An Exchange with Mr 'Paul P'

Below I reproduce part of an exchange between me and Mr 'P' which appears in full, on the comment thread 'Cannabis and mental illness - the Guardian speaks!'.

 

The missing bit is some embarrassing stuff by Mr P equating THC with lettuce and sugar, and some silly stuff from Mr P bizarrely claiming that because we have discovered cannabis is dangerous, we can now declare that certain levels of cannabis usage are safe. But, as the exchange below shows, there is no such precision available, nor is there likely to be. And the unpredictability of the effects of cannabis on the human mind make it as impossible to regulate as Russian Roulette, a sport which sensible people eschew, rather than seeking to 'regulate' it on the grounds that this will make it safe and elss available to children. Ha ha. Mr 'P', of course,  is free to reply at length. No doubt he will. 

 

Mr P: Mr Hitchens doesn't half spin his points of view. The following are two pertinent quotes from the Guardian article....

 

******PH: Spin? I've simply invited readers to look at what the Guardian says.***

Mr P (quoting)

 

"What has convinced some researchers that the risks of heavy cannabis use now warrant public health campaigns to warn people of potential harm?"

And....

"While the vast majority of people who smoke cannabis will not develop psychotic disorders, those who do can have their lives ruined."

Thus the harm can come from heavy use of cannabis while the vast majority of people, most of whom we presume are light users, will not suffer harm. This is so obviously intuitive that it makes scientific inquiry essentially redundant.

***PH notes : oh, right. Scientific enquiry is now redundant, eh? I would hardly expect the Guardian to emphasise the darker side of the question. I linked to it so people could read it, knowing what they would find, and confident in their ability to see that this particular newspaper's coverage, in my view long-delayed, might also be a bit optimistic.

What is 'heavy' use? Why, it's what somebody else does, just as an 'alcoholic' is someone who drinks more than his doctor.

The problem here, and the Robin Murray quotation -...

���It���s not sensible to wait for absolute proof that cannabis is a component cause of psychosis,��� said Sir Robin Murray, professor of psychiatric research at King���s College London. ���There���s already ample evidence to warrant public education around the risks of heavy use of cannabis, particularly the high-potency varieties. For many reasons, we should have public warnings.���

....make the point I've been making for years. That is that insistence on absolute, calibrated definition of the risks of cannabis simply delays action while victims accumulate and suffer.

I would love there to be such a clear linkage. I have long sought for such a clear linkage. Regular readers here know of the value I place upon objective and testable knowledge. But in the present state of medical and scientific knowledge, it is not available and is unlikely to be available in the foreseeable future.

As I have many times explained, the misty frontiers of mental illness are hard to define. I myself try not even to use the word 'psychosis' (though I will quote psychiatrists who use it) or any other of the words supposedly defining forms of mental illness.

The DSM has no fancy word to describe many of the things associated with cannabis use, not necessarily 'heavy' in the opinion of the users. These include : Deterioration of schoolwork, academic and professional failure or mediocrity in persons who might have been expected to succeed, declining IQ, inability to cope with criticism, fantasies about persecution, verbal incoherence, repetitiveness in conversation, a generally lower level of life than the user might  have expected to attain. If such things were named, recorded and measured, I think we would find a very strong correlation between them and cannabis use. Where they may lead over time is unknowable. Many of them result in needless personal tragedy in the form of wasted lives and grief-struck, baffled parents. Of course, it can get much, much worse.

 

Another dreadful crime, the stamping to death of a tiny child, turns out to have been perpetrated by a *heavy* cannabis user , though I wonder if the killer would have so described herself. At least we hear less of the silly claim it is a 'peaceful' drug. Perhaps in time we'll move on to the increasingly obvious conclusion about what kind of drug it really is.

 

I also note, on the same theme, that the alleged perpetrator of another recent violent crime has also been charged with cannabis production.