Cannabis and Mental Health

Ken Dodd dad's dogs dead! Pickle?

Robert Ruggles Rugid Rubber Baby Buggy Bumpers

How much do they cost and can I wear one on my head?

That you have nothing left to say became evident long ago, 1leg.

BBC today... An international team of scientists, writing in the Lancet, point out alcohol is a factor in about 60 different diseases. The researchers found 4% of the global burden of disease is attributable to alcohol, compared to 4.1% to tobacco and 4.4% to high blood pressure. And they said that increasing alcohol prices in the UK could cut deaths. The scientists were critical of the UK, saying that it had not implemented effective alcohol control policies. The report looks at diseases including cancers of the mouth, liver and breast, heart disease and stroke, and cirrhosis in which alcohol can play a role. It also highlights the role of alcohol in car accidents, drownings, falls and poisonings. Alcohol is also linked to a proportion of self-inflicted injuries and murders. Professor Room criticised the emphasis of the UK's alcohol strategy, published in March last year. "It emphasises measures that really have very little effect. The emphasis is on public information and education. There's not much on taxes." He added: "A stark discrepancy exists between research findings about the effectiveness of alcohol control measures and the policy options considered by most governments. "In many places, the interests of the alcohol industry have effectively exercised a veto over policies, making sure that the main emphasis is on ineffective strategies such as education. 25% of the population are drinking at a potentially hazardous level. And three million people are dependent on alcohol." And me - Difference is - alcohol raises revenue, cannabis does not. The alcohol industry have veto over govt. policies, and they are hardly likely to promote the health risks are they? Interesting to me is the knock on effects of alcohol - the beatings, the suicides, the drink driving issues - especially the drink driving issues. People who have had a couple of spliffs arent foing to get into a car (mainly because they cant be arsed to go anywhere) but drink drivers are a REAL problem. I have a relative who was killed by one, I'm sure almost everybody knows of someone who was. And - SIXTY different diseases? Amazing. Cannabis? According to some, potential schizoid disorders and lung cancer possibly. I bet you couldnt find 60 diseases it was linked to. And whilst I'm at it - fat people. All that cholesterol - jesus. Do they not realise that whilst they are stuffing yet another cake into their mouths they are just indulging in a temporary escape? It's well known that food acts as a mask for misery... this is why chocolate sales are so high. I don't know why this isnt publicised in schools... warnings on wrappers could say "Lard arse, you'll get a heart attack. Deal with your real life and take a trip to the gym". My real point? You can demonise anything, and it's a really stupid thing to do. Treating people as though they are idiots is patronising, rude and crass.

Point taken then Emma.. So drug taking is not an inescapable phenomenon of the capitalist, consumerist world of the developed parts of the world whose 'system' of necessity reduces people to find means of 'escape' then... wher goes your previous argument? All societies have their little intoxicants here and there. Comparing effects of one drug against another is fatuous, as you well know. They are different things with entirely different effects on the brain. Each one has to be taken on its own. Societies and cultures that have fallen into heavy reliance of one drug or another (be it alcohol or something else) are those that are in terminal decline by any standards you could care to measure. In most progressive societies, being in a state of intoxication is heavily frowned upon. Remember we were talking about Cannabis, whether you live in the Himalayas or live in New York, long term cannabis use means you increasingly fail to come to terms with your environment leading you to mental disability... wherever you find yourself.

Tim, are you being ironically clever in your last post... or just dumb again.

<> My argument stays exactly where it is. I never suggested primitive lifestyles to be something that might offer a way out of drug use. I didn't offer any alternative to capitalism or free trade either. If I knew of one, I wouldn't be sitting here now. The fact that primitive people use drugs of one kind or another doesn't justify capitalism either by virtue of being an example of a different way of life that is just as hard. Where capitalism stands you can't have chicken and egg arguments about drug use. Drugs are a symptom of capitalism, fact. They are also a symptom of human experience - hence their ancient historical existence and their use by tribal/primitive peoples. Offering up capitalism as a cure for all ills is where your argument fails.

how many lives has capitalism destroyed. We all "do" capitalism, dont we?

all the posts on this thread are too long ...my head huurts...and I can't concentrate long enough to read cos my head is too messy from all the drugs maaaan

This going around in circles now, I can understand arguements that suggest I am exaggerating the overall detrimental effects of Cannabis.. and some times I think that I am in danger of doing that too... However, my personal experience and the interest I have taken in this subject leads me to strongly believe.. as it stands, it is the other way round, many people still underestimate the real debilitating effects of this drug and whilst that situation remains... the rate of real and tangible misery will continue to increase. I do not accept in any form fatuous comparisons with alcohol, and the bringing up of politics as acceptable reasons for cannabis intake These are such common and tired deflecting ruses of the pro and smoking lobby... so much so that at some point I was cheekily suggesting that cannabis use eventually colours your politics.. (Any 'right wing' Cannabis smokers around?) I do get carried away at times, because a lot of the personal depression and misery I see around me I directly relate to our attitudes on cannabis... and as I tire of repeating, due to the freeing of research.. statistics now increasingly bear this out... yet others relentlessly still cling on to their old views... despite the mounting evidence. Remember, tobacco was thought benign at one stage, give it a couple of years I say...

lleg wrote: "My suggestion to Funky was that the physical act of taking drugs at that point of someone in his position ... would directly interfere with the brains own natural mechanims of coming to terms and working around the serious predicament he found himself in (agreed through little choice of his own)..." This - cannabis interfering with the brain's own natural mechanisms - might be the case with someone who had psychotic tendencies to start with, granted, but the percentage of those people within the general population would be rather minute. To take this possibility and project it onto anybody who has ever used cannabis would not only be a sweeping generalisation - it would also have no foundation at all, neither in science nor in reality. Furthermore, I find generalisations like that rather offensive, because what you are doing is basically discredit anybody who's ever touched cannabis, talk down to them as if they were retards (whose brains haven't developed as pristinely normal as yours!), and thus convince yourself of your higher vantage point in this argument. You're almost creating some sort of apartheid here - mental supremacy of non-cannabis users and ganja users who are fit for the loony bin. If you'd go through the trouble to read this thread again, you'd find a whole number of people who admitted using cannabis in the past or present, and again, the irony is that they strike me to be rather well adjusted, aware of their problems and actively dealing with their lives, in other words: their brains are in pretty good order and considerably more organised compared with your scatterbrain, paranoid rants. This in itself should have made you hesitate and think again for a moment, because it indicates that not everything is as black and white as you're trying to paint it. I'm not saying you're not having a point, but you are exaggerating on a massive scale! [%sig%]

"My real point? You can demonise anything, and it's a really stupid thing to do. Treating people as though they are idiots is patronising, rude and crass." Couldn't agree with you more, Liana! It seems to be pretty ingrained within the establishment here, though, i.e. the class system, (which, incidentally works from both ends of the spectrum), that regards people as 'subjects', who need to be told what to do or at least be restricted if they don't, rather than 'citizens' capable of making an informed choice and thus taking responsibility for their thoughts, feelings and actions. All this tosh about sex education, that certain people want completely removed from schools etc. because it allegedly encourages youngsters to have sex, an attitude completely refusing to take human nature and reality into account. Consequently, teenage pregnancy statistics are the worst in Europe, those poor kids haven't got sufficient knowledge about contraceptives, and what's more, they are far too embarrassed and inhibited on accounts of their embarrassed and inhibited elders in order to talk about sex in the first place, which must make it bloody difficult to come up with the confidence to say No. And after they haven't had the confidence to say No or negotiate some contraceptives, the statistics go up, thus creating once again what seems to be a vindication for those that want to put the lid on. It's a similar scenario with the pub laws, where people are treated like retards and consequently act like retards. If people wouldn't feel restricted or patronised, there wouldn't be the need for them to assert themselves against the rules and regulations and at least have a chance to realise that the only effect their so called 'subversion' against the system by getting bombed out of their box has, is a bad hangover and yet more rules put into place. Why shouldn't they be taken seriously and given the scope to come to this realisation themselves (and not just for a couple of years like in Ireland)? Of course there are retards everywhere no matter what, but I don't think I'm overly idealistic in believing that the vast majority of the populus have much more potential than they are given credit for. If only those in positions of power weren't so damn insecure and frightened themselves, there would be a lot of room for improvement. As regards this whole cannabis debate - one can't protect anybody from themselves. People can only do that on their own accord and no rules and regulations will force them into it. Why not allow them to find their own ways in their own time and merely provide some help and support if they so chose to ask for it? Everybody should have the right to make their own experiences and mistakes in order to grow up. Who am I to deny them that? [%sig%]

PS: To Llegspider The root of your argument is fear, and fear is a bad advisor. [%sig%]

I don't think anyone would suggest pot is literally harmless, but it is generally less harmful than alcohol in small quantities used infrequently. Neither alcohol nor pot are addictive substances in themselves, though they are highly addictive for some individuals. This is in contrast, for example, to morphine, which is addictive for everyone after a short period of exposure. That's why hospitals shifted to substitutes like demoral, which is not inherently addictive, though could be for some people.

I was wondering earlier whether the government will be banning alcohol from pubs too, now that we know it causes cancer. The nanny state gets worse and worse...

"I just believe that a moral case against drugs is possible... in the same way that we have no problems saying that drugs in sport is cheating and ought to be ridiculed, that thieving is wrong, that premeditated violence is wrong and counterproductive... a convincing case could made against the taking of drugs in general by equating it to a cheating of oneself/ones brain functions (which if you really think about, it it really is)" A moral case may be possible but, so far, you've dismally failed to make one. Drugs in sport and thieving both have negative effects on people other than the person taking the drugs or the person doing the thieving. My moral position on drugs (and a huge range of other things) is that consenting adults should, as far as possible, be allowed to do just about anything they want providing it doesn't harm others.

"Any 'right wing' Cannabis smokers around?" That Prince Harry, he's hardly the new Tony Benn, is he? "Remember, tobacco was thought benign at one stage, give it a couple of years I say... " I and many others pn what you regard as the 'pro-drugs' side of this argument already accept that cannabis is as bad for people as tobacco and, if used in the same quantities, considerably worse. That doesn't change my view that you're vastly over-estimating its relevance to the bigger picture in terms of mental health and that any plan to make users repent from their moral depravity is a very bad idea.

If you are pro freedom. pro choice... you cannot possibly be pro drugs, a case I have made out over and over again and which seems to have bypassed you. Young people should be told unambiguously that that which they should value the most, 'themselves', is directly under threat through the abuse of drugs. This is not a revolutionary concept, your brain... thus YOU.. is what you are attacking when you take drugs. You do not saw off a leg than claim that it gives you greater freedom to run, why is that the case when you are thwarting brain functions? Or do you think you exist apart from your brain. If you cant even grasp this basic point I am clearly wasting my time repeating myself. Of course it is right to demonise things... now answer this directly, don't you demonise thieving, violence, racism, drug taking in sports... sex with children etc or don't you? Perhaps you just think "Everybody should have the right to make their own experiences and mistakes in order to grow up. Who am I to deny them that?" What bollocks. Drugs abuse should belong to this list. It is you who are being flounderingly inconsistent. I have never argued her for govermental control of anything... though its curious how pro cannabis people will pull out the terrible and detrimental statistics of alcohol and tobacco abuse - legalised drugs - then in the same breadth flip around and say that cannabis should be legalised so that it is 'better regulated'... a flaw in your argument you should see as soon as you utter the tired phrase... I am arguing that libertanian society in general has grown to see drugs as just something else that people may do, when in my view it is not that simple... there is a tremendous cost in human misery that comes off the current attitude and it is being paid NOW.

Come on, Gerry, indulging in cannabis from time to time IS (probably) of little or no consequence, just like having four pints of beer when you normally have two. As long as you're aware of the effect and don't go driving, fighting, etc, and don't make it the daily norm you're at very little risk. HUGE numbers of people in this country (probably tens of millions) have tried cannabis and remained unharmed, although there are obviously a minority who have damaged themselves and therefore you can't airily dismiss cannabis as totally harmless but, as someone says above, neither can you do a scientific study when the whole thing is still technically illegal. When I was a teenager I was fed stupid lies about drugs, based on paranoia by people who (legally) drank and smoked themselves into early graves, and I won't dishonour my children by doing the same to them; obviously I don't encourage them to take any drugs, but if they experiment like I did I'm not going to go ballistic. But this is one of the best and most open discussions I've seen on the subject.

It's harmless. When taken in moderation. As is alcohol. Blah blah.

"Young people should be told unambiguously that that which they should value the most, 'themselves', is directly under threat through the abuse of drugs." What do you think is being drummed into them on a constant basis? What more do you want? - "Of course it is right to demonise things... now answer this directly, don't you demonise thieving, violence, racism, drug taking in sports... sex with children etc or don't you?" David answered this quite sufficiently: "My moral position on drugs (and a huge range of other things) is that consenting adults should, as far as possible, be allowed to do just about anything they want providing it doesn't harm others." - As regards the "libertarian society" - we're pretty far away from that and what's more, it's getting worse. Oh, and as far as the "pro cannabis people" are concerned, I'm not necessarily one of them. I just stick to David's definition, that's all. [%sig%]

And oh - this has just occured to me... are there any stats (cos we all know how fabulously reliable and unmalleable stats are) that show whether people who smoke weed are previously tottering on the loony ledge anyway? Or, if perchance people who go out swagging beer as though it were going out of fashion, are pompous loud overbearing bullys, even without the aid of their good buddy Budweiser?

And Alum... which planet do you exist on? Drug-brain land, but not mine for sure. Ask the Chinese and the Indians who have embraced 'captalism' over the past short decade whether hey have destroyed their lives as a consequence? Ask them whether they would rather go back to the previous idealogies which held them back for decades? Everywhere that is poor in the world, is where they have delayed in embracing the free market. You can even see this differential in neighbouring countries... visit Kenya and Tanzania, chart their political histories after independence then see the difference their economies. The old idealogies are dead and buried, those still hanging on to them - to the detriment of their peoples - slowly disapearing. Good riddance as far as I am concerned. The problem with the 'free market' is that there is not enough of it... it should be extended to every corner of the planet.. and it will be... all fixed idealogies will eventually be bypassed; it is a universal law.

Blah Blah Blah.... I prefer pot smokers over beer swillers any day of the week. There's no shortage of either.

A single toke has been known to send some people into a fit of psychosis... and once the pathway is there they are prone to it evermore? What is a safe amount? There are suggested healty limits for the intake of alcoho (14 units for women and 21 for men etc)... what are those for cannabis?

Interesting thread. I think statistics aren't very useful in this case. I do know that many people I know have the opinion that dope smokers are better than drinkers. And god knows I don't want to be anywhere but inside my flat after 11 at night in my area of Norwich. BUT, that self-satisfied attitude of stoners - that they are mellow, are not affecting anyone and all the rest - is part of the problem of why dope can be a problem. My friend's ex-husband used to smoke most days. He looked down on her drinking wine however. The strange thing was that they had been happy but over the years the smoking had changed him, it really had. And the worst thing was that he had all these back up statistics to throw at her to tell her she was wrong. I turn into a schizoid gerbil if I ever take any kind of drugs. The room goes all over the place, I go all over the place, and have been known -just on a few puffs - to try and hide behind the wallpaper. I also have friends who think they are not addicted to it, but so are, because when they don't have any they look all over the place for it and start panicking. It's that weird attitude smokers have that they are not addicted and the weed is harmless that is actually harmful. I don't prefer smokers to drinkers.... I think anything in moderation is fine... find heaving drinkers and smokers both a royal pain in the behind (and at times I have certainly been a heavy drinker, before I gave the lot up). I do hate the sanctimonious justifying of a stoner. I also have a memory of a nameless person being so stoned once in a pub that s/he was staring at the ashtray and dribbling for 30 minutes. This person may not remember this, but I was stone cold sober and do.

'a case I have made out over and over again and which seems to have bypassed you...' Ah. See, this illustrates the gap between what you *think* you've said, and what other people have read. You've certainly written a lot, 1leg, but 'made a case'? Hardly. 'Of course it is right to demonise things... now answer this directly, don't you demonise thieving, violence, racism, drug taking in sports... sex with children etc' 'Demonize' means to 'make like a demon' or 'represent like a demon'. Do you honestly believe it's right to represent drug taking in sports like a demon? Do you think that will help address any of the issues involved, or encourage debate, or reduce its incidence? Or do you think that's just a good way for thick, lazy people to grossly simplify a subject and therefore dodge any thought or effort or responsibility? I'm listening to your argument, and I don't believe it's lack of comprehension that's making me disagree. 'You do not saw off a leg than claim that it gives you greater freedom to run, why is that the case when you are thwarting brain functions?' But we're not talking about sawing off a leg, we're talking about taking drugs. You've not demonstrated that they're analogous, therefore you have no right to make such a facile comparison. I have the right to not exercise or learn French, despite the fact that my lack of physical agility or inability to speak a foreign language both limit my freedom. Please, don't try to turn this into some wanky introverted debate on what 'freedom' means.

I dont know Leg. I have no idea. Radio, I agree with you, so would I. You never see fights break out in a hash cafe, as the hoary old saying goes. I have however, been bored to death/threatened/knocked over by braying, swaying, foul breathed, fist ready, beered up people on several occasions. Also, weed smoking people (men/women) tend not to batter their kids or spouses. The same cannot be said for alcoholics...

Interesting Fergal...how old were you when you gave up the lot? I'm giving up booze this lent (40 days) and may never go back to it. Trying to save money and reputation!

Are people who are prone to mental illness more likely to take cannabis and abuse it? Perhaps. Or perhaps as you suggest, cannabis may just act as a trigger to those already high at risk... If you were in the second category, and had not had prior problems, how would you know? Is it not safer to strongly warn people off this exceedingly life debilitating drug when they are at their most emotionally vulnerable... that is when they are young? The facts stand... the majority of people (up to 80%) admitted into psychiatric units have a history of prolonged cannabis use. The biggest campaigners against this drug now are psychiatrists and mental health workers who have to professionally deal day to day with the human misery that this cannabis is responsible for... Each drug has to be arguied on its own effects, comparing it to alcohol is plain silly..

I gave up drugs years ago:-)

I've yet to see in over 4 decades of being around hundreds of pot smokers, a single instance of somebody becoming psychotic from merely smoking the substance. I have seen a multitude of stupid people become stupider under the influence. I think we would be better off outlawing stupidity than pot smoking. I have seen in over 4 decades of being around beer and liquor drinkers, many instances of lives destroyed, families turn up-side down and careers ruined by single drinks of liquor. In addition, I think a benefit of pot smoking is that you can believe you are having an intelligent conversation afterwards. I've yet to have an intelligent conversation with a drunk person or while in a state of inebriation myself. I advocate neither, I've done both. I'll take the pot any day.

Ive never been addicted to it. I dont *think* that Ive never been addicted to it, I actually havent. I have gone weeks, months, on one occasion three years without smoking... but then Ive never been the type to smoke so much that I sit in a pub staring at an ashtray for thirty minutes. I dont think stoners are particularly sanctimonious though... perhaps the very young ones? You know... the ones who think they have just discovered weed/sex/poetry, and that anyone elses opinion isnt valid. Maybe they can be sanctimonious? I find Gerry/Leg's post on this thread the most sanctimonious of all, and this is a shame because I know in real life he isnt anywhere near as pompous and arrogant as he appears so often online. This statement of Leg's - "It is a form of encroached mental slavery... it is easy to spot a heavy cannabis user, in the language, the phrasing of arguments, the edge of paranoia, even in the the political outlook. Take this drug, and this is how you will think in a few years time... scary." - almost makes me want to root my bong out and smoke as much as poss, should I ever be tempted to say anything similar. I've never been a heavy drinker, nor smoker... I have drank to excess on more occasions than smoked to excess tho, and I think that the former is more debilitating for self and others...

'pot smoking makes stupid people stupider' I agree. By extension that applies to everyone... wherever you start from, pot smoking makes you stupider. The particular problem and characteristics of prolonged pot use, I argue (and why I think it is so dangerous) is that it ingrains this stupidity over time, and in a manner that is not directly obvious.... the end effects are the same, however, someone with an increasingly inability to cope with the pressures of life and thus increasingly 'opts out'... till they hit a wall and end up in a psychiatric unit Of course, all the time, completely oblivious to the reduced state they are in... It is a form of encroached mental slavery... it is easy to spot a heavy cannabis user, in the language, the phrasing of arguments, the edge of paranoia, even in the the political outlook. Take this drug, and this is how you will think in a few years time... scary.

It shocks me too Liana.. but only because over time I have become convinced it is true, true true (remember I started as one who did not have strong views about this, even use to defend it in the way that most 'reasonable' people still do... even now I am not sure that banning it or criminalising is the answer)... As Fergal says above, if you smoke it every day... it does change you (subtly but invariably, and in a way completely oblivious to yourself) hence why I think it so very dangerous.... how do you 'quantify' that in scientific terms... I call it the drug-brain... as everything about the behaviour (even when not under the direct influence) that follows serves to justify the habit... I don't use the word slavery lightly. Just think how terrible it is if there is even an inkling of truth in what I say... does it affect me personally (very little, as I am aware and skirt around it) however think of the thousands of people who are led unawares (because the language around this drug is so tame) to untold misery in their personal lives and particularly those of their loved ones... a wall that they usually hit in their 30's. Most unfortunate for them, even if they give up then, they have years of lost 'brain time' to recover... and many then succumb to forms of mental depression. The statistics in mental wards increasingly bear this out.. hence finally at last greater public concern. I don't have a problem with drug use per se... I think that the 'reward states' you access with them are good (too good sometimes) in and of themselves... my argument, is that if you use them constantly you are cheating yourself/your brain and thwarting its normal function of reward through learning... The resulting thing is that you do not learn... and thus your problems get progressively more difficult to cope with increasing pressures and responsibilities of adulthood. Putting aside all the statistics, this strikes me as an obvious...

"I and many others pn what you regard as the 'pro-drugs' side of this argument already accept that cannabis is as bad for people as tobacco and, if used in the same quantities, considerably worse. " I agree that this probably the most reasonable position for now, based on the current evidence.. also would posit were cannabis to be abused on the same scale as alcohol (something I have never condoned) we would indeed be in a terrible mess... On the moral case, I'll leave that for another time and place... As for the discussion, I have enjoyed it, and have even grudgingly conceded something here or there. It has never been my intention to upset anyone, and if my strong ways of putting things is taken as arrogance, well it is not intended that way at all. And I certainly I don't feel I am better then anyone else for not taking cannabis, just better than I would have been had I taken lots.