Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (5881)	2/1/2007 9:18:42 AM
From: Gersh Avery	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10087

This paragraph is telling .. "So will reclassifying cannabis cause more people to become psychotic? The incidence of schizophrenia in south London has doubled since the 1960s; the use of cannabis and cocaine could be a factor. The increase in the prevalence and the deteriorating outcomes of schizophrenia due to cannabis use is the main reason why psychiatric services in London are in such a mess." The last time you posted psychiatric information as a anti-pot argument, I ran into several papers that were saying something about "cocaine and marijuana users." A very odd kind of study involving two totally different kind of drugs. There was little to no methods used to determine how much of which caused what. In other words .. very very sloppy work from which no solid results could possibly have been derived. This quoted paragraph starts with a question that people assume is a true statement and not a question. "So will reclassifying cannabis cause more people to become psychotic?" Next it quotes a statistic "The incidence of schizophrenia in south London has doubled since the 1960s;" That makes it sound official. Then adds this sentence "the use of cannabis and cocaine could be a factor." They have shown no causative relationship. They don't even try to say there is a cause/effect relationship. They could have also said "air pollution could be a factor" or "lack of brest feeding could be a factor" or "the sky is blue could be a factor." *Anything could* be a factor*. Note that they didn't even try* to say "could be a cause." Then they mix the effects of cocaine and marijuana to try to prove some point. How could you take this "information" seriously? Then they shift from this wishy washy might be maybe stuff into "OK .. we've made our case so:::" and launch into -> "The increase in the prevalence and the deteriorating outcomes of schizophrenia due to cannabis use." They shifted into "we know this is the cause." No evidence .. just assumption. This "work" is so biased it's unreal. You and I have gone over the stuff about injection of THC before. You posted the study that showed if rats were injected (DIRECTLY INTO THEIR BRAINS) with MASSIVE DOSES of THC they would get screwed up. Again .. biased work to show a predetermined outcome. "Why does cannabis exacerbate psychosis?" again the assumption as truth. "people with schizophrenia do not take more alcohol, heroin, or ecstasy than the rest of us - but they are twice as likely to smoke cannabis regularly." If this statement is true, and it may well be, then I wonder what benefit is being derived from marijuana use by people with schizophrenia.