Lindsey

Will you marry me? -- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

Again, you are posting opinion only. Please scroll to 3 separate posts where I have supplied peer reviewed empirically based evidence showing studies proving addiction and withdrawal existence of MJ. Read the studies, and if you can find one countering it, I will be interested to read it. I think it's fascinating how some can make such general overt statements, which are nothing more than personal opinion not backed by data or research! (at least you have posted nothing but your opinion). Please, you or Lindsey show me some evidence, not just your opinion, about addiction and withdrawal of marijuana supporting your claim. There is obviously controversy in this area. Any "withdrawal" is medically insignificant....But I'm not interested in getting into that debate because it's not relevant. But say I give you that....say there's a REAL significant withdrawal syndrome associated with marijuana use, even significant enough to cause psychosis during its course. It's still tangential to what we were talking about.... It still wouldn't support your claim that marijuana use can cause a "permanent fuck-your-brain-up psychosis." If you want to dispel myths about marijuana use, I'd suggest using examples that aren't overly-dramatized. You know that tangential thinking is also a sign of psychosis.... Also....when you learn to critically analyze research, you also learn that peer-reviewed, empirically-based evidence is often invalid (that's why you can almost always find a study that produces different results), and NEVER proves anything. linz -- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

I can place a chest tube quicker than you can jack off I don't know which is more useful...lol linz -- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

Paramedics are hot :) linz -- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

Have you been to Wal-Mart lately? "College education" and "Wal-Mart" aren't frequently used in the same sentence.... What is trendy for the Wal-Mart crowd these days anyway??? linz -- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

It's a good thing I'm already good at PLF's. More pics - 023 - look ma, no hands! 032 - sitting on the line 033 - starting to lay back 034 - 10 milliseconds before the crash you're hot. ==8-0 linz -- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

I agree that you can probably stretch what occurs with marijuana use to fit the guidelines if you try, and I agree that there's some *possibility* of what you're talking about occurring. But trying to make a clinical picture fit into a diagnostic category by using "what ifs" and then more "what ifs" based on your accepting the first one as fact, then you're increasing the likelihood of making an inaccurate diagnosis. -- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

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

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

Today as a redneck in a (very loud) old red Ford pick-up started pulling out in front of me on my (very loud) bike, I think it was my yelling "FUCK!" that got his attention more than my loud pipes....lol. He did stop a little short of me as I swerved to just shy of the center line....arghhhh. -- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

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

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

I've been riding my bike lately to work too...this month I'm working 1 1/2 hours from home. 50mpg is good. linz -- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

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

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

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

Cannabis Psychosis. You'd really have to look at how the studies themselves were done to have any sense of their validity. I think it's a lot more likely to be able to connect *recent* marijuana use with psychotic events, but a HUGE stretch to connect very distant use (years) with psychosis. There are people who believe in Multiple Personality Disorder too. It's even in the DSM. But at least as many psychiatrists DON'T believe it exists than do. People who do buy into it will find all sorts of "evidence" for its existence, and they're likely to see it at every turn (and diagnose it) but that evidence isn't very solid scientifically. This is similar. Connecting causality between very distant marijuana use and later psychosis is just too difficult to support in a good evidence-based way. That's probably why the DSM does NOT support calling this type of psychosis substance-induced. linz -- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

As far as you not having seen any literature on it, go look in a (diagnostic statistical manual of mental disorders) DSM-IV TR, diagnostic codes 292.11 and 292.12. You don't get much more researched based in mental health and substance abuse than that. The criteria for Substance Induced Psychotic Disorders specifies that they arise "only in association with intoxication or withdrawal states, whereas primary Psychotic Disorders may precede the onset of substance use or may occur during times of sustained abstinence. Once initiated, the psychotic symptoms may continue as long as the substance use continues...." Those are the Diagnostic Criteria per the DSM-IV...the one we used when I was working in that field. I don't have a copy of the newer version at my house, but I doubt that the criteria have changed that dramatically.... linz -- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

That's something I've never seen even once....not personally or in any literature. How do you rule out other causes of psychosis? Often depression causes psychosis. Often people just become psychotic....to be able to pin it down to marijuana use because "all other causes were ruled out"? We don't usually know what the cause is for anyone's psychosis. I just don't buy this argument at all. Sometimes people who develop psychosis are the same people who use drugs....without any causative relationship. Now to say that there can be permanent change in brain physiology as a result of drug use of any sort....sure. -- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

true, the illegality/legality of the matter may not be enough to keep addicts from using, but at this point, what's the alternative? How about letting people, addicts or otherwise, work it out for themselves. Novel idea. linz -- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

I'm just bitter because I'm not gettin' any....lol. linz -- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

Born March 22, 1926 [on a side note]He's my son's Birthday Buddy. This is the 2nd person today I've run across with the same birthday as my boy...[/on a side note] That man was obviously the *real* shit. Thanks for sharing. The take home message for THIS thread is....heart attacks kill. linz -- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

Nothing....NOTHING.....is better than sex :) linz -- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

I have a Master's in Social Work. School was fun but not terribly challenging. Lots of paper writing....LOTS. It helped my career quite a lot....realized pretty quickly that I didn't want to do THAT forever. So I moved on....lol. Good luck! linz -- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

I worked productively between 9:30 this morning and noon....then went for sushi....then (get this) completed my application for my medical license! HA! I think they're actually gonna let me have one...lol. Then I took the long way home on some great back roads on my bike.... It was a productive day :) linz -- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail