XPost: uk.rec.drugs.cannabis, uk.politics.drugs, uk.legal   
   From: drjohn@NOSPAM.hotpotmail.com   
      
   Noticed at Sat, 25 Apr 2009 14:13:12 +0100: Iain informed us:   
      
   > "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message   
   > news:75ge6kF1882ihU1@mid.individual.net...   
   >   
   >>> A significant number of people are able to smoke marijuana with no   
   >>> apparant   
   >>> adverse affects.  It is the very few who are affected where the concern   
   >>> lies.   
   >>   
   >> So they criminalise the vast majority who are unaffected.   
   >   
   > I suppose it would be useful if those who did have a propensity to a   
   > psychosis could be diagnosed.  But I understand the situation is that they   
   > can't, and those who are affected can suffer a very significant and   
   > debilitating degradation of their life, where treatment can last for   
   > decades.   
   >   
   > Maybe if those could be distinguished from the rest, there would be a valid   
   > argument for general legalisation because those would be able to be   
   > protected.  But it seems they cannot.  So how else can they be protected?   
      
   The link I posted (which you snipped) shows that cannabis does not cause   
   schizophrenia, but is a first episode of the disease. The person who   
   became ill after using cannabis would have done so anyway.   
      
   There has been no change in the prevalence of psychosis over the last 50   
   years, if cannabis caused the illness it would have varied with the   
   varying rate of cannabis use, it has not.   
      
   You may recall Debra Bell, of Talking About Cannabis, who blames it for   
   her son's mental health problems. On the BBC news channel last year, she   
   said her son's uncle (not sure if he's her brother) had mental health   
   problems - giving a possible genetic link.   
      
   The other point is the degree of risk associated with other activities.   
   Should we ban marathons because 6 people had heart attacks during the   
   Great North Run about 3 years ago? Peanuts which kill about 10 people a   
   year? Horse riding, which is more deadly than ecstasy?   
      
   It seems that other activities are allowed to have a reasonable level of   
   risk - not a high risk, but a risk never the less. With drugs, we have to   
   prove that they have zero risk, which, apart from being impossible (you   
   can't prove a negative), has the red tops making up killer drug stories   
   about. Drugs are a good scapegoat, just like single mothers, asylum   
   seekers and the ill-defined terrorists.   
      
   > Iain   
   --   
   Dr John Watson   
   Baker Street   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)