If Only We Had Known

A quote from Jonathan Owen in The Independent, 18 March 2007

In 1997, this newspaper launched a campaign to decriminalise the drug. If only we had known then what we can reveal today...

Record numbers of teenagers are requiring drug treatment as a result of smoking skunk, the highly potent cannabis strain that is 25 times stronger than resin sold a decade ago. […] Professor Colin Blakemore, chief of the Medical Research Council, who backed our original campaign for cannabis to be decriminalised, has also changed his mind. He said: “The link between cannabis and psychosis is quite clear now; it wasn’t 10 years ago.” Many medical specialists agree that the debate has changed. Robin Murray, professor of psychiatry at London's Institute of Psychiatry, estimates that at least 25,000 of the 250,000 schizophrenics in the UK could have avoided the illness if they had not used cannabis.


We have the same in California, U.S. Why do people listen to these stupid ass people? Morality tells us that any thing we use in the form of drugs is insane. The sad part is that educated people make dumb ass arguments for there proliferation into the hands of children, other dumb ass people.
When will it stop!

In Response

Firstly, although cannabis can cause psychosis on its own, it is laced with other heavier narcotics some 90% of the time. Secondly, if taken during one's developmental years, cannabis can inhibit the proper growth of the frontal lobe, thereby preventing one permanently from fully developing their higher thinking and 'sharpeness.' Moreover, cannabis also results in definite personality changes if taken in large quanities over significant lengths of time. This is not to say that secondary schoolchildren are "better off" consuming alcohol rather than marijuana, it is merely to say that anything more than a puff "every now and then" (after 21 years of age hopefully) is cause for concern.

on the irrelevance of The Independent

The Independent obviously based its campaign for decriminalization on medical grounds. That was stupid. There are only two sensible grounds on which such a campaign can be based. One is (following Locke) that government has no purpose except the preservation of life, liberty, and private property. The other is that no government has any control, or any hope to achieve any control, over the amount of drugs that are consumed. Actually, I am not sure that these are two distinct principles, but never mind.


"Wisdom with men is foolishness with God"

Professor this and doctor that keep coming up with contradictory or controversial ideas and dctrines of their own for their glories but invariably end up proved to be false.

On the other hand the principles taught in the bible are unchanged and beneficial.

One verse in Ecclesiastes comes to mind: "To the writing of many books there is no end".

Yes people flock to buy the latest and greatest books, yet they never bother to read the Good Book, to their destruction.