Should U.S legalize Marijuana??

[Lindsey 0]

Where does it state that?

The Diagnostic Criteria for Substance-Induced Psychotic Disorders states....(what I quoted on my last post), which excludes the cases you initially talked about....

I previously worked at an inpatient hospital and we had a few cases of people who used marijuana heavily over a few years and developed mood disorders, and in some people psychotic disorders. I am not talking about intoxication psychosis,..I am talking about fucking-up-your-brain permanently psychosis. And these were the same people who in their younger years rendered marijuana "harmless". The diagnosis: Psychotic disorder due to prolonged marijuana use. Paranoia and magical thinking were key features. These were in people who had clean urinalysis, who had not smoked in months, but had a long history of heavy use. Now guess who is picking up their social security disability bill?? Now tell me it is only "their" problem if they are addicted to drugs!

I'm not trying to get nit-picky, but that's a pretty strong statement, imho, and one that begs to be challenged. I think it's unwise to make statements with such certainty about things that are so uncertain. Just because a psychiatrist made the diagnosis doesn't make it an accurate diagnosis....and even more dubious in my mind if this same psychiatrist made the same diagnosis more than once during the time you were employed at the institution.

I don't disagree at all that prolonged marijuana use, or any mind-altering drug use, causes permanent changes in brain physiology. I think it absolutely does, but I think there's little evidence for the kind of changes that you're talking about.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

take vicodin for 2 months and see if that's true.

Thank goodness I've never had to. In fact, I think I'm "Unbreakable" sometimes, b/c despite my active lifestyle and growing up a major tom boy I've never broken a bone or so much as twisted an ankle.
I *think* I might have broken, fractured or bruised a rib once, though. I've told the story before---never did see a doctor and had to ace bandage myself for 2 months before the pain/discomfort went away. A year later had an X-ray and ma ribs looked delicious.) annnnd.....I think that's it. Oh wait, my tooth went through my bottom lip before when I hit my chin on the diving board trying to be cute. A popsicle did the trick and my lip, too, instantly healed. I don't even have a scar there.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[GTAVercetti 0]

why did you quote unbreakable?

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You'd think we'd have learned by now that prohibition of substances like this and persecution against victimless crimes doesn't work. Never has.

But there is the argument to be made that drug use/abuse isn't a victimless crime: look at parents who neglect their kids while using (applies to alcohol too for that matter). Or harming people while driving under the influence...

I think you got to focus on the actual crime without extrapolating to the excuse given (or implied) for doing it. Plenty of sober people beat their kids. The crime isn't in getting high (well, OK, it is a crime for now) it's in beating the kids.

I didn't say beating their kids. I said NEGLECTING their kids, and I used that term specifically, b/c parents who are stoned out of their mind CANNOT and DO NOT care for their children properly.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[PLFXpert 0]

You know why.

I stand by my quotes!

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[Lindsey 0]

I didn't say beating their kids. I said NEGLECTING their kids, and I used that term specifically, b/c parents who are stoned out of their mind CANNOT and DO NOT care for their children properly.

I don't see how anyone can argue that point. But parents can, say, go to a party, smoke a bowl, and later still be excellent parents. It's about using judgment.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[GTAVercetti 0]

Nope. I don't get it. But you ALWAYS stand by whatever you type...no matter how wrong it is anyway.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[kelpdiver 2]

I had a pretty good run until this spot of trouble. With similar luck, should be my only one till I slow down a bit later in life.

The rib fractures actually got no care - nothing to do but breathe funny for a week or two and then let it get better. The bad part was that the arm in the sling would rest right about where the bad spot in the ribs was.

The 4 days of detox wasn't all that bad, though the ER people tried to feed me a line about vicodin being non addictive. People who take it for really long periods of time have a hellish time at the end.

[micro 0]

Quote

I didn't say beating their kids. I said NEGLECTING their kids, and I used that term specifically, b/c parents who are stoned out of their mind CANNOT and DO NOT care for their children properly.

I don't see how anyone can argue that point. But parents can, say, go to a party, smoke a bowl, and later still be excellent parents. It's about using judgment.

linz

I can argue that point quite well, thanks. B/c during the 6 years I was a therapist I saw it day in and day out. Parents baked, kids living in squalor. True, parents who OCCASIONALLY smoke a bowl can LATER still be excellent parents. The key word in your post was LATER. it's DURING the high that is the problem.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[PLFXpert 0]

There was a movie "Unbreakable" where the guy was always the sole survivor in crashes, etc. and never broke a bone.

Had there not been a movie, I might have used another word.

I can think of a word now I'd like to use....

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[Lindsey 0]

I can argue that point quite well, thanks.

I was agreeing with you :)

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[micro 0]

Quote

I can argue that point quite well, thanks.

I was agreeing with you :)

linz

Ah... then you might've added the word "against" in there

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

Quote

I can argue that point quite well, thanks.

I was agreeing with you :)

linz

Ah... then you might've added the word "against" in there

"Might" have, but I didn't...lol. You were supposed to know what I meant....heh.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[jshatzkin 0]

Quote

Where does it state that?

The Diagnostic Criteria for Substance-Induced Psychotic Disorders states....(what I quoted on my last post), which excludes the cases you initially talked about....

Did you not read my post with the DSM-IV version? "...the symptoms developed during or within a month of substance intoxication or withdrawal..."

This is different than what you posted. I still don't see where the DSM does NOT support the diagnosis.

As far as referring to my original post about it,...maybe you missed several ones inbetween?? Such as the one I copied and pasted below.



Linz,

That's basically it. I do recall a sepcific staffings on one of these patients (there were only 3 that I specifically remember over an 18 month period who received this dx). The doc was so adamant that chronic use contributed to his psychotic state. I cannot remember how long it had been since his last use, but it was negative in his urine. He had used several times per day for several years. Who knows, maybe he got some bad stuff that messed him up.

Anyway, I am glad you posted this. I think some people here are trying to argue that other than mellowing you out and giving the munchies, there is not much more to marijuana use. My point is that it can definitely alter thinking and functioning and can have some severe effects. That was my whole reasoning of posting the diagnosis of these patients. COuld the doctors have been wrong? I don't know. I initially argued that it had to be more going on with them, but was shot down. But the fact remains, it is possible to have psychosis with it in a non-intoxication state. The DSM states "...1. the symptoms developed during or within a month of substance intoxication or withdrawal....."



I am well aware that certain psychiatrists have their preferred diagnosis, and sometimes it's hot on the "what's being researched now" list. And it was not the same doc in all the cases. Perhaps they went to some seminar featuring new research on it and that's where the focus was. Probably why it takes an average of 4-5 diagnoses to hammer the correct one. Like I said before, over and over on this thread,...my only point in posting that was to dispell myths about it being harmless. I felt that many on this thread were painting a docile picture of the drug.

Let me ask you this: we all know for a fact that cannabis intoxication can result in acute immediate paranoia. Is it possible that prolonged heavy use can leave somebody a little more paranoid permanently? I absolutely think so. The key feature of the psychosis in these patients was paranoia. The type of paranoia that does affect others in society (that's why they were brought in by police).

Jen

[jshatzkin 0]

I have never once stated that we should 1. keep it illegal and 2. keep it illegal because it is harmful. Quite the contrary. I have several posts in here referring to policy and what has shaped the drug policy.

Have you ever taken a speech or debate course? You are taking two separate issues, which I have stated my point clearly on both of them, and contorting them to something I am not stating at all.
Your argument contains such an overt Straw Man fallacy.

Quote

ike I said, a small minority of the population is violently allergic to nuts. Have we banned peanut butter? Not yet, thankfully. Do the vast majority of the population run in fear of it? No.

Again, I have NEVER stated that it should be illegal BECAUSE it is harmful. I think I have even alluded to tobacco and alcohol being harmful. I keep reiterating my point in every post that my whole point in stating the adverse effects was to dispell a common myth, and one that has come out on this thread, of it being harmless. It's not. And I know that there were racist and big company movements behind early legislation of making it illegal.

So you're statistics argument goes the other way as well. Too many people make a generalized blanket statement of it being harmless. I chose a serious, yet not so frequent, possibility to make a point about how pot smoking runs the whole gamut. I did not see you arguing with those who made blanket, generalized statements about it being harmless. Another statistical fallacy.

Jen

[Lindsey 0]

Let me ask you this: we all know for a fact that cannabis intoxication can result in acute immediate paranoia. Is it possible that prolonged heavy use can leave somebody a little more paranoid permanently? I absolutely think so. The key feature of the psychosis in these patients was paranoia. The type of paranoia that does affect others in society (that's why they were brought in by police).

Yes. I think it's *possible*. But that's as far as I would go. My problem is in 1) ascribing a person's psychosis to more distant marijuana use, no matter how heavy the use was, and then 2) inferring that taxpayers are paying for those people's disability because they used marijuana in the past, when they are as likely to have psychosis for no good reason at all other than that they were unlucky.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[jshatzkin 0]

Quote

inferring that taxpayers are paying for those people's disability because they used marijuana in the past, when they are as likely to have psychosis for no good reason at all other than that they were unlucky.

I did not mean to imply that at all. In fact I was thinking more of the crack and meth addicts who have to rely on social systems to care for them. I was thinking faster than typing. I was referring to something someone said about it (drug use) being only the user's problem.

The distant use, (ie one month prior) meets DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for cannabis induced psychosis, so I am still confused why you have such a problem with the statement and infer that DSM does NOT support it (I still don't see that).

Jen

[Lindsey 0]

The distant use, (ie one month prior) meets DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for cannabis induced psychosis, so I am still confused why you have such a problem with the statement and infer that DSM does NOT support it (I still don't see that).

Your post that I quoted above said that they had "fucking-up-your-brain-permanently psychosis," and that they "had not smoked in months."

I know you've made other posts since then. But it was THAT post that really got my attention and that I'm referring to....and the one that the DSM doesn't support as a substance induced psychosis.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I can argue that point quite well, thanks.

I was agreeing with you :)

linz

Ah... then you might've added the word "against" in there

"Might" have, but I didn't...lol. You were supposed to know what I meant....heh.

linz

OH!! I forgot to put my "women mind reader hat on." Sorry!

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[jshatzkin 0]

Quote

The distant use, (ie one month prior) meets DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for cannabis induced psychosis, so I am still confused why you have such a problem with the statement and infer that DSM does NOT support it (I still don't see that).

Your post that I quoted above said that they had "fucking-up-your-brain-permanently psychosis," and that they "had not smoked in months."

I know you've made other posts since then. But it was THAT post that really got my attention and that I'm referring to....and the one that the DSM doesn't support as a substance induced psychosis.

Think about it: if the criterion states "within one month of intoxication or withdrawal..." Withdrawal can last up to 28 days (peaking around 10) . It is very possible. Let's say the patient stops smoking, 28 days later he could still be going through the last of withdrawal. Then via the DSM, it could be another 30 days and still meet criterion for inclusion of said diagnosis. So urinalysis is clean,..they state "have not smoke in months",..and it could still viably meet the full criteria.

Jen

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I have never once stated that we should 1. keep it illegal and 2. keep it illegal because it is harmful. Quite the contrary. I have several posts in here referring to policy and what has shaped the drug policy.

Have you ever taken a speech or debate course? You are taking two separate issues, which I have stated my point clearly on both of them, and contorting them to something I am not stating at all.
Your argument contains such an overt Straw Man fallacy.

It's a very common technique of those who have taken debate classes to avoid debate by labelling opposing comments as straw men or other labels. And just as common for them to make their own strawmen in the process.

I've made no claims about your stance on legality. I merely continue to point out that you made reaching conclusions on very limited information.

The fact that you've seen a handful of people that may have ended up very sick due to pot doesn't support a generalization that pot is not a low risk drug. If it's that rare, is it accurate to say that pot causes psychosis, or that a few people out there have a defect? The first would mean that any smoker might suffer that fate. The second is very different, and no different than any rare, severe allergy.

[stayhigh 2]

Hey people, you know what my gate way drug was??
It wasn't weed, or alchohol or cigarettes. I first saw my drug at DARE program running by our goverment. One day at school police officer came in and explained all the drugs in the bag and how to use them. That's right, they the cops educated me, what the effects of each and every individual drugs were like.
There I saw weed, coke,speed, heroin, PCP, LSD, and other drug pharaphernalia, and cops were who educated us 7th graders how to use syringe, how to grow marijuana properly, what to use to cut up the coke, what to use to snort the coke.
By the way do you know that more than 90% of U.S. dollar note contains traces of cocaine?, and if you go to Miami area it is almost 100%.
If you wanna stop drugs all together fine, then here is one solution, just like middle eastern country, let's give out death sentence for drug violation, and let's look at the reason why there are very low number of people doing drugs in Korea, Japan, Singapore. It is like min 4 year jail term for having a gram of weed.
I thank whole DARE program for succefully getting kids interested in drugs, and all the musician's singing and rapping about drugs, and all the movie industry for making movies like Blow, Harold and Kumar, Scary movie, and TV industry for quality programs like Weed.
America, you wanna win the 'war on drugs'?, get the hell out. With this kind of policy on drugs we will never win it. Mr.Bush you wanna win this war on drugs?? Then make the law stating that min sentence of having any kind of substance will be a death penalty. Other wise make it legal.

Bernie Sanders for President 2016

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

Quote

The distant use, (ie one month prior) meets DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for cannabis induced psychosis, so I am still confused why you have such a problem with the statement and infer that DSM does NOT support it (I still don't see that).

Your post that I quoted above said that they had "fucking-up-your-brain-permanently psychosis," and that they "had not smoked in months."

I know you've made other posts since then. But it was THAT post that really got my attention and that I'm referring to....and the one that the DSM doesn't support as a substance induced psychosis.

Think about it: if the criterion states "within one month of intoxication or withdrawal..." Withdrawal can last up to 28 days (peaking around 10) . It is very possible. Let's say the patient stops smoking, 28 days later he could still be going through the last of withdrawal. Then via the DSM, it could be another 30 days and still meet criterion for inclusion of said diagnosis. So urinalysis is clean,..they state "have not smoke in months",..and it could still viably meet the full criteria.

Given that there's no physical addiction to and no physical withdrawal symptoms from marijuana, this is a huge stretch. Some drugs, especially alcohol, do produce REAL psychosis associated with withdrawal. I think that's more what the authors are considering. However, if you wanted to try to stretch it to "fit" a marijuana *withdrawal* situation, then it'd be damn hard to stretch it to 2 months....

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[jshatzkin 0]

Many different views are still open on the *withdrawal* of marijuana.

From (I quote this book again) "Drugs, Society and Human Behavior" 9th Ed. Charles Ksir and Oakley Ray:

"Physical dependence {with marijuana} has been demonstrated in laboratory experiments with humans given large doses of THC every 4 hours for 10 to 20 days. Beginning several hours after the last dose subjects have shown irritability, restlessness, nausea, and vomiting. These symptoms peak at 8 hours and declined over the next three days. Sleep disturbances and loss of appetite have also been reported.

Such withdrawal symptoms are virtually never reported outside the research laboratory. One reason might be that the drug is so long lasting. Withdrawal signs are more dramatic when a when a drug leaves the body quickly. The development of a specific antagonist for the marijuana (or anandamide) receptor has made it possible to demonstrate clear withdrawal symptoms in laboratory animals, because administration of an antagonist has the effect of removing the drug from the receptors almost instantaneously. In [these} animal studies, the withdrawal symptoms resemble those of opiate withdrawal to some extent and may have some mechanisms in common"

Quote

Given that there's no physical addiction to and no physical withdrawal symptoms from marijuana, this is a huge stretch

Really? Maybe it is that the withdrawal symptoms are spread out, so it is not as overtly observable. So, yes, over time the person can experience withdrawal, and according to the DSM, still meet criteria for the diagnosis in argument, 30 days after withdrawal has ended. This is also probably why they give a 28 day window for withdrawal because of how long it can take to slowly withdrawal from the drug. If I am wrong, please show me evidence supporting your claim there is NO withdrawal symptoms.

Jen

[jshatzkin 0]

I actually got you confused with Skyydekker who made a comment earlier about taking a statistics course! My apologies-

By the way, your pointing out my fallacy pointing out your fallacy keeps us in the fallacy argument

AS far as reaching conclusions, I am not. I am merely stating facts that run the gamut of effects of MJ use from harmless to the more severe. What is more common is the long term physiological changes in the brain and amotivational syndrome caused by prolonged use. Much more common. I was simply rebutting people's claims about it being harmless, that's all. By the way, is it not a fallacy to compare a food allergy to illicit drug use

Jen