<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Reefer Badness</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.badscience.net/2007/03/reefer-badness/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.badscience.net/2007/03/reefer-badness/</link>
	<description>Ben Goldacre&#039;s Bad Science column from the Guardian and more...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 04:31:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Snuggie</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2007/03/reefer-badness/comment-page-2/#comment-30898</link>
		<dc:creator>Snuggie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2010 08:55:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=389#comment-30898</guid>
		<description>Snuggie blanket &lt;a href=&quot;//www.snuggieblanketsale.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Snuggie blanket&lt;/a&gt;
blanket with sleeves &lt;a href=&quot;//www.snuggieblanketsale.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;blanket with sleeves&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Snuggie blanket <a href="//www.snuggieblanketsale.com/" rel="nofollow">Snuggie blanket</a><br />
blanket with sleeves <a href="//www.snuggieblanketsale.com/" rel="nofollow">blanket with sleeves</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: diudiu</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2007/03/reefer-badness/comment-page-2/#comment-30179</link>
		<dc:creator>diudiu</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Dec 2009 05:44:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=389#comment-30179</guid>
		<description>ed hardy &lt;a title=&quot;ed hardy&quot; href=&quot;http://www.edhardyclub.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ed hardy&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
ed hardy clothing &lt;a title=&quot;ed hardy clothing&quot; href=&quot;http://www.edhardyclub.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ed hardy clothing&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
ed hardy jeans &lt;a title=&quot;ed hardy jeans&quot; href=&quot;http://www.edhardyclub.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ed hardy jeans&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
christian audigier &lt;a title=&quot;christian audigier&quot; href=&quot;http://www.edhardyclub.com/christian-audigier.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;christian audigier&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
ed hardy t shirts &lt;a title=&quot;ed hardy t shirts&quot; href=&quot;http://www.edhardyclub.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ed hardy t shirts&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
ed hardy uk &lt;a title=&quot;ed hardy uk&quot; href=&quot;http://www.edhardyclub.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ed hardy uk&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
ed hardy bags &lt;a title=&quot;ed hardy bags&quot; href=&quot;http://www.edhardyclub.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ed hardy bags&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
ed hardy hoodies &lt;a title=&quot;ed hardy hoodies&quot; href=&quot;http://www.edhardyclub.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ed hardy hoodies&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
ed hardy mens &lt;a title=&quot;ed hardy mens&quot; href=&quot;http://www.edhardyclub.com/mens.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ed hardy mens&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
ed hardy womens &lt;a title=&quot;ed hardy womens&quot; href=&quot;http://www.edhardyclub.com/womens.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ed hardy womens&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
ed hardy kids &lt;a title=&quot;ed hardy kids&quot; href=&quot;http://www.edhardyclub.com/kids.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ed hardy kids&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; ed hardy kids</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>ed hardy <a title="ed hardy" href="http://www.edhardyclub.com" rel="nofollow"><strong>ed hardy</strong></a><br />
ed hardy clothing <a title="ed hardy clothing" href="http://www.edhardyclub.com" rel="nofollow"><strong>ed hardy clothing</strong></a><br />
ed hardy jeans <a title="ed hardy jeans" href="http://www.edhardyclub.com" rel="nofollow"><strong>ed hardy jeans</strong></a><br />
christian audigier <a title="christian audigier" href="http://www.edhardyclub.com/christian-audigier.html" rel="nofollow"><strong>christian audigier</strong></a><br />
ed hardy t shirts <a title="ed hardy t shirts" href="http://www.edhardyclub.com" rel="nofollow"><strong>ed hardy t shirts</strong></a><br />
ed hardy uk <a title="ed hardy uk" href="http://www.edhardyclub.com" rel="nofollow"><strong>ed hardy uk</strong></a><br />
ed hardy bags <a title="ed hardy bags" href="http://www.edhardyclub.com" rel="nofollow"><strong>ed hardy bags</strong></a><br />
ed hardy hoodies <a title="ed hardy hoodies" href="http://www.edhardyclub.com" rel="nofollow"><strong>ed hardy hoodies</strong></a><br />
ed hardy mens <a title="ed hardy mens" href="http://www.edhardyclub.com/mens.html" rel="nofollow"><strong>ed hardy mens</strong></a><br />
ed hardy womens <a title="ed hardy womens" href="http://www.edhardyclub.com/womens.html" rel="nofollow"><strong>ed hardy womens</strong></a><br />
ed hardy kids <a title="ed hardy kids" href="http://www.edhardyclub.com/kids.html" rel="nofollow"><strong>ed hardy kids</strong></a> ed hardy kids</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: iNotHere</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2007/03/reefer-badness/comment-page-2/#comment-27741</link>
		<dc:creator>iNotHere</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Sep 2009 13:51:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=389#comment-27741</guid>
		<description>#63 &quot;Clearly, there is an association (probably causal)  between cannabis smoking and schizophrenia. I do not think that it can be shown definitively that this requires a pre-schizoid personality (whatever that is) for it to manifest. Were cannabis a prescription drug it would probably be banned because of this association&quot;.

There are a host of prescribed drugs on the market that have mental problems as a side effect. Prednisolone for example, used for the treatment of COPD, emphysema etc can cause psychotic episodes. Ventolin a very widely used asthma treatment can cause anxiety, which can sometimes lead to panic attacks, nervousness, most anti-psychotic drugs cause psychosis. Certain anti epilepsy mood stabilisers can cause depression. If these drugs can be controlled to the extent that they can be used safely then what&#039;s wrong with cannabis use?

If cannabis causes even a tenth of the problems that prescription drugs cause then it is definitely less harmful, and seeing as it has now been proven that schizophrenia rates have not raised as cannabis use has increased I think it&#039;s about time it was legalised regulated and taxed. Oh and also I think alchohol should be regulated tighter than what it is now. Allowing it to be sold in the same manner as groceries was a ridiculously irresponsible thing for the government to do. It should not be sold in supermarkets but in pubs and off licenses only.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>#63 &#8220;Clearly, there is an association (probably causal)  between cannabis smoking and schizophrenia. I do not think that it can be shown definitively that this requires a pre-schizoid personality (whatever that is) for it to manifest. Were cannabis a prescription drug it would probably be banned because of this association&#8221;.</p>
<p>There are a host of prescribed drugs on the market that have mental problems as a side effect. Prednisolone for example, used for the treatment of COPD, emphysema etc can cause psychotic episodes. Ventolin a very widely used asthma treatment can cause anxiety, which can sometimes lead to panic attacks, nervousness, most anti-psychotic drugs cause psychosis. Certain anti epilepsy mood stabilisers can cause depression. If these drugs can be controlled to the extent that they can be used safely then what&#8217;s wrong with cannabis use?</p>
<p>If cannabis causes even a tenth of the problems that prescription drugs cause then it is definitely less harmful, and seeing as it has now been proven that schizophrenia rates have not raised as cannabis use has increased I think it&#8217;s about time it was legalised regulated and taxed. Oh and also I think alchohol should be regulated tighter than what it is now. Allowing it to be sold in the same manner as groceries was a ridiculously irresponsible thing for the government to do. It should not be sold in supermarkets but in pubs and off licenses only.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: minktoast</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2007/03/reefer-badness/comment-page-2/#comment-25596</link>
		<dc:creator>minktoast</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Mar 2009 10:35:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=389#comment-25596</guid>
		<description>And The Guardian is at it now:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/mar/15/drugs-skunk-family

No doubt prompted by the Myersons. Any plans to revisit the topic Ben?

(Am tempted to tell an anecdote here about how I stopped working hard as teenager and how it was much more to do with my hormones than skunk which I&#039;d never even heard of... but that would render the comment anecdotal!)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And The Guardian is at it now:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/mar/15/drugs-skunk-family" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/mar/15/drugs-skunk-family</a></p>
<p>No doubt prompted by the Myersons. Any plans to revisit the topic Ben?</p>
<p>(Am tempted to tell an anecdote here about how I stopped working hard as teenager and how it was much more to do with my hormones than skunk which I&#8217;d never even heard of&#8230; but that would render the comment anecdotal!)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Domain Rider</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2007/03/reefer-badness/comment-page-2/#comment-25034</link>
		<dc:creator>Domain Rider</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:22:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=389#comment-25034</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m reluctant to revive this dead horse for more flogging, but &#039;Reefer Madness&#039; is back again with the new &#039;Talk To Frank&#039; adverts on TV.

There&#039;s not much more to say that hasn&#039;t already been said too many times already, but the advertisers appear to have waited until the Government&#039;s decision to ignore the Drugs Advisory Council recommendation to retain cannabis in category C was eclipsed by the Government&#039;s refusal to follow their recommendation to degrade Ecstasy from category A to category B.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m reluctant to revive this dead horse for more flogging, but &#8216;Reefer Madness&#8217; is back again with the new &#8216;Talk To Frank&#8217; adverts on TV.</p>
<p>There&#8217;s not much more to say that hasn&#8217;t already been said too many times already, but the advertisers appear to have waited until the Government&#8217;s decision to ignore the Drugs Advisory Council recommendation to retain cannabis in category C was eclipsed by the Government&#8217;s refusal to follow their recommendation to degrade Ecstasy from category A to category B.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anthony Nonny-Mousse</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2007/03/reefer-badness/comment-page-2/#comment-13610</link>
		<dc:creator>Anthony Nonny-Mousse</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Jun 2007 19:14:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=389#comment-13610</guid>
		<description>I must wonder. Could these claims that &quot;skunk&quot;, i.e. pot grown with modern techniques, was 35 times stronger than pot of yore have come from taking the THC content per plant mass of an ye olde average cannabis plant of either sex, and comparing that to modern pot?

My understanding is that pot growing in the sixties tended to be rather haphazard, with little attention given to e.g. removing male plants whose presence (causing pollination and therefore seed production) tends to diminish the quality of &quot;bud&quot; from the females. Today, cannabis strains are such that whereas fourty years ago a plant at harvest time might&#039;ve been by weight 90% leaf and other even less desirable parts of the plant and less than 10% bud, a well-tended plant may end up looking like a thick wedge of buds. The main branches of such plants are sometimes termed &quot;bats&quot; as their shape resembles that of a piece of baseball equipment and some could conceivably be swung around without breaking.

It would not surprise me if the difference in delta-9-THC (and its other active-ish friends) per total plant weight between the worst of mexican brick-schwag and the highest-quality modern Dutch skunk were indeed tenfold. The other 25 folds could be chalked up to media hyperbole; I&#039;ve certainly seen the &quot;order of magnitude&quot; figure take many forms.

This of course says more about the production margins per square meter of growing space between then and now, than of the relative quality of pot available to your ordinary consumer.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I must wonder. Could these claims that &#8220;skunk&#8221;, i.e. pot grown with modern techniques, was 35 times stronger than pot of yore have come from taking the THC content per plant mass of an ye olde average cannabis plant of either sex, and comparing that to modern pot?</p>
<p>My understanding is that pot growing in the sixties tended to be rather haphazard, with little attention given to e.g. removing male plants whose presence (causing pollination and therefore seed production) tends to diminish the quality of &#8220;bud&#8221; from the females. Today, cannabis strains are such that whereas fourty years ago a plant at harvest time might&#8217;ve been by weight 90% leaf and other even less desirable parts of the plant and less than 10% bud, a well-tended plant may end up looking like a thick wedge of buds. The main branches of such plants are sometimes termed &#8220;bats&#8221; as their shape resembles that of a piece of baseball equipment and some could conceivably be swung around without breaking.</p>
<p>It would not surprise me if the difference in delta-9-THC (and its other active-ish friends) per total plant weight between the worst of mexican brick-schwag and the highest-quality modern Dutch skunk were indeed tenfold. The other 25 folds could be chalked up to media hyperbole; I&#8217;ve certainly seen the &#8220;order of magnitude&#8221; figure take many forms.</p>
<p>This of course says more about the production margins per square meter of growing space between then and now, than of the relative quality of pot available to your ordinary consumer.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hatter</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2007/03/reefer-badness/comment-page-2/#comment-13104</link>
		<dc:creator>hatter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 May 2007 10:16:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=389#comment-13104</guid>
		<description>http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/story/0,,2041748,00.html

suraci I&#039;ve worked with regular users of alcohol. The alcies appeared to be demotivated and unfocused. If they turned up for work at all they would take a long time over easy tasks, and make frequent mistakes. They were a nightmare to work with, because everybody else had to cover for them. Even worse was that they were permanently belligerant, obnoxious and hostile.

I also worked with some alcohol addicts. One didn&#039;t turn up one day as he had died in the night aged 26 from an overdose. The other was a danger to himself and everybody else. Most refused to work with him. I did and he nearly killed us both, though he was driving a car and probably shouldn&#039;t have been as he was in the middle of a rehab course. He mounted the kerb while passing a school but somehow we missed all the kids walking home. That one would have made the news if we hadn&#039;t, because we would have killed quite a few.

Do those of you regulary taking alcohol drive a car or work in medicine. Have you considered the innocent people in the cars approaching yours at a combined speed of maybe 120 mph legally, with a seperation of just a few feet. No airbag in the world is going to save you or them if you wander just a few feet in your drug induced loss of coordiantion and crash head on.


Why does a drug like cannabis bring up silly nonsense like worrying about being operated on by a stoned doctor?  Is someone that irresponsible going to be concerned about something as minor as the drug being illegal?  Are there really people so dimwitted that they think that making cannabis legal is going to have armies of doctors thinking &quot;hey now I can perform surgery while stoned&quot;?  We already have laws to deal with driving or practicing medicine while intoxicated.  Making other recreational drugs legal isn&#039;t going to change the landscape.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/story/0,,2041748,00.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/story/0,,2041748,00.html</a></p>
<p>suraci I&#8217;ve worked with regular users of alcohol. The alcies appeared to be demotivated and unfocused. If they turned up for work at all they would take a long time over easy tasks, and make frequent mistakes. They were a nightmare to work with, because everybody else had to cover for them. Even worse was that they were permanently belligerant, obnoxious and hostile.</p>
<p>I also worked with some alcohol addicts. One didn&#8217;t turn up one day as he had died in the night aged 26 from an overdose. The other was a danger to himself and everybody else. Most refused to work with him. I did and he nearly killed us both, though he was driving a car and probably shouldn&#8217;t have been as he was in the middle of a rehab course. He mounted the kerb while passing a school but somehow we missed all the kids walking home. That one would have made the news if we hadn&#8217;t, because we would have killed quite a few.</p>
<p>Do those of you regulary taking alcohol drive a car or work in medicine. Have you considered the innocent people in the cars approaching yours at a combined speed of maybe 120 mph legally, with a seperation of just a few feet. No airbag in the world is going to save you or them if you wander just a few feet in your drug induced loss of coordiantion and crash head on.</p>
<p>Why does a drug like cannabis bring up silly nonsense like worrying about being operated on by a stoned doctor?  Is someone that irresponsible going to be concerned about something as minor as the drug being illegal?  Are there really people so dimwitted that they think that making cannabis legal is going to have armies of doctors thinking &#8220;hey now I can perform surgery while stoned&#8221;?  We already have laws to deal with driving or practicing medicine while intoxicated.  Making other recreational drugs legal isn&#8217;t going to change the landscape.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: psychopharm</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2007/03/reefer-badness/comment-page-2/#comment-12522</link>
		<dc:creator>psychopharm</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Apr 2007 12:38:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=389#comment-12522</guid>
		<description>I have had close contact with two mothers whose daughters  smoked cannabis since their teenage years and now have untreatable psychotic/schizophrenic symptoms.  One had a rope noose strung up in her back shed where she took her preschool children to see what would happen if they misbehaved.  I find this frightening, to say the least.   This concerned grandmother gets no help from the &quot;state&quot; for caring for these vulnerable kids!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have had close contact with two mothers whose daughters  smoked cannabis since their teenage years and now have untreatable psychotic/schizophrenic symptoms.  One had a rope noose strung up in her back shed where she took her preschool children to see what would happen if they misbehaved.  I find this frightening, to say the least.   This concerned grandmother gets no help from the &#8220;state&#8221; for caring for these vulnerable kids!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: terry hamblin</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2007/03/reefer-badness/comment-page-2/#comment-12406</link>
		<dc:creator>terry hamblin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2007 19:18:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=389#comment-12406</guid>
		<description>As someone who has never smoked tobacco, taken an illegal drug and who drinks about as much alcohol as Jesus, I find this whole argument perplexing. I have notice a larger than normal quantity of typos in the comments, so perhaps some of you are on something while you are writing. There does seem to be an awful lot of special pleading going on here. I imagine that smoking cannabis produces some sort of subjective pleasure that many would not want to be denied. I can understand that. I get the same from a glass of red wine with a meal sometimes. Nevertheless, I am so concerned about the numbers of lives ruined by alcohol that I would happily not drink another drop if that could reduce the carnage. Clearly, there is an association (probably causal) between cannabis smoking and schizophrenia. I do not think that it can be shown definitively that this requires a pre-schizoid personality (whatever that is) for it to manifest. Were cannabis a prescription drug it would probably be banned because of this association.

At present it seems that criminals (often apparently from Viet Nam) are making a great deal of money from growing cannabis in indoor farms, 40 of which have been closed down in London in the past year. This is so redolent of the effect of prohibition in America that it does demand some sort of government action. However, it is by no means clear what this action should be. The IOS article seems to be blatant propaganda and their excuse that skunk is stronger than previous types of cannabis sounds like a bit of self-exculpation. But then I stopped looking for the truth in the Independent decades ago.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As someone who has never smoked tobacco, taken an illegal drug and who drinks about as much alcohol as Jesus, I find this whole argument perplexing. I have notice a larger than normal quantity of typos in the comments, so perhaps some of you are on something while you are writing. There does seem to be an awful lot of special pleading going on here. I imagine that smoking cannabis produces some sort of subjective pleasure that many would not want to be denied. I can understand that. I get the same from a glass of red wine with a meal sometimes. Nevertheless, I am so concerned about the numbers of lives ruined by alcohol that I would happily not drink another drop if that could reduce the carnage. Clearly, there is an association (probably causal) between cannabis smoking and schizophrenia. I do not think that it can be shown definitively that this requires a pre-schizoid personality (whatever that is) for it to manifest. Were cannabis a prescription drug it would probably be banned because of this association.</p>
<p>At present it seems that criminals (often apparently from Viet Nam) are making a great deal of money from growing cannabis in indoor farms, 40 of which have been closed down in London in the past year. This is so redolent of the effect of prohibition in America that it does demand some sort of government action. However, it is by no means clear what this action should be. The IOS article seems to be blatant propaganda and their excuse that skunk is stronger than previous types of cannabis sounds like a bit of self-exculpation. But then I stopped looking for the truth in the Independent decades ago.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: el capitana</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2007/03/reefer-badness/comment-page-2/#comment-12357</link>
		<dc:creator>el capitana</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2007 19:30:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=389#comment-12357</guid>
		<description>.....you&#039;re misunderstanding me again
Im not saying &#039;there is no link between cannabis and schizophrenia / psychosis&#039;&#039;, 
I&#039;m saying its one thing to say &#039;cannabis can severely worsen latent or underlying issues&#039;
(which I completely agree with) and another to say &#039;cannabis causes schizophrenia&#039;, especially given the fact that NO ONE actually knows what causes schizophrenia, or even understands it fully. Drug induced psychosis may mimic aspects of schizophrenia, but it is NOT the same thing. You seem to think I&#039;m pro cannabis, I&#039;m not, I don&#039;t like it, I&#039;m just saying people shouldn&#039;t be bandying around statements about schizophrenia as if there fact, when there&#039;s no proof behind them whatsoever. It&#039;s like saying, if a car hits you at 80 MPH, you will die, therefore if you touch a stationary car you will also die.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8230;..you&#8217;re misunderstanding me again<br />
Im not saying &#8216;there is no link between cannabis and schizophrenia / psychosis&#8221;,<br />
I&#8217;m saying its one thing to say &#8216;cannabis can severely worsen latent or underlying issues&#8217;<br />
(which I completely agree with) and another to say &#8216;cannabis causes schizophrenia&#8217;, especially given the fact that NO ONE actually knows what causes schizophrenia, or even understands it fully. Drug induced psychosis may mimic aspects of schizophrenia, but it is NOT the same thing. You seem to think I&#8217;m pro cannabis, I&#8217;m not, I don&#8217;t like it, I&#8217;m just saying people shouldn&#8217;t be bandying around statements about schizophrenia as if there fact, when there&#8217;s no proof behind them whatsoever. It&#8217;s like saying, if a car hits you at 80 MPH, you will die, therefore if you touch a stationary car you will also die.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ijon Tichy</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2007/03/reefer-badness/comment-page-2/#comment-12352</link>
		<dc:creator>Ijon Tichy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2007 17:45:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=389#comment-12352</guid>
		<description>&quot;So, a few hours smoking cannabis can lead to psychosis - and could also lead to mental illness in your descendents? That seems to be your implication, unless Iâ€™ve misunderstood. (Apologies if that is the case). &quot;

No, dear boy (girl?), that&#039;s not what I meant. Repeated use of cannabis can bring on episodes of mental illness, especially in individuals who have a history of same in their family. Now, it is entirely possible that an individual may have such a history, but be unaware of it. 

As for it being a &#039;huge leap of faith&#039; to draw a link between cannabis and schizophrenia, I&#039;d be more inclined to consider a good rule of thumb. 

And even if the media misrepresents the situation under discussion for nefarious purposes of its own, it doesn&#039; t mean that the opposite point of view is not also a misrepresentation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;So, a few hours smoking cannabis can lead to psychosis &#8211; and could also lead to mental illness in your descendents? That seems to be your implication, unless Iâ€™ve misunderstood. (Apologies if that is the case). &#8221;</p>
<p>No, dear boy (girl?), that&#8217;s not what I meant. Repeated use of cannabis can bring on episodes of mental illness, especially in individuals who have a history of same in their family. Now, it is entirely possible that an individual may have such a history, but be unaware of it. </p>
<p>As for it being a &#8216;huge leap of faith&#8217; to draw a link between cannabis and schizophrenia, I&#8217;d be more inclined to consider a good rule of thumb. </p>
<p>And even if the media misrepresents the situation under discussion for nefarious purposes of its own, it doesn&#8217; t mean that the opposite point of view is not also a misrepresentation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: el capitana</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2007/03/reefer-badness/comment-page-2/#comment-12349</link>
		<dc:creator>el capitana</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2007 17:26:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=389#comment-12349</guid>
		<description>Yes, I have seen people with schizophrenia and psychosis, I know exactly what it&#039;s like.
You seem to think I&#039;m pro-psychosis (?) in which case you&#039;ve missed my point.
I&#039;m not even particularly pro-cannabis. I agree that people with latent mental illnesses or a pre-disposition to psychosis (such as those with a family history) should aviod all drugs. My point is, to take the leap and say &#039;cannabis causes schizophrenia&#039; is one of huge faith. And, when such incidences are measured against the number of people who smoke with no problems, they represent a minute minority. The fact is that a small amount of cases are seized on by the media and used to represent the whole.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, I have seen people with schizophrenia and psychosis, I know exactly what it&#8217;s like.<br />
You seem to think I&#8217;m pro-psychosis (?) in which case you&#8217;ve missed my point.<br />
I&#8217;m not even particularly pro-cannabis. I agree that people with latent mental illnesses or a pre-disposition to psychosis (such as those with a family history) should aviod all drugs. My point is, to take the leap and say &#8216;cannabis causes schizophrenia&#8217; is one of huge faith. And, when such incidences are measured against the number of people who smoke with no problems, they represent a minute minority. The fact is that a small amount of cases are seized on by the media and used to represent the whole.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jdc325</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2007/03/reefer-badness/comment-page-2/#comment-12347</link>
		<dc:creator>jdc325</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:46:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=389#comment-12347</guid>
		<description>So, a few hours smoking cannabis can lead to psychosis - and could also lead to mental illness in your descendents? That seems to be your implication, unless I&#039;ve misunderstood. (Apologies if that is the case).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So, a few hours smoking cannabis can lead to psychosis &#8211; and could also lead to mental illness in your descendents? That seems to be your implication, unless I&#8217;ve misunderstood. (Apologies if that is the case).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ijon Tichy</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2007/03/reefer-badness/comment-page-2/#comment-12337</link>
		<dc:creator>Ijon Tichy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:38:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=389#comment-12337</guid>
		<description>Even if it is the case that the link between cannabis and schizophrenia and psychosis remains unproven, I would not advise any to throw caution to the wind and start emitting spliff-smoke from their drug head. Given the effects of schizophrenia and psychosis (have you ever seen anyone suffer like that, btw? You wouldn&#039;t wish it on a dog, believe me), I don&#039;t think it&#039;s a price worth paying (or even risking) for a few hours witless, slackjawed pleasure.

If you have a history of mental illness in your family, it would be a very good idea to avoid the weed at all costs; and every family history of mental illness has to start with one person.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Even if it is the case that the link between cannabis and schizophrenia and psychosis remains unproven, I would not advise any to throw caution to the wind and start emitting spliff-smoke from their drug head. Given the effects of schizophrenia and psychosis (have you ever seen anyone suffer like that, btw? You wouldn&#8217;t wish it on a dog, believe me), I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s a price worth paying (or even risking) for a few hours witless, slackjawed pleasure.</p>
<p>If you have a history of mental illness in your family, it would be a very good idea to avoid the weed at all costs; and every family history of mental illness has to start with one person.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: el capitana</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2007/03/reefer-badness/comment-page-2/#comment-12288</link>
		<dc:creator>el capitana</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:13:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=389#comment-12288</guid>
		<description>Certain strains of Thai or SE asian weed available in the 70&#039;s would probably be as strong as if not stronger than today&#039;s commercial skunk. I think inflating the increase in THC content is the least of the bad science crimes being perpetrated in the current debate on cannabis use. What is more disturbing is the amount of commenators, mps, journalists etc who are publicly leaping to the conclusion that a) cannabis use causes schizophrenia and b) higher incedences of psychosis will therefore occur in years to come. THC may be seen, like LSD, as a psychotomimetic (in far higher doses than lsd obviously), but there is still no conclusive proof whatsoever that it can actually cause either schizophrenia / psychosis. The fact may be that cannabis merely reveals or heightens an already present mental health problem, or alternately, that already mentaly ill people are extremely likely to self medicate with cannabis (amongst others) and thus have their aflictions labelled as &#039;drug induced&#039; when they are examined by a professional. Additonally, it is interesting to look at other countries such as the Netherlands or Belgium (with wholly and partially decriminalised cannabis policies respectively) and see that they do not have proportionally higher incedences of psychosis than the UK, and actually use less cannabis per capita than UK residents.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Certain strains of Thai or SE asian weed available in the 70&#8217;s would probably be as strong as if not stronger than today&#8217;s commercial skunk. I think inflating the increase in THC content is the least of the bad science crimes being perpetrated in the current debate on cannabis use. What is more disturbing is the amount of commenators, mps, journalists etc who are publicly leaping to the conclusion that a) cannabis use causes schizophrenia and b) higher incedences of psychosis will therefore occur in years to come. THC may be seen, like LSD, as a psychotomimetic (in far higher doses than lsd obviously), but there is still no conclusive proof whatsoever that it can actually cause either schizophrenia / psychosis. The fact may be that cannabis merely reveals or heightens an already present mental health problem, or alternately, that already mentaly ill people are extremely likely to self medicate with cannabis (amongst others) and thus have their aflictions labelled as &#8216;drug induced&#8217; when they are examined by a professional. Additonally, it is interesting to look at other countries such as the Netherlands or Belgium (with wholly and partially decriminalised cannabis policies respectively) and see that they do not have proportionally higher incedences of psychosis than the UK, and actually use less cannabis per capita than UK residents.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CaptainKirkham</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2007/03/reefer-badness/comment-page-2/#comment-12287</link>
		<dc:creator>CaptainKirkham</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Mar 2007 14:29:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=389#comment-12287</guid>
		<description>I mostly agree with Lepak, although I think people do adjust how much they put in joints depending on what strength they have.  This, alas, is the consequence of the illegality of the stuff.  I&#039;m pretty sure (anecdotally) that many people would not of choice buy and use skunk - it can be pretty mental stuff - but sometimes it is all that there is on the market.  Unless you have your own home grown, or a reliable, long term dealer (something of a rare comodity, since they tend to come and go, simply because of their annoying propensity for getting done by the police) you buy what is available, and that isn&#039;t always the nice stuff.

Ironically, this can mean that the heavy skunk is being used because that&#039;s all that is available because, say, the police had a big bust of a hash shipment that month.  Another arse-about-face result of prohibition.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I mostly agree with Lepak, although I think people do adjust how much they put in joints depending on what strength they have.  This, alas, is the consequence of the illegality of the stuff.  I&#8217;m pretty sure (anecdotally) that many people would not of choice buy and use skunk &#8211; it can be pretty mental stuff &#8211; but sometimes it is all that there is on the market.  Unless you have your own home grown, or a reliable, long term dealer (something of a rare comodity, since they tend to come and go, simply because of their annoying propensity for getting done by the police) you buy what is available, and that isn&#8217;t always the nice stuff.</p>
<p>Ironically, this can mean that the heavy skunk is being used because that&#8217;s all that is available because, say, the police had a big bust of a hash shipment that month.  Another arse-about-face result of prohibition.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: stever</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2007/03/reefer-badness/comment-page-2/#comment-12279</link>
		<dc:creator>stever</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2007 19:31:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=389#comment-12279</guid>
		<description>gah - only human - I meant 48. no matter.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>gah &#8211; only human &#8211; I meant 48. no matter.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: vercingertorix</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2007/03/reefer-badness/comment-page-2/#comment-12278</link>
		<dc:creator>vercingertorix</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2007 18:58:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=389#comment-12278</guid>
		<description>Graphs and Politics go hand in hand and see the mess it has made. So many knowledgeable people with so much information and no real experience of what they are talking about. 
(What is an auto-titration effect? Or is it something one can catch only using cannabis?)

However after using cannabis for some 45 years I can say without a doubt that it is not so dangerous as using alcohol or tobacco. Despite what the government of Britain or the USA would like us all to believe. The proof of the pudding is eating it. Here Mr Bush could help by being honest about his past life as a cocain user and there is not one yet that I have met that has not used cannabis as well, so what really is all this scare mongering about? Honesty?

Its very naive to think that Britons did not smoke the hemp that made so many miles of rope for the navy or that Mrs Beaton did not have a recepy for hash cake in the original version of the cookbook. Cannabis has always been a poor mans relief (think about it) up untill recently, when the worm turned and is making some &#039;poor&#039; extremely rich. It really has nothing to do with health but with taxes! 

This whole discussion should be about the politics behind the witch hunting of everyting that the governments can&#039;t tax and the health aspects of the prescription drugs for depression or the Ritolin they push legally into young hyper active youngsters. The real health problems are caused by the big drug companys and the unhealthy ambitions of our political superiors!

Bye the way smoking more does not increase the effects of cannabis, the effect is reduced, as there seems to be a sort of ceiling (no pun intended) to its ultimate effect. Less frequent use the stronger the effect despite the amounts of thc involved.

As I live in the Netherlands where an enlightened government has seriously looked at the drug problem for many years now and are tolerant of Koffieshops where one may purchase up to 5 grams for personel use, the use of cannabis itself has FALLEN not risen. 
Special testing stations for xtc pills are to be found at most big &#039;raves&#039; so the kids at least know what it is before they swallow the stuff and this is tolerated by the police for the simple reason that fueled up alcholic youths as seen on Britons streets cause more problems in the long run than sensible controls of less harmfull substances. The Dutch government has also a project for growing top quality &#039;skunk&#039; for medical purposes and people suffering from MS can obtain this on a doctors precription at the local chemist. 

So the real dangers lay with the politic and the politicians, they know but will they ever admit to it! 
Viva Vanilla Sesimila</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Graphs and Politics go hand in hand and see the mess it has made. So many knowledgeable people with so much information and no real experience of what they are talking about.<br />
(What is an auto-titration effect? Or is it something one can catch only using cannabis?)</p>
<p>However after using cannabis for some 45 years I can say without a doubt that it is not so dangerous as using alcohol or tobacco. Despite what the government of Britain or the USA would like us all to believe. The proof of the pudding is eating it. Here Mr Bush could help by being honest about his past life as a cocain user and there is not one yet that I have met that has not used cannabis as well, so what really is all this scare mongering about? Honesty?</p>
<p>Its very naive to think that Britons did not smoke the hemp that made so many miles of rope for the navy or that Mrs Beaton did not have a recepy for hash cake in the original version of the cookbook. Cannabis has always been a poor mans relief (think about it) up untill recently, when the worm turned and is making some &#8216;poor&#8217; extremely rich. It really has nothing to do with health but with taxes! </p>
<p>This whole discussion should be about the politics behind the witch hunting of everyting that the governments can&#8217;t tax and the health aspects of the prescription drugs for depression or the Ritolin they push legally into young hyper active youngsters. The real health problems are caused by the big drug companys and the unhealthy ambitions of our political superiors!</p>
<p>Bye the way smoking more does not increase the effects of cannabis, the effect is reduced, as there seems to be a sort of ceiling (no pun intended) to its ultimate effect. Less frequent use the stronger the effect despite the amounts of thc involved.</p>
<p>As I live in the Netherlands where an enlightened government has seriously looked at the drug problem for many years now and are tolerant of Koffieshops where one may purchase up to 5 grams for personel use, the use of cannabis itself has FALLEN not risen.<br />
Special testing stations for xtc pills are to be found at most big &#8216;raves&#8217; so the kids at least know what it is before they swallow the stuff and this is tolerated by the police for the simple reason that fueled up alcholic youths as seen on Britons streets cause more problems in the long run than sensible controls of less harmfull substances. The Dutch government has also a project for growing top quality &#8217;skunk&#8217; for medical purposes and people suffering from MS can obtain this on a doctors precription at the local chemist. </p>
<p>So the real dangers lay with the politic and the politicians, they know but will they ever admit to it!<br />
Viva Vanilla Sesimila</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ijon Tichy</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2007/03/reefer-badness/comment-page-2/#comment-12276</link>
		<dc:creator>Ijon Tichy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2007 18:25:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=389#comment-12276</guid>
		<description>The Clash had a song which went &#039;I&#039;ve seen talent thrown away&#039;.

I&#039;d say one good reason for being opposed to cannabis consumption is the fact that  while it doesn&#039;t kill people, it does turn them into idiots who waste their lives in a haze of stoned befuddlement.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Clash had a song which went &#8216;I&#8217;ve seen talent thrown away&#8217;.</p>
<p>I&#8217;d say one good reason for being opposed to cannabis consumption is the fact that  while it doesn&#8217;t kill people, it does turn them into idiots who waste their lives in a haze of stoned befuddlement.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: lepak</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2007/03/reefer-badness/comment-page-2/#comment-12275</link>
		<dc:creator>lepak</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2007 18:07:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=389#comment-12275</guid>
		<description>Firstly, necessary pre-amble: I smoke, support legalisation, but don&#039;t think it&#039;s a &#039;harmless&#039; drug, obviously. And I&#039;m not a scientist and what follows is rather anecdotal, sorry...

Regarding &#039;auto-titration&#039; - no not everyone auto-titrates very well, the evidence I have for this is purely anecdotal, but involves myself - and I&#039;ve been observing the effects of cannabis on me for quite some years now!

I stick to hash. Not the horrible old soap-bar, stuff that&#039;s a bit stronger (and less full of plastic) than that. I do find skunk is kinda too much for me, in the quanitities I smoke, even though it&#039;s probably more the 10-15 per cent THC mentioned, rather than the 30% + that&#039;s been claimed in the IOS and elsewhere.

Why? Because I just have the kind of neurology/personality/whatever that means I&#039;ll smoke N spliffs a day, regardless of the strength of what I&#039;m smoking. That means, if the dope&#039;s too strong, I&#039;ll get too stoned.  As to comments about beer and whisky - a better comparison is 3% &#039;session lager&#039; vs 5 or 6% &#039;strong lager&#039;. People do tend to have their 3 pints, or 6 pints, or whatever is their habit - and if they switch to stronger beer, they still have 6 pints - and get more drunk. They don&#039;t cut down to 3 just because it&#039;s Export or whatever.  Consider that in the UK, nearly everyone makes a spliff as follows - 1 large rizla, most of a cigarette, some dope. Now, if the dope&#039;s stronger, users take a smaller rizla, use only half a ciggie and half the dope, yeah? Err, no. Not anyone I&#039;ve ever known anyway. 

Another thing missing here is the balance of cannabinoids vs THC in various strains and preparations of cannabis. Now I realise this is a bit speculative but would anyone care to comment on this &#039;thought&#039; - hash has more cannabinoids relative to THC, thus makes you more &#039;dopey&#039; and sleepy. Skunk has more THC relative to cannibanoids, thus making you more &#039;high&#039; and agitated. Thus hash is self-limiting, overuse leading to sleep. One of the worse things about skunk is you can smoke and smoke and get LESS sleepy. Extended, drugged-up insomnia accompanied by agitation and racing thoughts, is a really good way to bring on mental health problems. 

In summary, skunk is vodka Red Bull, hash is cask ale.  But not mostly due to the total &#039;strength&#039; per se, more due to the balance of THC and cannabinoids.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Firstly, necessary pre-amble: I smoke, support legalisation, but don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s a &#8216;harmless&#8217; drug, obviously. And I&#8217;m not a scientist and what follows is rather anecdotal, sorry&#8230;</p>
<p>Regarding &#8216;auto-titration&#8217; &#8211; no not everyone auto-titrates very well, the evidence I have for this is purely anecdotal, but involves myself &#8211; and I&#8217;ve been observing the effects of cannabis on me for quite some years now!</p>
<p>I stick to hash. Not the horrible old soap-bar, stuff that&#8217;s a bit stronger (and less full of plastic) than that. I do find skunk is kinda too much for me, in the quanitities I smoke, even though it&#8217;s probably more the 10-15 per cent THC mentioned, rather than the 30% + that&#8217;s been claimed in the IOS and elsewhere.</p>
<p>Why? Because I just have the kind of neurology/personality/whatever that means I&#8217;ll smoke N spliffs a day, regardless of the strength of what I&#8217;m smoking. That means, if the dope&#8217;s too strong, I&#8217;ll get too stoned.  As to comments about beer and whisky &#8211; a better comparison is 3% &#8217;session lager&#8217; vs 5 or 6% &#8217;strong lager&#8217;. People do tend to have their 3 pints, or 6 pints, or whatever is their habit &#8211; and if they switch to stronger beer, they still have 6 pints &#8211; and get more drunk. They don&#8217;t cut down to 3 just because it&#8217;s Export or whatever.  Consider that in the UK, nearly everyone makes a spliff as follows &#8211; 1 large rizla, most of a cigarette, some dope. Now, if the dope&#8217;s stronger, users take a smaller rizla, use only half a ciggie and half the dope, yeah? Err, no. Not anyone I&#8217;ve ever known anyway. </p>
<p>Another thing missing here is the balance of cannabinoids vs THC in various strains and preparations of cannabis. Now I realise this is a bit speculative but would anyone care to comment on this &#8216;thought&#8217; &#8211; hash has more cannabinoids relative to THC, thus makes you more &#8216;dopey&#8217; and sleepy. Skunk has more THC relative to cannibanoids, thus making you more &#8216;high&#8217; and agitated. Thus hash is self-limiting, overuse leading to sleep. One of the worse things about skunk is you can smoke and smoke and get LESS sleepy. Extended, drugged-up insomnia accompanied by agitation and racing thoughts, is a really good way to bring on mental health problems. </p>
<p>In summary, skunk is vodka Red Bull, hash is cask ale.  But not mostly due to the total &#8217;strength&#8217; per se, more due to the balance of THC and cannabinoids.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
