Legalise and tax soft drugs

jased10s · 17-01-2012 11:37PM

CageWager wrote: »

Speaking strictly about Marijuana,

If it were to be legalised in Ireland:
An Garda Siochana would lose money (large budget to "fight drug war")

Pharmaceutical companies would lose money (Cannabis is an alternative to many [far more harmful] prescription drugs)

Drug dealers and smugglers would lose money

Politicians would lose money (donations from pharmaceutical and other lobby groups)

Solicitors/barristers would lose money (court fees for the majority of weed smokers who would otherwise never see the inside of a courtroom)

It's a weird situation when organised criminals and legal professionals (Gardai and barristers) both have a vested interest in keeping a natural plant illegal.

Like most things in life, it comes down to money. To many people in positions of power stand to lose out if it were made legal.

Very true and it making it legal makes too much sense, will never happen sadly.

FreudianSlippers · 18-01-2012 12:00AM

CageWager wrote: »

An Garda Siochana would lose money (large budget to "fight drug war")

They would be not lose funding - they would be able to focus on harder drugs and criminal organisations.

Pharmaceutical companies would lose money (Cannabis is an alternative to many [far more harmful] prescription drugs)

More than likely big-pharma would get into the game ASAP. While for some illnesses, marijuana can assist in the process; as has been seen in California, the drug companies have had no drop in sales... in fact, cancer patients have been more able to take their medications successfully in conjunction with marijuana.

Drug dealers and smugglers would lose money

That's the point hopefully.

Politicians would lose money (donations from pharmaceutical and other lobby groups)

Nope.

Solicitors/barristers would lose money (court fees for the majority of weed smokers who would otherwise never see the inside of a courtroom)

That'd be a very small number of barristers and a slightly larger but still small number of solicitors. I don't know what you think solicitors and barristers do, but the criminal bar (for example) is only about 15% or so of the profession and I'd imagine it's around 30% of solicitors.
Barristers, as well, rarely deal with District Court offences like possession of marijuana; so that refutes your point there as well.
I don't think you'd see any reduction in the amount those that do criminal work make... there is plenty of other work (drink driving and drug driving)

It's a weird situation when organised criminals and legal professionals (Gardai and barristers) both have a vested interest in keeping a natural plant illegal.

Completely incorrect and nonsensical to clump legal professionals in with criminals. It makes no difference to them.

MagicSean · 18-01-2012 12:15AM

CageWager wrote: »

Speaking strictly about Marijuana,

If it were to be legalised in Ireland:
An Garda Siochana would lose money (large budget to "fight drug war")

Pharmaceutical companies would lose money (Cannabis is an alternative to many [far more harmful] prescription drugs)

Drug dealers and smugglers would lose money

Politicians would lose money (donations from pharmaceutical and other lobby groups)

Solicitors/barristers would lose money (court fees for the majority of weed smokers who would otherwise never see the inside of a courtroom)

It's a weird situation when organised criminals and legal professionals (Gardai and barristers) both have a vested interest in keeping a natural plant illegal.

Like most things in life, it comes down to money. To many people in positions of power stand to lose out if it were made legal.

I would put money on the fact that you just copied that directly from an american website. The politican and Garda examples only really would be true there.

paddyandy · 18-01-2012 01:08AM

The Mayhem generated through legalising soft drugs would be a boon to all the " Cleaners" professions as they have been called ,the (so called because they clean up the mess made by the mess making industries ) Gardai,courts,pharmacy, legal people , politicians too .New ideas in drugs would arrive from abroad to assist the "highs and deal with the lows" .Gangs would focus more attention on Ireland from far off places seeing Ireland as the easier way into Britain .Our Gardai would not be able to cope and the general apathy would see that little is done as is presently the case .With legalised Drugs other ideas would arrive and ireland would be seen as a nice place for a visit like a sort of "carnival Country" .Prostitutes in droves and pimps and more nightclubs and more street violence .Gangs fighting it out in street battles with innocent bystanders being maimed and killed . Nothing ever stays the same . The new influx of tourists would keep away the traditional type or as they say Bad Money drives away Good Money .Ireland could'nt deal with freeze-ups or Floods and we are reeling from the property collapse .The legalising of soft drugs with the best efforts would have a short term success .Too many people will want to know what this new Craic is about and then we are away down a dark road we've never travelled before and i don't like the thoughts i'm havin' after that.. These are the good ol' days perhaps things are holdin' just about together.....and thats about it .

mikom · 18-01-2012 01:31AM

paddyandy wrote: »

The Mayhem generated through legalising soft drugs would be a boon to all the " Cleaners" professions as they have been called ,the (so called because they clean up the mess made by the mess making industries ) Gardai,courts,pharmacy, legal people , politicians too .New ideas in drugs would arrive from abroad to assist the "highs and deal with the lows" .Gangs would focus more attention on Ireland from far off places seeing Ireland as the easier way into Britain .Our Gardai would not be able to cope and the general apathy would see that little is done as is presently the case .With legalised Drugs other ideas would arrive and ireland would be seen as a nice place for a visit like a sort of "carnival Country" .Prostitutes in droves and pimps and more nightclubs and more street violence .Gangs fighting it out in street battles with innocent bystanders being maimed and killed . Nothing ever stays the same . The new influx of tourists would keep away the traditional type or as they say Bad Money drives away Good Money .Ireland could'nt deal with freeze-ups or Floods and we are reeling from the property collapse .The legalising of soft drugs with the best efforts would have a short term success .Too many people will want to know what this new Craic is about and then we are away down a dark road we've never travelled before and i don't like the thoughts i'm havin' after that.. These are the good ol' days perhaps things are holdin' just about together.....and thats about it .

So basically MAD MAX 2.

Bullseye1 · 18-01-2012 02:02AM

Can anyone seriously make a case that the current situation of making drugs illegal has worked?

amacachi · 18-01-2012 02:10AM

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Can anyone seriously make a case that the current situation of making drugs illegal has worked?

Generally the reality of how it works out isn't a prohibitionist's argument, it's that morally and for people's own good drugs should be illegal. The morality of making life better for people is irrelevant though apparently.

zenno · 18-01-2012 02:53AM

some people need to be Educated in the field of cannabis so heres a cartoon to enlighten you...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVbWOG3LlX8

mauricebferris · 18-01-2012 09:20AM

Anyone who is confused by the name "soft drugs" given to cannabis, and who thinks that means non-harmful should think again. Cannabis is a very dangerous drug, and why anyone her should want to encourage anyone else to take it, by making it legally available, is unckear. I wonder where those who do advocate legal status for cannabis suggest we might find legal suppliers?

FreudianSlippers · 18-01-2012 10:11AM

mauricebferris wrote: »

Anyone who is confused by the name "soft drugs" given to cannabis, and who thinks that means non-harmful should think again. Cannabis is a very dangerous drug, and why anyone her should want to encourage anyone else to take it, by making it legally available, is unckear. I wonder where those who do advocate legal status for cannabis suggest we might find legal suppliers?

Firstly, I'd like a source for this alleged danger. Secondly, yeah... grow it.

srsly78 · 18-01-2012 11:10AM

mauricebferris wrote: »

Cannabis is a very dangerous drug

All the evidence already posted in this thread says otherwise. The only argument you have is the "gateway" one, which has been discredited for years.

mauricebferris · 18-01-2012 02:38PM

srsly78 wrote: »

All the evidence already posted in this thread says otherwise. The only argument you have is the "gateway" one, which has been discredited for years.

If you really believe that the only argument against cannabis is that it acts as a gateway to other drugs, then that suggests either you don't want to research it, or have not researched it.

Moore, Zammit, Lingford-Hughes, Barnes, Jones, Burke and Lewis did a meta analysis of studies into the risk of psychotic or affective mental health outcomes.

"There was an increased risk of any psychotic outcome in individuals who had ever used cannabis. Finding were consistent with a dose-responsive effect with greater risk in people who used cannabis more frequently"

mikom · 18-01-2012 02:45PM

mauricebferris wrote: »

If you really believe that the only argument against cannabis is that it acts as a gateway to other drugs, then that suggests either you don't want to research it, or have not researched it.

Moore, Zammit, Lingford-Hughes, Barnes, Jones, Burke and Lewis did a meta analysis of studies into the risk of psychotic or affective mental health outcomes.

"There was an increased risk of any psychotic outcome in individuals who had ever used cannabis. Finding were consistent with a dose-responsive effect with greater risk in people who used cannabis more frequently"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc8mZfVaVvg

For the new study, British investigators at Keele University Medical School compared trends in cannabis use and instances of schizophrenia in the United Kingdom from 1996 to 2005. The research showed that even as marijuana use soared among the general population, “incidence and prevalence of schizophrenia and psychoses were either stable or declining” during this period.

The authors concluded that an expected rise in diagnoses of schizophrenia and psychoses did not occur over the decade under study. “This study does not therefore support the … link between cannabis use and incidence of psychotic disorders,” the study concludes, adding “This concurs with other reports indicating that increases in population cannabis use have not been followed by increases in psychotic incidence.”

Assessing the impact of cannabis use on trends in diagnosed schizophrenia in the United Kingdom from 1996 to 2005

Martin Frishera Corresponding Author, Ilana Cromeb, Orsolina Martinoa, Peter Croftc

Received 17 April 2009; received in revised form 27 May 2009; accepted 30 May 2009. published online 29 June 2009.
Corrected Proof

Abstract

A recent systematic review concluded that cannabis use increases risk of psychotic outcomes independently of confounding and transient intoxication effects. Furthermore, a model of the association between cannabis use and schizophrenia indicated that the incidence and prevalence of schizophrenia would increase from 1990 onwards. The model is based on three factors:

a) increased relative risk of psychotic outcomes for frequent cannabis users compared to those who have never used cannabis between 1.8 and 3.1,

b) a substantial rise in UK cannabis use from the mid-1970s and

c) elevated risk of 20 years from first use of cannabis.

This paper investigates whether this has occurred in the UK by examining trends in the annual prevalence and incidence of schizophrenia and psychoses, as measured by diagnosed cases from 1996 to 2005. Retrospective analysis of the General Practice Research Database (GPRD) was conducted for 183 practices in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The study cohort comprised almost 600,000 patients each year, representing approximately 2.3% of the UK population aged 16 to 44.

Between 1996 and 2005 the incidence and prevalence of schizophrenia and psychoses were either stable or declining. Explanations other than a genuine stability or decline were considered, but appeared less plausible. In conclusion, this study did not find any evidence of increasing schizophrenia or psychoses in the general population from 1996 to 2005.

http://ukcia.org/wordpress/?p=76

mauricebferris · 18-01-2012 02:50PM

mikom wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc8mZfVaVvg

http://ukcia.org/wordpress/?p=76

I've tried your link but it doesn't work for me. I'm happy to discuss if you have any points you'd like to make.

Are you aware of the difference between a meta analysis, and individual studies?

If so, are you saying that the results of a meta analysis are invalid, in your judgment, if you can find one or a small number of studies where you prefer the conclusions?

Are you aware that it's highly likely one or a small number of studies are likely to find no link, due to the fact that other, more extensive studies, have concluded that cannabis use takes time to present as a pcychotic illness. which normally presents in later life? Consquently, the Keele study to which you refer would not be expected to find an increase in psychotic illness as cannabis use soars, because this would take years to manifest, and would not manifest at the same time as the use is soaring.

In the second study you mention, the conclusion was that no evidence could be found. As many other studies have found evidence, are you saying, in your juegment, one study which finds no evidence trumps many other studies which have found evidence?

Are you saying that the meta analysis quoted is incorrect and wrong, and that all the strudies they looked at are incorrect and wrong?

mikom · 18-01-2012 02:52PM

mauricebferris wrote: »

I've tried your link but it doesn't work for me. I'm happy to discuss if you have any points you'd like to make.

Both links checked and working.

MagicSean · 18-01-2012 03:00PM

mauricebferris wrote: »

I've tried your link but it doesn't work for me. I'm happy to discuss if you have any points you'd like to make.

Are you aware of the difference between a meta analysis, and individual studies?

If so, are you saying that the results of a meta analysis are invalid, in your judgment, if you can find one or a small number of studies where you prefer the conclusions?

Are you aware that it's highly likely one or a small number of studies are likely to find no link, due to the fact that other, more extensive studies, have concluded that cannabis use takes time to present as a pcychotic illness. which normally presents in later life?

Are you saying that the meta analysis quoted is incorrect and wrong, and that all the strudies they looked at are incorrect and wrong?

The harmful effects of cannabis are no worse than the harmful effects of alcohol. In fact, the country would be in much better shape if cannabis was legal and alcohol wasn't. In itself that is not an argument for legalising cannabis, more an argument for banning alcohol. But it comes down to choice. If we as a society are happy to let people make the choice on using alcohol, a dnagerous and addictive substance, then how can we justify the banning of cannabis on the same grounds?

mikom · 18-01-2012 03:09PM

mauricebferris wrote: »

more extensive studies, have concluded that cannabis use takes time to present as a pcychotic illness. which normally presents in later life?

The study I have linked to was carried out on 6000 subjects over a period of ten years.

mauricebferris · 18-01-2012 03:09PM

mikom wrote: »

Both links checked and working.

Thats great, but not for me, alas.

I can't help notice you didn't respond to the points I made here, or answer the questions, which suggests you do seem to think that you prefer to rely on individual studies, whose conclusions you prefer, to a meta analysis of many studies where you don't want to agree with the conclusions.

If you are not able or willing to have a grown up discussion, and just ignore points made which you don't like, or evidence which you don't like, thats fine, we know where we stand.

mauricebferris wrote: »

I've tried your link but it doesn't work for me. I'm happy to discuss if you have any points you'd like to make.

Are you aware of the difference between a meta analysis, and individual studies?

If so, are you saying that the results of a meta analysis are invalid, in your judgment, if you can find one or a small number of studies where you prefer the conclusions?

Are you aware that it's highly likely one or a small number of studies are likely to find no link, due to the fact that other, more extensive studies, have concluded that cannabis use takes time to present as a pcychotic illness. which normally presents in later life? Consquently, the Keele study to which you refer would not be expected to find an increase in psychotic illness as cannabis use soars, because this would take years to manifest, and would not manifest at the same time as the use is soaring.

In the second study you mention, the conclusion was that no evidence could be found. As many other studies have found evidence, are you saying, in your juegment, one study which finds no evidence trumps many other studies which have found evidence?

Are you saying that the meta analysis quoted is incorrect and wrong, and that all the strudies they looked at are incorrect and wrong?

mikom · 18-01-2012 03:10PM

mauricebferris wrote: »

Thats great, but not for me, alas.

I can't help notice you didn't respond to the points I made here, or answer the questions;

Keep up please.

mauricebferris · 18-01-2012 03:20PM

MagicSean wrote: »

The harmful effects of cannabis are no worse than the harmful effects of alcohol. In fact, the country would be in much better shape if cannabis was legal and alcohol wasn't. In itself that is not an argument for legalising cannabis, more an argument for banning alcohol. But it comes down to choice. If we as a society are happy to let people make the choice on using alcohol, a dnagerous and addictive substance, then how can we justify the banning of cannabis on the same grounds?

You may well be right, although I've never seen any evidence that someone who has a glass of wine every night with dinner is likely to suffer much harm in the long term, but there is evidence to suggest that even small amounts of regular cannabis use increases your chances of psychotic illness in later life.

Can I ask if you are assuming that the damage done by one glass of wine per night is equivalent, statistically, to the damage done by a certain amount of smoking cannabis on a regular basis, in the long term, or if there is evidence to show that.

Certainly excessive alcohol consumption is statistically shown to be damaging, but my understandting with cannabis consumption is that it doesn't have to be excessive cannabis smoking which can lead to an increased chance of psychotic illness in later life, but "normal" or infrequent cannabis use can also lead to this increase in the chance of a psychotic illness in later life.

There are many factors, and one difference is that alcohol is very controlled regarding quality and strength of the alcohol one buys.

With any illegal product (including illegal alcohol) one gets no guarantees regarding quality or strength.

mauricebferris · 18-01-2012 03:22PM

mikom wrote: »

Keep up please.

I can't help notice you continue to avoid discussing the evidence, which suggests you have your own agenda here which is not evidence based.

mikom · 18-01-2012 03:27PM

mauricebferris wrote: »

There are many factors, and one difference is that alcohol is very controlled regarding quality and strength of the alcohol one buys.

With any illegal product (including illegal alcohol) one gets no guarantees regarding quality or strength.

Ah, like during alcohol prohibition in the states.
That worked out well.....

mauricebferris wrote: »

I can't help notice you continue to avoid discussing the evidence, which suggests you have your own agenda here which is not evidence based.

Please link this evidence as I have done.

FreudianSlippers · 18-01-2012 03:28PM

mauricebferris wrote: »

You may well be right, although I've never seen any evidence that someone who has a glass of wine every night with dinner is likely to suffer much harm in the long term, but there is evidence to suggest that cannabis use increases your chances of psychotic illness in later life.

Can I ask if you are assuming that the damage done by one glass of wind per night is equivalent, statistically, to the damage done by a certain amount of smoking cannabis on a regular basis, in the long term, or if there is evidence to show that.

Certainly excessive alcohol consumption is statistically shown to be damaging, but my understandting with cannabis consumption is that it doesn't have to be excessive cannabis smoking which can lead to an increased chance of psychotic illness in later life, but "normal" or infrequent cannabis use can also lead to this increase in the chance of a psychotic illness in later life.

There are many factors, and one difference is that alcohol is very controlled regarding quality and strength of the alcohol one buys.

With any illegal product (including illegal alcohol) one gets no guarantees regarding quality or strength.

Very importantly, the BMJ found quite clearly that it was not clear whether the link between cannabis and psychosis is causal, or whether it is because people with psychosis use cannabis to self medicate their symptoms.

In fact:

“[T]he expected rise in diagnoses of schizophrenia and psychoses did not occur over a 10 year period. This study does not therefore support the specific causal link between cannabis use and incidence of psychotic disorders. … This concurs with other reports indicating that increases in population cannabis use have not been followed by increases in psychotic incidence.”

Repeatedly, studies have found that people with schizophrenia are about twice as likely to smoke pot as those who are unaffected. Conversely, data suggest that those who smoke cannabis are twice as likely to develop schizophrenia as nonsmokers. One widely publicized 2007 review of the research even concluded that trying marijuana just once was associated with a 40% increase in risk of schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders.

But here's the conundrum: while marijuana went from being a secret shared by a small community of hepcats and beatniks in the 1940s and '50s to a rite of passage for some 70% of youth by the turn of the century, rates of schizophrenia in the U.S. have remained flat, or possibly declined. For as long as it has been tracked, schizophrenia has been found to affect about 1% of the population.

One explanation may be that the two factors are coincidental, not causal: perhaps people who have a genetic susceptibility to schizophrenia also happen to especially enjoy marijuana. Still, some studies suggest that smoking pot can actually trigger the disease earlier in individuals who are predisposed, and yet researchers still aren't seeing increases in the overall schizophrenia rate or decreases in the average age of onset.
In recent months, new research has explored some of these issues. One study led by Dr. Serge Sevy, an associate professor of psychiatry at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City, looked at 100 patients between the ages of 16 and 40 with schizophrenia, half of whom smoked marijuana. Sevy and colleagues found that among the marijuana users, 75% had begun smoking before the onset of schizophrenia and that their disease appeared about two years earlier than in those who did not use the drug. But when the researchers controlled for other factors known to influence schizophrenia risk, including gender, education and socioeconomic status, the association between disease onset and marijuana disappeared.

Gender alone accounted for a large proportion of the risk of early onset in Sevy's study, which included 69 men and 31 women. "Males in general have earlier age of onset of schizophrenia," says Sevy. In men, the disease tends to take hold around age 19, while in women it isn't typically seen until 22 — irrespective of marijuana use. But, typically, teenage boys are four times more likely than girls to be heavy pot smokers, which may create an illusory association between the drug and onset of the disease.
Yet past studies limited to males have found exactly such a link, associating marijuana use with earlier development of full-blown psychosis. And other research has found that ongoing cannabis use increases hospitalizations for psychotic symptoms in schizophrenic patients and decreases social and cognitive functioning. A 2008 review of the data found that relapse and failure to take prescribed medication was consistently associated with cannabis use, although, again, controlling for other factors weakened the link.
One explanation could be that the effects of marijuana vary depending on the genetics of the individual patient's schizophrenia. Marie-Odile Krebs, professor of psychiatry at the National Institute of Health and Medical Research (INSERM) laboratory in France, and her colleagues published a study in June that identified two broad groups of people with schizophrenia who used cannabis: those whose disease was profoundly affected by their drug use and those who were not.
Within Krebs's study population of 190 patients (121 of whom had used cannabis), researchers found a subgroup of 44 whose disease was powerfully affected by the drug. These patients either developed schizophrenia within a month of beginning to smoke pot or saw their existing psychosis severely exacerbated with each successive exposure to the drug. Schizophrenia appeared in these patients nearly three years earlier than in other marijuana-users with the disease.

sources: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d738 ; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19560900 ; http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2005559,00.html#ixzz1jouKLgMB

Ash.J.Williams · 18-01-2012 03:30PM

Quote (Originally by mauricebferris)---
There are many factors, and one difference is that alcohol is very controlled regarding quality and strength of the alcohol one buys.

With any illegal product (including illegal alcohol) one gets no guarantees regarding quality or strength

For me that's a positive for keeping things illegal...The luck of the draw!!

mauricebferris · 18-01-2012 03:55PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Very importantly, the BMJ found quite clearly that it was not clear whether the link between cannabis and psychosis is causal, or whether it is because people with psychosis use cannabis to self medicate their symptoms.

In fact:

sources: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d738 ; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19560900 ; http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2005559,00.html#ixzz1jouKLgMB

“[T]he expected rise in diagnoses of schizophrenia and psychoses did not occur over a 10 year period. This study does not therefore support the specific causal link between cannabis use and incidence of psychotic disorders..."

It is quite clear that no one who has researched the topic would expect to see a rise in psychotic illness within 10 years. (Thats a little like saying that there was no statistical evidence for lung cancer in cigarette smokers in the 10 years after they started smoking, and concluding from that that cigarette smoking does not increase the chances of lung cancer).

Its curious that you should ignore a meta analysis, and produce this evidence, from one organisation, as it this evidence were the definitive evidence.

I aks you the same question I asked the other poster who danced around it and was unable or unwilling to confront it;

Is it your judgment that this one piece of evidence from the BMA is better evidence than the meta analysis to which I referred, and is it your judgement that the evidence and conclusions of the meta analysis are somehow flawed and less good than the evidence from this one study?

Many people still smoke cigarettes and ignore the evidence that it might lead to long term health problems for them, so I can't imagine that cannabis smokers will be any different and will continue to smoke cannabis despite the evidence available that it is unlikely to be good for their health in the long term, but to claim that one study is more likely to produce better results than a meta analysis of many studies, seems to be an unusual claim, if in fact that is what you are trying to claim here.

FreudianSlippers · 18-01-2012 04:28PM

mauricebferris wrote: »

“[T]he expected rise in diagnoses of schizophrenia and psychoses did not occur over a 10 year period. This study does not therefore support the specific causal link between cannabis use and incidence of psychotic disorders..."

It is quite clear that no one who has researched the topic would expect to see a rise in psychotic illness within 10 years. (Thats a little like saying that there was no statistical evidence for lung cancer in cigarette smokers in the 10 years after they started smoking, and concluding from that that cigarette smoking does not increase the chances of lung cancer).

Its curious that you should ignore a meta analysis, and produce this evidence, from one organisation, as it this evidence were the definitive evidence.

I aks you the same question I asked the other poster who danced around it and was unable or unwilling to confront it;

Is it your judgment that this one piece of evidence from the BMA is better evidence than the meta analysis to which I referred, and is it your judgement that the evidence and conclusions of the meta analysis are somehow flawed and less good than the evidence from this one study?

Many people still smoke cigarettes and ignore the evidence that it might lead to long term health problems for them, so I can't imagine that cannabis smokers will be any different and will continue to smoke cannabis despite the evidence available that it is unlikely to be good for their health in the long term, but to claim that one study is more likely to produce better results than a meta analysis of many studies, seems to be an unusual claim, if in fact that is what you are trying to claim here.

Well, firstly, you haven't cited any sources for your "meta analysis" other than

Moore, Zammit, Lingford-Hughes, Barnes, Jones, Burke and Lewis did a meta analysis of studies into the risk of psychotic or affective mental health outcomes.

So one can only presume you are referring to this:

There was an increased risk of any psychotic outcome in individuals who had ever used cannabis (pooled adjusted odds ratio=1.41, 95% CI 1.20-1.65). Findings were consistent with a dose-response effect, with greater risk in people who used cannabis most frequently (2.09, 1.54-2.84). Results of analyses restricted to studies of more clinically relevant psychotic disorders were similar. Depression, suicidal thoughts, and anxiety outcomes were examined separately. Findings for these outcomes were less consistent, and fewer attempts were made to address non-causal explanations, than for psychosis. A substantial confounding effect was present for both psychotic and affective outcomes.

A confounder is a variable related to two factors of interest that falsely obscures or accentuates the relationship between them (Meinert, 1986, p. 285).

The confounding hypothesis suggests that a third variable explains the relationship between an independent and dependent variable (Breslow & Day, 1980; Meinert, 1986; Robins, 1989; Susser, 1973). Unlike the mediational hypothesis, confounding does not necessarily imply a causal relationship among the variables. In fact, at least one definition of a confounder effect specifically requires that the third variable not be an “intermediate” variable, as mediators are termed in epidemiological literature (Last, 1988, p. 29). For example, age may confound the positive relationship between annual income and cancer incidence in the United States. Older individuals are likely to earn more money than younger individuals who have not spent as much time in the work force, and older individuals are also more likely to get cancer. Income and cancer incidence are thus related through a common confounder, age. Income does not cause age, which then causes cancer. In terms of the following:

This confounding model would reverse the direction of the arrow between the independent variable and the third variable.

So yes, the BMA evidence is more in line with the general scientific theory at present - any evidence such as the one I presume you refer to has a significant confounding effect as stated in black and white in their own abstract. In other words, correlation does not imply causation.

srsly78 · 18-01-2012 06:15PM

mauricebferris wrote: »

If you really believe that the only argument against cannabis is that it acts as a gateway to other drugs, then that suggests either you don't want to research it, or have not researched it.

Moore, Zammit, Lingford-Hughes, Barnes, Jones, Burke and Lewis did a meta analysis of studies into the risk of psychotic or affective mental health outcomes.

"There was an increased risk of any psychotic outcome in individuals who had ever used cannabis. Finding were consistent with a dose-responsive effect with greater risk in people who used cannabis more frequently"

As you can see from the posts above, that has been discredited. That study comes up every time with this topic, and gets shot to pieces.

The illegality aspect is a major cause of paranoia I would also wager. Growers are unbelievably paranoid, and rightly so given the sanctions they face for even small amounts.

jased10s · 19-01-2012 10:53PM

If you went to amsterdam or any other place where weed was tolarated then paranoia is non existent. You only get paranoid if you are made to be paranoid but such stupid laws we have.

CiaranMT · 19-01-2012 11:17PM

paddyandy wrote: »

A whole new raft of problems from legalising drugs...it has'nt worked anywhere .Ireland would draw a very sinister kind of attention from crime gangs around the world .We have plenty enough problems as it is .Visit Brixton in south London and hear of tales to make you shudder . I lived over there .

I know it's from the start of the thread but what a hilarious excuse for a point^.

jased10s wrote: »

If you went to amsterdam or any other place where weed was tolarated then paranoia is non existent. You only get paranoid if you are made to be paranoid but such stupid laws we have.

Social practices and norms do play a huge role in mental health alright.

paddyandy · 20-01-2012 01:10AM

CIARN : Why quote the ''hilarious'' in a serious debate ? It niggles does'nt it ..too factual .
i have been quoted quite a lot on this thread .That gives me credibility i think .

Legalise and tax soft drugs

Comments