People have been getting all upset with Obama for not getting on board with marijuana decriminalization. Fair enough, I suppose. I think that drug use for the most part should be an individual choice and that the government shouldn't be wasting money on the war on drugs but instead regulating and taxing it. Okay, fine.
But, I wish people would get their facts straight when making this argument. I've read a number of things in the blogosphere attacking Obama because, after all, "pot is harmless." This line of argument troubles me because, well, it's just untrue and paves over a large number of issues of which people should be aware before engaging. For starters, and the one that's most concerned me, marijuana use is strongly linked with schizophrenia and other mental illnesses. (One can read "Cannabis use and risk of psychotic or affective mental health outcomes: a systematic review". It surveys a large number of studies from over the years.)
As noted, I don't think the government should make every dangerous thing illegal, I'm no fan of the nanny state, so my support for legalization has nothing to do with my views on the safety of using it. But I wish people would do a bit of research before blithely proclaiming marijuana use harmless or safe or, my favourite, "no worse than cigarettes". Yeah, right.
March 29 2009, 01:12:03 UTC 3 years ago Edited: March 29 2009, 01:37:16 UTC
http://www.cannabiscoalition.ca/info/Lo
(Also a stupid pdf)
March 29 2009, 02:37:44 UTC 3 years ago
Thanks for the link, I read their discussion of the health effects. Note that I am not trying to insist that it demonstrably causes psychotic disorders or that it can't provide any kind of benefit. What I'm objecting to is people who've made no effort to understand the evidence boldly proclaiming that it's harmless or that there's no scientific evidence that it could cause any harm. (In fact, I'd encourage consideration of the linked article if you're interested in this as it's a comprehensive analysis, published in Lancet, no less, of the data from a large number of studies and I think it provides a very balanced analysis of what can and cant' be inferred from the data.)
I think that a reasonable argument can be made that its potential benefits in some medical cases outweigh its risks for other problems, e.g., in the cases you mention, I wasn't suggesting otherwise.
I will say that from my limited experience with it and my examination of the literature, I'd very strongly discourage its use for anyone with any kind of family history of schizophrenia. That's not because I feel I can confidently assert that it will trigger it, but because given what we know the decision theory on this is pretty clear.
March 29 2009, 02:41:38 UTC 3 years ago
Anonymous
March 30 2009, 18:42:27 UTC 3 years ago
That said, I don't think pot smoking is a good idea, regardless. And I concur that government should have a very limited role as to people's own behaviors unless they directly impact another person's and the other person does not have adequate recourse without goverment intervention. Another thing that is odd to me is that alcohol is legal but pot is not. I don't imbibe in either. But what logic is there for the distinction other than the fact that the government cannot "un-ring the bell"/reverse itself as to allowing alcohol to be legal -- even if it wanted to. CB#1