Originally Posted by
Tenlaar
You don't talk about it, you just quote one study over and over and over again while ignoring significant things. Such as the fact that alcohol, steroids, antibiotics, lack of sleep, even extreme stress can cause psychotic symptoms. Do you equally believe that all of those lead from psychotic symptoms to full blown psychosis?
I neither believe nor disbelieve it. If you can produce a study where a scientist in the relevant field makes a similar claim as the one quoted, then I would believe it in the absence of other evidence.
Originally Posted by
Warriorbird
I read it. We know little enough about mental illness. If instances of psychosis were really future mental illness the entire psychological establishment would come crashing down because they are induced in people every single day by prescription drugs. I could go there. It's a terrifying dark bleak nasty place, but then again I'd like my cousin to stay medicated. He hasn't had a bad life.
Like I said to Lav, if you can cite a currently legal prescription drug that increases risk of psychosis by 50% or higher, then we can talk.
Originally Posted by
Laviticas
Well I just got high, soooooo I'm all psycho now, the 50% is of what?
The baseline rate of psychosis.
Originally Posted by
Hightower
I'd be a lot more psyched if instead of simply quoting someone else as a means of brushing off valid criticisms of your position and your credibility, you'd address them directly.
I don't think of it as my position, and it certainly has nothing to do with my credibility. I had no part in performing the study, I did not hack the BMJ's Gibsons so as to fabricate it. You disagree with my interpretation of it, which is why the author's words are so very important. They look to me like they're saying "the process of persistence of attenuated psychotic symptoms" is equal to "the earliest stages of psychosis", to be contrasted with "the onset of clinical disorder". I don't really see how you can interpret it differently unless you have a pre-existing belief that there is a vast distinction between psychotic symptoms and psychosis. You have that belief, the author does not appear to. Whom should I believe? I have demonstrated inarguably that I did not have a pre-existing bias against marijuana, shouldn't you trust me as an objective observer?
As I've told you before, it's neither here nor there because the competition is the very concrete and demonstrable harm caused by a schedule I classification for marijuana. Of course, you don't like to allow your positions to enter the realm of the subjective - at least, not that you'll admit. It's a shame, really. Because I'd love to hear you pit this rather insignificant study on marijuana against the global impact of the "War on Drugs", the legal costs to local and state government as well as the prison system, the costs to companies due to drug screening and hiring/firing decisions made as a result of drug screening, and of course the costs to the individual.
Strictly speaking I cited two studies, one of which was a meta-study comprising 35 additional studies (as it was published in 2007 we can safely assume it did not include a study published in 2008). I don't understand what you mean by subjective in this case, so the rest of your post is a mystery to me.
Hasta pronto, porque la vida no termina aqui...
America, stop pushing. I know what I'm doing.