Thread: Legalizing Mary-Jane Yes or No?

Originally Posted by Syme

TwoStoopid, the study that your "cannabis culture" website was citing is a statistical study by Dr Fisher at Keele University finding that, in the UK, increasing rates of cannabis usage among the population didn't correlate with an increased frequency of diagnosed cases of schizophrenia or other psychosis disorders. That in no way justifies your claim that cannabis-induced psychosis disorder is "a myth." As I said, disorders aren't included in the DSMMD unless they have actually been clinically observed. There's nothing in there that's hypothetical. If it's in there, that means there are actually people who suffer from cannabis-induced psychosis. It is a completely real medical condition. There are people sitting in psychiatric hospitals right now because they have cannabis-induced psychosis. So claiming that the disorder is nonexistent is utterly absurd. Here's a precis for an article from the British Journal of Psychiatry by a group of psychiatrists and doctors who have examined 535 cases of cannabis-induced psychosis: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/187/6/510

The very fact that you would put a quote from the website of Cannabis Culture Magazine next to a quote from an authoritative medical text, and try to claim that the former proves that the latter is a "myth", suggests to me that you should not be trying to make any statements about scientific facts.

I gather that you don't WANT to believe that cannabis-induced psychosis is real--and certainly it's not common, and is no reason to keep weed illegal--but it is a real set of conditions. Deal with it.

EDIT: If you had done a bit more research into the claims of Cannabis Culture's website, you might have found that Dr. Fisher's study has attracted some skepticism; there are other researchers out there who feel that unrelated factors may have lowered the UK's incidence of psychosis diagnoses concurrently with the rise in cannabis usage. All Fisher's study said was "The number of people smoking pot in the UK increased by X percent over X interval, and the rate of diagnosed psychotic cases didn't increase by a corresponding rate over the same interval". That's not the same thing as debunking the idea that cannabis usage can cause psychosis disorders.

Your forgetting that your authoritative text is 9 years old. Just because it is an authoritative text does not necessarily mean it is true. Although this time you have provided support for the claim in this instance it does not mean all instances are true. As an example (I'll use the CIA for shits and giggles): There were many "Authoritative Texts" released on studies and experiments conducted by the CIA. Today we are finding that some of these were previously thought "facts" are entirely false. An intellectual should challenge ideas not follow them.

Originally Posted by TwoStoopid

Your forgetting that your authoritative text is 9 years old. Just because it is an authoritative text does not necessarily mean it is true. Although this time you have provided support for the claim in this instance it does not mean all instances are true. As an example (I'll use the CIA for shits and giggles): There were many "Authoritative Texts" released on studies and experiments conducted by the CIA. Today we are finding that some of these were previously thought "facts" are entirely false. An intellectual should challenge ideas not follow them.

Age is an undependable factor in determining validity. While we don't expect authoritive texts to be true all the time, we call them authoritve because we understand that they have a higher standard involved in their creation that most other publications. Small experiments that may or may not have been peer reviewed or had proper rigor applied to will not be included in the encyclopedia, which itself realizes that it needs updates on a regular basis. The higher standard that applies is comforting to know especially when dealing with what may be affecting somebody. Understanding that what is written in that specific text has a time-tested history of being accurate, and even mentions when links are only causal and should be attributed to greater issues is of incredibly high value. There is no point in treating it with a high degree of skepticism simply because it has earned a reputation of being an authoritive text - that's paranoia for no real reason. Understanding that the text can be flawed, because we are constantly advancing our comprehension in these fields, is one thing, but dismissing something entirely because of a conspiracy theorists attitudes about institutionalized knowledge is pretty foolish, especially for something as widespread and with as much proven value that the DSM IV TR has demonstrated.

Also, if you're going to cite authoritive texts that have been proven false, list the examples. otherwise, setting up strawmen is a pretty shitty way of proving your point. It's of my opinion that intellectuals should consider and weigh all ideas, not simply challenge them entirely out of habit.