Good piece. When can we get some data on heavy user's voting patterns and subsequent employment history? When can we blood test the entire staff of the various EPA's and DNRM's.

According to ABC Catalyst (date unknown) the research from MRI scans also shows that the brains of heavy users function in the same way as schizophrenics. That is, a capacity to demonise, to extrapolate to extremes and then accept that extrapolation as incontestible fact, and a capacity to exclude enormous volumes of material that do not support their recurrent theme. This is then manifest in actions that are disproportionate to the situation at hand.

Could it be that the green movement is not so much a religion but, rather, a treatable medical condition? This would render all the forest closures and persecution of farmers as little more than palliative treatment for self inflicted injuries. And what, then, of the government's duty of care to take all reasonable and practical steps to prevent harm to persons? Surely, a person with the brain functions of a schizophrenic could not be regarded as a "reasonable man" (or woman) in law? And to allow them to continue working in a policy unit, when a test can easily identify the problem, must amount to negligence?

We don't let drunks drive cars, buses or planes because of the potential to cause harm. Blood testing is an accepted part of the monitoring process, including in workplaces. So it must be time to extend that principle to those who drive the ship of state.

Marijuana has been shown to predominantly only affect those who are prone to psychosis anyway. As usual, certain statistics are used to blow the dangers well out of proportion. Anyway, scientists have established beyond any doubt that marijuana has less negative effects than alcohol, both short term and long term. In other words, potential harm from cannabis is negligent in comparison to potential harm from cigarettes and alcohol (and yet the legality…strange…). Not to mention, it’s pretty rare to get addicted to it.

I’m not saying ignore the dangers, just that perspective is needed. Of course heavy long term use is dangerous, so is heavy long term eating of fried chicken. Excess is the problem.

To quote the late Bill Hicks: “Let’s say you’re at a football match, and there’s someone who’s getting rowdy and violent. Is he drunk, or has he been smoking weed? That’s right, he’s drunk. You can’t get into a fight when you’re stoned because it’s f-ing impossible.”

Words to live by.

In my 30's I had a major weed habit. I believe it can lead to psychosis in certain individuals, but I also believe that alcohol leads to worse anti-social disorders than pot.

It benefits no-one to have cannabis declared illegal - and would certainly free up some space in our prisons (if pot was decriminalised) for real criminals.

Whenever my ex husband belted me about he was usually drunk. He never got violent on weed (unfortunately weed was not his preferred stimulant)

However, I am prone to bouts of depression and I did use pot to alleviate the mental pain. I no longer do this - smoke pot that is. I still have to monitor my depressive episodes and have learnt how to cope with this.

Finally, when I am old and retired and don't have to work 9 to 5 anymore I am going to smoke as much pot as I like, listen to rock music and generally be as outrageous as I can't be now.

Most of the marij around these days is hydroponic, very strong sit-in-the-corner type of stuff that leads to the paranoid schizophrenic, which I've experienced first-had from my intelligent, sensitive boyfriend, who smoked around $100 worth a week. When he couldn't get his choof, he turned into a temper-crazed monster. The lowest point was when he thought my parents were "Nazis", or that I was an alien sent from outer-space to bend his mind.....and he did all those things that Perseus mentioned (in 2nd para). No-one can ever really know if he was "normal" or not before he started smoking so much, since he began smoking as a teenager. Having said all of this...the laws should be softened - allow people to have their own home-grown pot - it's much milder and (apparently, according to ABC again) moderate use doesn't lead to this extreme behaviour

" That is, a capacity to demonise, to extrapolate to extremes and then accept that extrapolation as incontestible fact, and a capacity to exclude enormous volumes of material that do not support their recurrent theme. This is then manifest in actions that are disproportionate to the situation at hand."

mmmm,Perseus, sounds like they display some of the prime characteristics of the merry band of far right christians that inhabit this site. does that mean nationalism and a tendancy to vote one nation are also treatable conditions?

bill hicks has a point, while excessive pot use will have a detrimental effect to your health, i would stake a large sum of money on alchohol being the chemical most likely to result in injuries to people other than the user.

"this is not a war on drugs, this is a war on personal freedom"
bill hicks again.

it's not easy, I'm happy to do a bit of extrapolation and suggest that the description applies to most out on the extremes regardless of orientation (left, right, up or down) or religious preference.

It would explain a lot wouldn't it if we could find a common cause for extremism but I'm not confident that this is it.

Cheers
R0bert