole lot of those who ultimately are diagnosed with such disorders have self-medicated prior to a clinical diagnosis. The current thought on such cases is that the drug use was 'caused' by the developing condition, not the other way around...

Society is caught in a terrible cycle that will not change so long as we keep turing to substances of all types as some sort of solution ... legalizing Marijuana doesn't change anything it would merely perpetuate the cycle.

Furthermore, why is self-medication sought? What is the driving force behind such behavior? It's a chicken and egg issue isn't it? If society didn't stigmatize such disorders, people with them might not believe there is something supposedly 'wrong' with them and as a result choose not to self-medicate. That's the real issue isn't it?

As a society we're constantly trying to fix these people and their self-medicating could be viewed as a preemptive move on their part. Suppose for a moment that in fact there isn't something wrong with said individuals but rather said individuals are merely different. Now lets suppose more time and resources are dedicated to helping said individuals find a place in society as they are instead of sending them to the Pharma-GAP so they can behave just like you and I.

[tooblue]

More tax revenue and cost savings of not having to police marijuana use.

So Robin isn't a libertarian after all is he

[tooblue]

I'm always amazed at how many people want the government to tell them what they are allowed to eat, drink, or smoke. We don't need government to decide what we're allowed to consume. It's an incredible waste of taxpayer money to wage an unwinnable war against a relatively harmless plant.

Government already tells us what to do in every aspect of our lives, citizen.

[Hallelujah]

I'm always amazed at how many people want the government to tell them what they are allowed to eat, drink, or smoke. We don't need government to decide what we're allowed to consume. It's an incredible waste of taxpayer money to wage an unwinnable war against a relatively harmless plant.

Then the government should not be able to sue tobacco companies. MJ is harmless? Your brilliance astounds me.