Cannabis and psychosis

[KickAssClown]

Originally Posted by TheFaithfulStone

How does "All Illicit Druge Use, Direct and Indirect" not cover marijuana.

Besides, I know a couple of people who died from dope. Not from smoking it mind, but from having either too much or too little of it when interested parties conducted inventory.

TFS

Point taken, concidered and sent for return play.

I would see that as a strong indicator not of the damage of cannabis, but of the drug war against cannabis. Laws of Supply and Demand, and the priniciple of illict dealings.

If for instance Cannabis was made legal, taxed and otherwise regulated, then the likeliness of that occurance would most likely decrease dramatically. Why deal with people who might shoot you when you can pick it up from the local super-market?

The fact of this remains to be seen. However if other countries are any indication, it would seem that this would be the case. It's like bootlegging liquor, it was dangerous and illegal. Now it's not. Imagine that, eh?

[orbsycli]

I'm imagining going to the store and buying a pack of joints . .

Mmmmmm . .

[TheFaithfulStone]

Originally Posted by KAC

If for instance Cannabis was made legal, taxed and otherwise regulated, then the likeliness of that occurance would most likely decrease dramatically. Why deal with people who might shoot you when you can pick it up from the local super-market?

Agree 100%.

TFS

[themartuigan]

Originally Posted by TheFaithfulStone

How does "All Illicit Druge Use, Direct and Indirect" not cover marijuana.

Besides, I know a couple of people who died from dope. Not from smoking it mind, but from having either too much or too little of it when interested parties conducted inventory.

TFS

first off, NO marijuana is not included in "All Illicit Drug Use, Direct and Indirect". If you follow the link that i provided and read what is actually on that page you will notice how marijuana is seperate from the rest and also that in marijuanas description it says there was NO marijuana induced deaths.
Im guessing the only reason they seperated marijuana from all other drugs was because marijuana was the only one with no deaths, actually yes i think that it proves it self when you look and see that MARIJUANA has no deaths.

what do you mean by "when interested parties conducted inventory"? Are you to say that these people were killed by somebody else over marijuana, if so then that has to do with the killer not the marijauna.
I once seen someone get shanked in a movie theatre line for cutting in front of somebody else.

Please before you say that marijuana DOES in fact have death related participants read that link i provided in the post prior to this post. Because there you will see that it is un-so. thank you
theMaRTuiGaN

[HydrogenBond]

I have taken this discussion in two directions, one connected to MJ being a right hemisphere inducing drug. The other was that although external data does indicate both hemispheres overlap in function, internal data indicates that there are two points of view, each one consistent with the known functionality of each hemisphere, i.e,, left is logical, analytical and the right is emotional-intuitive-spatial. I will try to bring both together.

When I turned 13, I had previously been indoctrinating into the government position of MJ being bad for you. But around that time I also had older friends who were experimenting with it, who did not show all the signs I had been expecting. They were taking a counter position of it being the best thing since sliced bread. This led to confusion. In retropsect, the govenment position and its data is what one would expect. Just ask yourself how much funding would go to someone taking a counter position with respect to this government policy? None, since govenment funded conflicting results could undermine that position. At the same time, the old boys who were smoking may not have been in their right state of mind, which could explain their counter position and behavior.

I my mind, being a young scientist of the future, I decided the only way I could know the truth was to conduct my own experiment. I was actually terrified to try MJ because of my indocrination, but after doing it, it wasn't like anything I expected. It was a lot more subtle, instead of being like the govenment psychosis. Being part of the party crowd now, this opened the door to the underground. There I could observe a wider spectrum of useage. Some of the govenment position was indeed applicable, especially with those who had addictive personalities. But on the other hand, there were also clear minded people with a good handle on the present and future. Neither of the teo one size fits all positions were consistent with all the data I was observing.

If one was to take all this data, one position draws its curve through half the data points and the other position draws its curve through the rest of the data points. A real scientific study should be able to touch all the data points and not just the ones that reinforce one-sided bias.

If one was a scientist, being rational means consistency with all data. Because some of the data is ignorred, the other side of the brain will induce a counter position with emotional valence. The ego can ignor the truth but the unconscious is spatial and seeks completeness. This counterposition pops up as fear. The fear has less to do with the reality of the onesided data as it has to do with a rational scientist unconsciously fearing he is becoming irrational, ignorring part of the reality data. If one is unconscious of the source, one may project the fear into the one-sided results, to create a closed loop, that seems to justify one-sided results.

The pro-MJ position is less rationally orientated, since the drug itself will tend to be right hemisphere induction. This position will tend to feel fanaticism (to compensate inner doubt). The doubt stems from the other side of the data and brain which contains part of the truth that is being ignorred. If they are unconscious of the real source of this emotion, they will project the fanaticsm into an over indulgent counter culture.

If there was social debate, the debate and interaction would lead to better understanding on both sides. But the reality is the anti-MJ side has the big stick of law enforcement to force its position on others.. With that stick one can beat the common sense out of people, so others will feel the fear. The pusher can only coax so far; while the big stick can reach everywhere.

With many good citiznes people not scientists, their position becomes fear/fanaticism because they are not fully reasoning through but partially accepting the mainstream position out of trust. The result is the social Gastopo. One manifestation is drug testing. One is presumed guilty until proven innocent. Even a murderer is innocent until proven guilty. The irrational right hemisphere counterposition generates a logic line, in the left hemisphere, to help justify this, i.e, I am losing productivity and won't reach a billion dollar for x years so I will violate the rights of everyone.

This is where psychology could earn its keep it they had more access to internal data. They could address such cultural social disorders.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Originally Posted by themartuigan

Please before you say that marijuana DOES in fact have death related participants read that link i provided in the post prior to this post. Because there you will see that it is un-so. thank you

I was joking man.

TFS

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Please provide me with a few examples of studies which don't have much internal data.

Thanks.

Still waiting HydrogenBond. If I were to guess, I would say there are at least 6 or 7 requrests for supporting information I've made to you in the forums to which you've failed to respond.

Since my attempts to get you to support your opinions and move them past the realm of baselessness, I will PM you henceforth my requests in hopes of clarifying why your refusal to comply is hurting only your perception amont members.


As for the thread at hand, cannabis is like many other drugs, whereby the character, outlook, and stance of the user plays the largest role in how that individual will behave under the influence. Essentially, if it results in psychosis, that psychosis was previously extant.

[Tarantism]

Originally Posted by orbsycli

I'm imagining going to the store and buying a pack of joints . .

Mmmmmm . .

haha, cant wait for that one.

im imagining going to the freezer section, after picking up my j's, and trying to decide which batch of orange sunshine i want.

[Halo]

Marijuana and psychosis.
Interesting topic.

I've known patients who go in for psychiatric evaluations after not having been sober for up to 11 years. It is next to impossible to tell whether their symptoms are there because of their biology or because of what they are ingesting into their body. Do they have a depressive affect because that is how they are, or because that is what 11 years of smoking weed is doing to them?

The recommendation for them is to always abstain from marijuana use for about two weeks and then follow up to see if their symptoms have resolved or not.

In terms of psychosis, what psychosis do you mean? The denotation of psychosis in a medical dictionary is simply: "A mental and behavioral disorder causing gross distortion or disorganization of a person's mental capacity, affective response, and capacity to recognize reality, communicate, and relate to others to the degree of interfering with the person's capacity to cope with the ordinary demands of everyday life." - Stedman's Medical Dictionary.

Psychosis is divided into two major classifications given their origin.

1) Those associated with organic brain syndromes i.e: Korsakoff Syndrome**.
2) Those less clearly organic and having some functional component i.e: The schizophrenias, bipolar disorders.

**Korsakoff Syndrome is associated with alcoholics and often coexists with Wernicke Syndrome.

So, which psychosis does the original poster mean when asking if marijuana is it's cure or it's cause (which I think is what they were trying to get at).

In my experience, marijuana use has often been the cause of such psychoses as bipolar affective disorders and schizophrenias. I don't think I have yet to see marijuana used as a stimulant to uplift someone's mood.

Though I suppose I am an unlikely contributor as I have never engaged in the act of smoking marijuana and don't feel that I ever will. The destruction it brings upon the body and mind is not something I would ever find myself willingly doing - I enjoy my body and all my senses and don't feel that I should ever want any of them depressed.

As I am at work, I don't have the time to cite any articles to back up what is now simply my opinion but given the logistics - one does not prescribe a depressant to one who is depressed, I would have to say that marijuana is not a cure for a psychosis. Though again, it's up to interpretation and anyone who can find articles in support of my opinion or in opposition.

Cheers
Halo

[paigetheoracle]

Originally Posted by Halo

Marijuana and psychosis.
Interesting topic.

I've known patients who go in for psychiatric evaluations after not having been sober for up to 11 years. It is next to impossible to tell whether their symptoms are there because of their biology or because of what they are ingesting into their body. Do they have a depressive affect because that is how they are, or because that is what 11 years of smoking weed is doing to them?

The recommendation for them is to always abstain from marijuana use for about two weeks and then follow up to see if their symptoms have resolved or not.

In terms of psychosis, what psychosis do you mean? The denotation of psychosis in a medical dictionary is simply: "A mental and behavioral disorder causing gross distortion or disorganization of a person's mental capacity, affective response, and capacity to recognize reality, communicate, and relate to others to the degree of interfering with the person's capacity to cope with the ordinary demands of everyday life." - Stedman's Medical Dictionary.

Psychosis is divided into two major classifications given their origin.

1) Those associated with organic brain syndromes i.e: Korsakoff Syndrome**.
2) Those less clearly organic and having some functional component i.e: The schizophrenias, bipolar disorders.

**Korsakoff Syndrome is associated with alcoholics and often coexists with Wernicke Syndrome.

So, which psychosis does the original poster mean when asking if marijuana is it's cure or it's cause (which I think is what they were trying to get at).

In my experience, marijuana use has often been the cause of such psychoses as bipolar affective disorders and schizophrenias. I don't think I have yet to see marijuana used as a stimulant to uplift someone's mood.

Though I suppose I am an unlikely contributor as I have never engaged in the act of smoking marijuana and don't feel that I ever will. The destruction it brings upon the body and mind is not something I would ever find myself willingly doing - I enjoy my body and all my senses and don't feel that I should ever want any of them depressed.

As I am at work, I don't have the time to cite any articles to back up what is now simply my opinion but given the logistics - one does not prescribe a depressant to one who is depressed, I would have to say that marijuana is not a cure for a psychosis. Though again, it's up to interpretation and anyone who can find articles in support of my opinion or in opposition.

Cheers
Halo

Interesting reply.

Why do people hit the bottle or take drugs, while others do not? Could it be a choice that leads some to want to hide behind illusion and retreat from the world, using the aforementioned substances plus other behaviour that blanks out reality, like sleep deprivation etc. while others pursue it with vigour?

To me it's deliberate brain damage to destroy perception and while some are born handicapped in this way or lose functioning through physical illness or accident, the fact that some of the latter can recover their senses through sheer determination (Patricia Neal with her stroke for instance), seems to show that it is psychological and not organic (except for the former group) but can become that given time to develop but I'm no expert on this either.

My reference was a TV or radio program and the opinions of addicts themselves plus my partners response, who does work in the field of public health.