Bob Brown has just announced his retirement from politics. It comes as a shock, but such announcements usually do. I can’t do justice to Bob’s thirty or more years of activism in a blog post, but there have been few people in political life who’ve achieved as much while not compromising their integrity to secure political support. The Green Party which Bob effectively founded and has largely embodied for many years, has made a big positive contribution to Australian political life
Given the rubbish in the comments threads recently, I’m going to be ruthless in moderating this one. There will be plenty of time for critical thoughts on Bob Brown’s political career and on the Green Party. If you can’t wait for a more appropriate occasion, take such comments to the sandpit. Anything in this post that crosses my subjective line will be deleted with prejudice.
John Quiggin 
False. There is evidence that cannabis intoxication can trigger psychotic episodes in an extremely small minority of people who are already mentally ill. Alcohol can do the same.
Contrary to propaganda, there is no hard evidence that cannabis use causes mental illness. There may be a correlation, but that’s most likely because mentally ill people are more likely than mentally healthy people to develop substance-abuse problems in general. Rates of schizophrenia (the main example) have remained steady in the population despite large fluctuations in cannabis use.
In any case, criminalising marijuana is not the answer, anymore than criminalising peanuts because some people are allergic.
@gerard
Clearly we won’t be able to agree on what the facts are.
It’s called google
@Gerard
Mine is called peer reviewed literature and psychiatric experts.
[citation needed]
Of course, like those climate scientists all part of the propaganda industry!
You have Google, find the citations yourself.
The scientific literature on greenhouse gases and climate change has reached a pretty solid consensus. No similar scientific consensus exists on this topic.
@Gerard
Says you. Proof by Gerard proclamation!
@Gerard
And equally, since this is Freelander’s positive assertion — that marihuana consumption can cause psychosis where no prior psychosis had presented and where there was no reason to suppose that it might arise from some other cause — the onus is on him to adduce some evidence of the kind he asserted existed {i.e. peer reviewed literature} rather than on others to prove the negative.
If his comparison to the peer-reviewed literature on anthropogenic climate change is valid, he should have no problem citing one valid peer-reviewed source we can examine. There’s no need for him to start doing denier parody.
@Fran Barlow
And equally since it’s was Gerard and your positive assertion about the harmlessness of cannabis you cite your expert evidence.
But I don’t care what you believe the facts are. Especially when a little effort on your part would inform you of them.
I am quite happy for you to remain with your own facts. And to smile …
@Freelander
You’re just playing with words. You must show harm. You said there was research. In the absence of documented harm, one may presume safety, and indeed one should, if the assumption of harm is the warrant for coercion.
@Fran Barlow
You’re just being silly.
There is no “l must” do anything.
I can live with you two remaining in ignorance. In fact, I simply find it amusing.
I’m not saying cannabis is harmless; I think that this risk does potentially exist. Anybody with a family history of schizophrenia should stay the hell away, as a precaution. However I don’t agree that there is actually “plenty of evidence that use of cannabis results in a vastly increased likelihood of” schizophrenia. If this is true then it could only be true of a very tiny section of the population; the problem with establishing a causal link is that, if such a strong connection exists, then there should have been an explosion in schizophrenia rates since 1950 in line with the explosion in cannabis use. This simply hasn’t happened.
in moderation
Or immoderate?
while I wait for my other comment to come out of moderation, I will point out what the research can claim:
that is different from saying that cannabis use RESULTS in vastly increased likelihood of psychotic disorders.
Que? So what? Hardly support for any of your claims.
I am tiring of this twin comedy act…
My claim is that if cannabis use caused increased risk of schizophrenia in the general population, then schizophrenia rates would have risen in line with rates of cannabis use.
In either case it has little to do with the legal status of drugs. Mental illness shouldn’t be criminalised.
Now the Gerard train has clearly left the rails!
for what its worth, Gerard, i reckon you’re the sweet voice of reason on this thread.
yours sincerely
alfred venison
@Freelander
You can live with anything you to choose to live with. If you want to establish that you are simply not playing with words or uttering unfounded claims to the audience here you must produce some evidence to the contrary.
Of course, you can also live with the inference by others here that you made a claim you couldn’t support, merely to support a cultural objection to the use of marihuana by some. Personally, I’m inclined to the view that you accepted urban mythology on the subject without recognising it for what it was because it appealed to you culturally. It is an oft-repeated claim.
As I implied though, you can certainly live with people thinking you ought to have apologised and withdrawn your claims.
Now the Gerard train has clearly left the rails!
@Fran Barlow
I am not responsible for every inference by every person.
About time people step up and own their own defective reasoning.
You can think cannabis is harmless; I will not lose sleep over your delusion.
@Freelander
Precisely my point. It’s about time you did, by noting the error in your initial claim.
@Fran Barlow
Fact is not a matter of reasoning; it’s a matter of evidence.
I have nothing to apologize for. I am the one quite content for you to be wrong. I don’t need you to accept that I am right. But it seems mighty important to you for me to say you are right.
Sorry. Not going to happen!
@Freelander
Well you were the one doing climate denier parodies above and here you are with your hands over your ears shaking your head and declaring that you won’t say the words.
I don’t care finally if you acknowledge your error or not though I believe it would serve you better if you did. Your disinclination either to offer any defence of your claim beyond mere naysaying or to resile is disappointing.
Nevertheless, to each their own, one supposes.
My question to you, Freelander, is why have schizophrenia rates not risen since the 1950s? This question was looked at by the Journal of Schizophrenia in 2009 which didn’t find any evidence of the expected increase in the prevalence of the illness in the UK? No increase has been found in Australia either. It suggests that the increased risk of schizophrenia caused by cannabis would only apply to a small part of the population – most likely people with a genetic predisposition to the illness. As for the scholarship being further from consensus than on climate change, the government’s National Drug Strategy has a review of the literature (which you can google since links put me in moderation). If the consensus was as strong as you suggest, I don’t see why the government would write things like
I’m not even trying to argue that cannabis is harmless, just not as dangerous as heroin, hardly a controversial claim!
The issue of criminalization is separate. Alcohol use can cause serious brain damage and all sorts of cancers – and yet it is advertised all over the place. There is definitely a link between drug abuse and mental illness – this link goes both ways and applies to legal and illegal drugs. Making it a criminal issue is actually worse for improving mental health outcomes for people with problems, as recognized by the Portuguese system which makes drug abuse a health issue rather than a crime issue.
@Fran Barlow
There’s no error for me to acknowledge; seems the Barlow train has also left the tracks.
My interest is in what is true and l am unconcerned that that interest is often not shared.
“the damage that came from the prohibition of alcohol pales in comparison to the harm wrought by drug prohibition” – stephen downing, former deputy chief of the l.a.p.d., 6 october 2011.
a.v.
I still don’t agree with not building dams (falling water is a great way to generate electricity) but I greatly admire Bob Brown and what he has done.
@alfred venison
Yes. Prohibition was a big mistake. (And a purely factual observation.) It was an unfortunate consequence of extending suffrage.
gerard @ #14 said:
Where have I heard that liberal strategy before? Ah yes, the Republic movement. How did that work out again? So I would not be holding my breath in your “waiting game”.
Liberals are always presenting their latest brain fart as an inevitable law of history. But somehow History, God bless her, has a mind of her own and does not always regard liberal programs as a done deal, just get over it.
At a guess I would expect that your demographic break down of drug liberalisation political alignment is exactly the opposite of the truth, Me Generation “Boomers” being more liberal and less moral than their We Generation “Doomer” ancestors. The strongest opponents of drug liberalisation would be the Doomers.
I would not be surprised to see some strong resistance to certain forms of drug liberalisation coming from Gen X,Y, Z et al. They are much more health conscious, and career motivated than previous generations. I definitely sense a general status-based aversion to drug abuse among their number, its no longer considered cool to be a junkie, stoner, acid-head etc
Higher-status people are generally edging away from substance abuse, Eastern Suburbs coke-heads notwithstanding. Drug abuse, licit and illicit, drag down property values. There is no way that contemporary holders of expensive real estate will wear areas of the city being declared drug “free-fire” zones and turning into urban ghettos for those seeking a short-cut to utopia. You just have to look at the back lash to drug liberalisation from the burghers of Amsterdam and Zurich to see how that will go down.
But more generally drug liberalisers are evasive on the fundamental moral point: addiction to intoxicants, whether licit or illicit, is immoral, for reasons outlined above (Cognition, Affection, Volition). Our ancestors instinctively knew what was moral, or at least prudential, but we seem to have lost that plot and disappeared down some solipsistic hedonistic hole. (Jefferson Airplane I am looking at you.)
Society should be moving away from, not towards, demoralising social policies. The fact that liberals do not seem to be aware of this suggests that their world view is on a death spiral towards zombiefication.
gerard @ #14 said:
Where have I heard that liberal strategy before? Ah yes, the Republic movement. How did that work out again? So I would not be holding my breath in your “waiting game”.
Liberals are always presenting their latest brain fart as an inevitable law of history. But somehow History, God bless her, has a mind of her own and does not always regard liberal programs as a done deal, just get over it.
At a guess I would expect that your demographic break down of drug liberalisation political alignment is exactly the opposite of the truth, Me Generation “Boomers” being more liberal and less moral than their We Generation “Doomer” ancestors. The strongest opponents of drug liberalisation would be the Doomers.
I would not be surprised to see some strong resistance to certain forms of drug liberalisation coming from Gen X,Y, Z et al. They are much more health conscious, and career motivated than previous generations. I definitely sense a general status-based aversion to drug abuse among their number, its no longer considered cool to be a junkie, stoner, acid-head etc
Higher-status people are generally edging away from substance abuse, Eastern Suburbs coke-heads notwithstanding. Drug abuse, licit and illicit, drag down property values. There is no way that contemporary holders of expensive real estate will wear areas of the city being declared drug “free-fire” zones and turning into urban ghettos for those seeking a short-cut to utopia. You just have to look at the back lash to drug liberalisation from the burghers of Amsterdam and Zurich to see how that will go down.
But more generally drug liberalisers are evasive on the fundamental moral point: addiction to intoxicants, whether licit or illicit, is immoral, for reasons outlined above (Cognition, Affection, Volition). Our ancestors instinctively knew what was moral, or at least prudential, but we seem to have lost that plot and disappeared down some solipsistic hedonistic hole. (Jefferson Airplane I am looking at you.)
Society should be moving away from, not towards, demoralising social policies. The fact that liberals do not seem to be aware of this suggests that their world view is on a death spiral towards zombiefication.
@Charles
Yes. Whether you agreed with Saint Bob’s policies or not, he was a man of integrity, a decent human being. Sadly all too rare in politics.
I got a seat on the tram today. A miracle I ascribe to Saint Bob. One more and Benny will have to cannonise him!
The abstract of a study by Keele University Medical School (pdf) testing the link between cannabis and psychosis finds there is no link.
@zoot
Oh, well, it’s conclusively proven then. Or, alternative ly you don’t know what not finding a link means.
I was out jogging today and didn’t find South America.
I wonder what I won’t find tomorrow?
Or, instead, I might see if I can seek the blessed intercession of Saint Bob; one more miracle and Benny will have to start the process!
@zoot
You should reread that abstract… as it says a recent systematic review concludes that cannabis use increases psychotic outcomes …
I knew you people could find out this on your own. If you talk to your average psychiatric expert they will tell you the same thing. “Don’t play with ganja”.
In case you do want to look at the evidence:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=cannabis+psychosis&num=100&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1&as_subj=bio&as_subj=med&as_subj=chm&as_sdtf=&as_sdts=5&hl=en
But I’m unsure why you could do this yourself…
In India they had hospitals for people suffering cannabis psychosis in the 19th century.
what do you get from the first link?
Regarding the causal link between cannabis use and the onset of schizophrenia, most of the evidence we have so far comes from seven cross-sectional studies which were reviewed by the National Drug Strategy. The same report makes the point that schizophrenia rates have not changed to match changing cannabis rates over time, and that schizophrenia rates are constant across countries despite varying prevalence of cannabis use. If a scientific hypothesis predicts a phenomenon that does not happen, it is unsupported. They may not have had your own psychiatrist on their advisory panel, but the government’s summary of the findings on this issue are:
The number of such cases would have to be very small, otherwise schizophrenia would have become hugely more prevalent between the 1950s (when marijuana use was very rare) and subsequent decades. It would also be more prevalent in Australia than in Japan, which it isn’t.
Thanks for reposting your comment Jack, minus whatever got it deleted last time, but I had already responded to it at #31.
@gerard
Now you are just being silly. Talk about leading a horse to water! Might as well be talking to a climate change denier.
By the way reread your posts and count the number of words you have been trying to put in my mouth!
You can pretend that there’s a comparison with climate science; I don’t recall the IPCC concluding that we should treat the causal link between human activity and climate change with “caution”, like the government’s own review does on this topic. The two things are really not comparable. If you manage to come up with an explanation for why there hasn’t been an epidemic of psychotic illness to match the increase in cannabis use since the 50s, then please inform the research community. And in any case, it’s crazy to suggest that heroin is safer.