Legalization of Marijuana

  • Thread starter Event
  • 1,437 comments
  • 78,794 views
Regular use of cannabis in young males strongly correlated with schizophrenia, accounting for as many as 30% of cases for this group:


As a left-libertarian I'm as pro weed legalization as the next guy here. But the findings of this study, which were released just a few days ago, are pretty alarming and should be much more widely publicized. For decades there has been alarm bells ringing about the potential correlation between weed and schizophrenia- though the link was tenuous then, these findings change that. Perhaps all legal weed sales should have disclaimers that THC can increase the likelihood of psychosis in the same way there are "this product causes cancer" label on nicotine products? Because schizophrenia is much more severe than most mental illnesses and effectively a death sentence for many afflicted; its almost impossible to maintain employment, stable relationships, have a chronic homelessness rate as high as 40%, and a lower life expectancy by 20-25 years. Going to a large, fairly progressive college in a legal weed state, the amount of students who use weed regularly is quite high, and occurs in all types of crowds, not just the counter-culture "stoner" type anymore. Just like with alcohol, occasional and responsible use of weed is not a problem and not likely to noticeably impact your health. But given that weed is being de-stigmatized, as it should be, it seems like a lot of my peers believe its some kind of wonder drug because it makes you feel good and you don't get a hangover and you can still have a job and good grades while using, and very few seem to be aware of the genuine schizophrenia risk. This is especially as the percentage THC concentration in weed products, whether traditional joints or edibles, vapes, dabs, etc, are much higher than they used to be, and younger users tend to favor products with higher THC versus CBD.

First of all, that's schizophrenia correlated with cannabis use disorder. Not cannabis use. The link explains what the disorder is. Secondly, it doesn't actually do a good job of explaining whether that's cause or effect. Cannabis use disorder might be particularly attractive to people with undiagnosed schizophrenia. Your conclusions are very sloppy. I'm thinking the authors conclusions might also be, I'd be interested to figure out how they infer causation.
 
Last edited:


Fv4HBHaXoAAapUe.jpg


The connie bitch is a lying bitch. Weird.
 
Last edited:
Even if those claims are true, and I’m not even saying that they never could be, that alone should not determine whether or not someone can smoke weed if they so choose to.
 
They aren’t true.
Not directly true. But true in the sense that if you meet the criteria for cannabis use disorder, yes, it would be much harder to hold down a job, in the same way it would be for a binge-drinking alcoholic. And it's also true that higher marijuana use correlates with a general lower quality of life in terms of the pure numbers.

Of course, this is tangential to the point of legalization.
 
And it's also true that higher marijuana use correlates with a general lower quality of life in terms of the pure numbers.
Benchmark racing can only go so far. Though, going off pure anecdotal evidence on my part I would say that's about 90+% wrong. That also a bit hard to just outright pinpoint though, because the same people that don't have their life together also didn't before they smoked as well.
 
Last edited:
And it's also true that higher marijuana use correlates with a general lower quality of life in terms of the pure numbers.
Citation needed. I'm picking at this specifically because you used "quality of life" instead of something more quantitative like "income level" or similar.
 
Citation needed. I'm picking at this specifically because you used "quality of life" instead of something more quantitative like "income level" or similar.
He must have got some bad stuff, man.
 
Texas attorney general Ken Paxton to open up lawsuits against Texas cities which have opted to decriminalize marijuana. Weed is still illegal and criminalized in Texas. This seems to be part and parcel with Texas Republicans' push to ensure that blue enclaves of the state cannot pass laws contrary to conservative aims, or choose not to rigidly enforce existing laws that do. In Austin, as well as other cities, resolutions have been passed by voters that direct police not to press charges against those caught with less than 4 ounces of marijuana.

“I will not stand idly by as cities run by pro-crime extremists deliberately violate Texas law and promote the use of illicit drugs that harm our communities,” Paxton said in a statement.

 
Last edited:
That sounds authoritarian. If only the voters who opted overhelmingly for decriminalisation could somehow let Paxton know how they feel about their democracy being undermined.
Have they un-gerrymandered the state yet?
 
Cannabis use disorder might be particularly attractive to people with undiagnosed schizophrenia.
I'm going off topic a bit... but What about for plain old pain, anxiety or other stressors?

Painkillers are often thought of being safe and with no major downsides but go above the standard doseage of tylenol/panadol to over 4000mg in a 24 hour period and liver failure is guaranteed, you can bet on it. Then irreversible death is swift but painful in a matter of days as the other organs unalive themselves.

In that scenario, I'd prefer to give a person high quality cannabis, damaging their lungs slowly over decades, than the crappy painkillers which kill when abused.
 
Last edited:
go above the standard doseage of tylenol/panadol to over 4000mg in a 24 hour period and liver failure is guaranteed, you can bet on it.
4g/24hr is the the maximum recommended dose of paracetamol (acetaminophen) for adults. Going over it won't "guarantee" liver failure, unless you go way over it and in a much shorter amount of time.

The LD50 of paracetamol (acetaminophen) is 150mg/kg, so death (via the above noted mechanism of liver failure) of 50% of people is going to require around 12g for average adults - and taken all in one hit to prevent it being metabolised. To almost guarantee it, you're looking at 50% again (20g), which should take care of anyone but the very, very large.

But it very much is an appalling way to go, not least for the amount of time it allows for regret and changing your mind - by which time it is too late due to the liver failure and downstream effects as noted. And it certainly doesn't look or feel swift. Really, kids (and it's usually teens who try this) do need to be educated that paracetamol OD is not the best choice if they want to go out.


There is an awful lot of cluelessness about OTC drugs though; in the UK a supermarket will happily sell you two 16-packs of 500mg paracetamol - each of which is 8g and capable of killing a lightweight if taken in one hit, and both of which combined can do so in a significant number of people - but they won't also sell you two 16-packs of 200mg ibuprofen at the same time on the basis of overdosing.

That's irritating as the combination is incredibly effective pain relief (comprising an analgesic [with anti inflammatory and anti pyretic effects] plus an NSAID) for most regular issues - the only thing it won't touch is my knee, which requires an opiate when it's acting up (thankfully more rare these days as I hate taking opiates), and I was even prescribed it by a Swiss hospital for a kidney stone; it didn't work for that, unsurprisingly, but cycling buscopan and morphine did - and I don't even know what the LD50 of ibuprofen is, other than that it's astronomical.

Fortunately I have a vast supply of naproxen, so I don't have to rely on idiotic edicts from clueless supermarket bosses, but then that's an NSAID best used in moderation...

irreversible death
So much worse than the reversible kind.
 
Fortunately I have a vast supply of naproxen, so I don't have to rely on idiotic edicts from clueless supermarket bosses, but then that's an NSAID best used in moderation...

What NSAID is best used when you aren't moderating?
 
Roo
What NSAID is best used when you aren't moderating?
Haven't found out yet.

Also I just checked and the LD50 of ibuprofen is north of 600mg/kg. I'd need to take 60g - 300 tablets - in one go to get near that, and you'd be suffering the effects of toxicity long before that (assuming you didn't chug an ibuprofen smoothie).
 
I wonder what about young people using it concerns critics. I wonder if it's rational. Given the impulse to prohibit consumption, I suspect it's not.
 
If anything I would have thought that having cannabis is to the advantage of the establishment. There's going to be a point where the younger generations have enough of being priced out of all ownership and security and start pushing back, but that probably gets delayed quite a bit if you can go home and have a puff and tell yourself that it's not all that bad.

IMO if they don't want people to consume drugs in excess, they should stop creating living conditions that make people feel like they need pharmaceutical help just to cope.
 
It's such a non-story. There'll be an initial uptick then it'll come down again and average out.

It's also not like the press don't actually create the very problems they claim to be criticising with WILL YOUNG PEOPLE SMOKE MORE WEED?? plastered everywhere.

If you treat it like it's a normal thing to do that isn't wrong, you won't get edgy contrarians wanting to do the naughty thing. Or the newly legalised thing.
 
It's such a non-story. There'll be an initial uptick then it'll come down again and average out.

It's also not like the press don't actually create the very problems they claim to be criticising with WILL YOUNG PEOPLE SMOKE MORE WEED?? plastered everywhere.

If you treat it like it's a normal thing to do that isn't wrong, you won't get edgy contrarians wanting to do the naughty thing. Or the newly legalised thing.
War on drugs was basically just an excuse to stop people from doing weed and being relaxed. And to criminalise it. It's criminal.
 
I wonder what about young people using it concerns critics. I wonder if it's rational. Given the impulse to prohibit consumption, I suspect it's not.
The critics in the article seem to be conservatives who don't understand how legalisation will reduce drug crime so I share your suspicions.
It's such a non-story. There'll be an initial uptick then it'll come down again and average out.
Sky probably felt they had to both sides the story for reasons. But I don't think the legalisation of cannabis in Germany is a non-story and that's why I posted it here. It sounds more like a big step towards normalisation of its use to me.

The way the German government has restricted access to the drug may be more concerning to its advocates.
 
Last edited:
Not the legalisation, the MORAL OUTCRY is a non-story.
Sounds more like a political outcry than a moral one from the news article. Are people in Germany really opposed to this in large numbers? If so they didn't seem to mention this in the article so I guess it wasn't a story for them either.

Conservatives being conservatives is the real non-story as far as that article is concerned.
 
Last edited:
War on drugs was basically just an excuse to stop people from doing weed and being relaxed. And to criminalise it. It's criminal.
When they (the government) figure out an effective way to tax homegrown they'll legalise it. Until then criminalisation, and decriminalisation with on the spot fines, is an income stream... and they'll not give up an income stream without having a better one in place. Well, here in Australia anyway.
 
Last edited:
Back