Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

Gareth, I have to suggest that the Fortune survey may be biased. I think that executives, directors and security analysts’ sense of what is “socially responsible” may be somewhat different from that of the rest of us whose lives are not dominated by the pressure for profit returns to shareholders.

I also doubt whether the companies you mention are very different from their competitors. I think behaviour that is a long way from the norm starts to endanger survival. Greater social responsibility will only be achieved as the norm is shifted incrementally. Leading by example will be very important but I don’t think the market allows leaders to get very far ahead of the pack.

Your favourite companies may be leaders. I don’t really know. But I am sure that since bribery and corruption (as most of us would define them) are rampant in the pharmaceutical industry, they are still very likely to be part of these companies’ corporate culture.

Johnson & Johnson (to take one) is listed on page 31 of John Braithwaite’s 1984 book Corporate Crime in the Pharmaceutical Industry as having disclosed to the US Securities and Exchange Commission US$990,000 in “questionable payments” between 1971-5. Braithwaite explains that:

Companies which participated in this [voluntary disclosure] programme were led to understand that such participation would lessen the likelihood that the overloaded SEC staff would proceed with enforcement action against them.

Admittedly, this is old information but you did seem to be claiming a history of social responsibility.

In 2004 Johnson & Johnson were still violating (.pdf ) the WHO/UNICEF International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes with its advertising of bottles and teats.

Gareth, thanks for your opinion: “I would consider a company to be corrupt and dishonest when such behaviour pervades company management and its basic corporate culture.”

It would appear that you have neglected to consider the information provided, which includes both Du Pont and Johnson & Johnson and in my opinion reveals a corporate culture of dishonesty and corruption consistent with most pharmaceutical companies.

The evidence speaks for itself. I would suggest you have another look at the information provided and consider same within the terms of this discussion, otherwise best let it be and move on.

Cheers, mate.

Phil, I would consider a company to be corrupt and dishonest when such behaviour pervades company management and its basic corporate culture. A company that would meet this definition is Enron in the late '90s and early '00s. Criminal convictions are a relevant piece of evidence since they prove the existence of criminal (dishonest or corrupt) behaviour at a particular point (or period) in time.

Phil, I accept that criminal convictions are not required for a company to be considered corrupt and dishonest, but in my view the reverse is also true (i.e. criminal convictions do not automatically indicate that an entire company is corrupt and dishonest). In my view, an entire company does not become corrupt and dishonest for all eternity because of one conviction. Companies can be held responsible for the criminal behaviour of a single employee, authorised or not (e.g. Exxon and Captain Hazelwood). I don’t dispute the outcome for Exxon but this hardly indicates the presence of widespread corruption and dishonesty.

As requested, here are some drug companies I do not consider corrupt and dishonest (I have mentioned them before).

Johnson and Johnson

Du Pont

Procter and Gamble

According to the Corporate Crime Reporter, all these companies have one thing in common. Their parent companies have never been convicted of a crime.

Additionally I restate their high ratings for social responsibility achieved in the Fortune survey I linked to previously. You may choose to dismiss the views of the 10,000 executives, directors and security analysts surveyed by Hay Group. That is your choice. I personally place a greater degree of confidence in the survey results than most research you or I could dig up on the internet.

As for “Most admired”, it is derived from 8 separate categories:

Quality of management

Quality of products and services

Innovation

Long-term investment value

Financial soundness

Ability to attract, develop and keep talented people

Social responsibility (this is the category I have referred to previously)

Use of corporate assets.

Common Dreams

NEW YORK - February 24 - Walter Cronkite, the man dubbed “the most trusted man in America,” sent out a passionate letter to over 100,000 people on February 23rd asking them to help end the war at home— the drug war— by supporting the non-profit organization, the Drug Policy Alliance.

.....

Mr. Cronkite explained his reasons for opposing the current drug war policies. “And what is the impact of this policy? It surely hasn’t made our streets safer. Instead, we have locked up literally millions of people…disproportionately people of color…who have caused little or no harm to others - wasting resources that could be used for counter-terrorism, reducing violent crime, or catching white-collar criminals.

.........

Cronkite concluded his message by urging readers to support the Drug Policy Alliance. “Just as they did in Vietnam three decades ago, politicians know the War on Drugs is a failure that is ruining lives. Please help the Drug Policy Alliance tell the truth about the war on drugs, and get our nation on the path toward a sensible drug policy."

Most of the 'war on drugs' is driven by the convenient ability to demonise people as a smoke screen for other failings in society. More Laura Norda nonsense to make the self righteous feel even better about themselves by putting themselves as being superior to (insert current scapegoats). Of course young minds should not be subjected to powerful mind affecting drugs, but you have to ask yourself why they do, and always have, experimented with mind altering substances. Pity the ones that went from experiments to a living nightmare.

What did Dupont, Harry Anslinger (Federal Bureau of Narcotics), William Randolph Hearst, Andrew Mellon (U.S. Treasury Secretary and owner of Mellon Bank) and his niece have in common in 1930’s America?

Marijuana.

But why:

"The actual story behind the legislature passed against marijuana is quite surprising. According to Jack Herer, author of The Emperor Wears No Clothes, the acts bringing about the demise of hemp were part of a large conspiracy involving DuPont, Harry J. Anslinger, commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN), and many other influential industrial leaders such as William Randolph Hearst and Andrew Mellon. Herer notes that the Marijuana Tax Act, which passed in 1937, coincidentally occurred just as the decoricator machine was invented. With this invention, hemp would have been able to take over competing industries almost instantaneously. According to Popular Mechanics, "10,000 acres devoted to hemp will produce as much paper as 40,000 acres of average [forest] pulp land." William Hearst owned enormous timber acreage so his interest in preventing the growth of hemp can be easily explained. Competition from hemp would have easily driven the Hearst paper-manufacturing company out of business and significantly lowered the value of his land. Herer even suggests popularizing the term "marijuana" was a strategy Hearst used in order to create fear in the American public. Herer says "The first step in creating hysteria was to introduce the element of fear of the unknown by using a word that no one had ever heard of before... 'marijuana'".

“DuPont's involvement in the anti-hemp campaign can also be explained with great ease. At this time, DuPont was patenting a new sulfuric acid process for producing wood-pulp paper. According to the company's own records, wood-pulp products ultimately accounted for more than 80% of all DuPont's railroad car loadings for the 50 years the Marijuana Tax Act was passed. It should also be said that two years before the prohibitive hemp tax in 1937, DuPont developed nylon which was a substitute for hemp rope. The year after the tax was passed DuPont came out with rayon, which would have been unable to compete with the strength of hemp fiber or its economical process of manufacturing. "DuPont's point man was none other than Harry Anslinger...who was appointed to the FBN by Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon, who was also chairman of the Mellon Bank, DuPont's chief financial backer. Anslinger's relationship to Mellon wasn't just political, he was also married to Mellon's niece" (Hartsell).”

And again here:

"Mellon Bank, owned by U.S. Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon, was also DuPont's primary financier. Mellon's niece was married to Harry Anslinger, deputy commissioner of the federal government's alcohol prohibition campaign. After the repeal of Prohibition, Anslinger and his entire federal bureau were out of a job. But Treasurer Mellon didn't let that happen. Andrew Mellon single-handedly created a new government bureaucracy, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, to keep his family and friends employed. And then he unapologetically appointed his own niece's husband, Harry Anslinger, as head of the new multimillion dollar bureaucracy."

That’s the real reason marijuana was made illegal; nothing to do with public health but everything to do with business interests, and we have been paying for it ever since. Same story different era, or is that error?

Gareth, a little more about Dupont:

“Ten growers have been given court approval to press racketeering charges against chemical giant DuPont for allegedly withholding, covering up or
destroying evidence that its fungicide Benlate ruined crops. While numerous suits filed nationwide in the past two years allege that DuPont engaged in racketeering, Miami-Dade Judge Amy Steele Donner apparently is the first to rule that the issue can be decided by a jury.”

And this:

“The ruling by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals was a victory for six nursery operators in Hawai'i, and a setback for E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., which has paid $1.9 billion in damages and legal costs over the past 15 years in cases involving the chemical, known as Benlate.”

And this:

DuPont Pays Heavy Price For Teflon Cover-Up

”DuPont Co. has reached a settlement with federal officials over the charges that DuPont had concealed the harmful health effects of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a chemical used to produce Teflon. As Much as $313 Million”

More:

“Last year (2005) DuPont dished out the largest EPA fine in history for its PFOA cover-up ($16.5 million), and the company will pay a $342 million settlement for contaminating residential water supplies in Ohio and West Virginia.”

And Dupont is forced to play the ethics game:

“DuPont Co. last week agreed to pay $11 million to help establish legal ethics programs at four Georgia universities as part of a court-orchestrated settlement ending the company's protracted legal battle over charges that it withheld evidence during a 1993 civil case.”

Gareth, are there any other pharmaceutical companies you would like discuss? When you consider your definition of terms please do not quote surveys for I feel the courts are far better arbitrators of dishonesty and corruption than surveys. Surveys deal with impressions; the courts at least attempt to get to the truth in spite of many a drug company withholding the truth.

Besides, what does it mean, “the most admired company”? Who admires them, what do they admire, how many who’s did they survey and by what methods? The Fortune survey told me absolutely nothing about Dupont except that they were admired by persons unknown. Of course, I could have followed the link provided and priced some shares.

It is rather strange that someone who requests legal convictions to substantiate dishonesty and corruption would have the temerity to provide such useless information and the naivety to believe it. I most certainly would not buy shares in a company based on a survey like that. It takes more homework than that to make a decision. Otherwise you’d be a bit of a mug, wouldn’t you?

Gareth writes “I suspect, Phil, that we have a fundamental difference in what meets the definition of a corrupt and dishonest company.”

It would appear, Gareth, that we are back to semantics:

Dishonesty:

1. Disposed to lie, cheat, defraud, or deceive.
2. Resulting from or marked by a lack of honesty.

Corrupt:

1. Marked by immorality and perversion; depraved.
2. Venal; dishonest: a corrupt mayor.
3. Containing errors or alterations, as a text: a corrupt translation.

By definition, the companies I have referred to are dishonest and corrupt. I have supplied ample evidence of convictions, also actions and settlements, which is legal proof of their dishonesty and corruption, as you initially inferred. I also have a mountain of addition information if you so request. However, I have refrained from posting it in consideration of the editor.

Gareth, I have honoured the terms of this discussion, your terms and my terms. Maybe you would like to offer your definition of “dishonesty” and “corrupt” but please do not try and do a John Howard here and say - yeh but in the context and all that. I made a proposition using simple language and I have substantiated that proposition with empirical data.

Just to put your mind at rest re Johnson & Johnson:

“Johnson & Johnson was the last non-settling defendant in an antitrust action brought by California, 31 other states, and a private consumer class against contact lens manufacturers and the American Optometric Association. Settlements with the American Optometric Association and 13 individual optometrist defendants also received preliminary approval today.”

And this:

 “A cluster of news reports about three pillars of the pharmaceutical industry-- Merck, Eli Lilly, and Johnson & Johnson--leave no doubt that this industry has shown its disregard for the welfare of the public, and through its influence has corrupted the practice of medicine.”

Tutorial:

Gareth, identify the top twenty pharmaceutical companies and tell me which ones are not dishonest and corrupt, then tell me which ones that have not been convicted or same.

When I was a young lad my uncle (a chemist) in his wisdom warned me of the medical profession. Doctors, he said, did not really have a clue about the drugs they prescribed; they trusted the drug company information while the drug companies themselves were just a “pack of bastards”. Some years later I mentioned that to a friend of mine (a biochemist and university professor), he agreed.

I do find it sad we human beings, at our convenience, find it quite reasonable to redefine things to suit our prejudices and interests. We rationalise, manipulate and pervert truth until we get what we want. The war in Iraq is a classic example. We can play all we want with the truth and that is why there will be many more convictions as the pharmaceutical industry plays with the truth, the law and our lives. There will  be more Iraqs as well.

Their games are serious while your game is somewhat benign, albeit naïve, apologetic or mischievous.

Cheers mate, and if you want to continue then have a go at defining your terms in a clear and concise manner then have a crack at the tutorial; if not then I feel I have stated (and proved) my case and position quite succinctly.

PS. on Westpac, I don’t do business with Westpac, caught them trying to steal from me. Yep, and when I brought it to the attention of the teller I got a smart arse reply, the branch manager was equally as careless.

I then got in touch with their head office, told them their CEO (Stuart Fowler) was going to have to explain himself to the public. To my surprise they admitted it was their policy to steal from people in this fashion (in regards to fixed term deposits and interest calculation dates).

When I reminded them of their documentation and its contractual nature they very quickly saw my point, offered to repay the amount they skimmed, then offered me a rather generous (above market) reinvestment rate. I politely promised them I no longer would be doing business with them. To date I have kept that promise.

Still wonder if they have changed their policy (as they promised), but if you have fixed interest accounts falling due on a weekend or public holiday then I would be doing a little arithmetic of my own.

Thanks for all the links, Phil. I was looking for something like the 100 corporate criminals' website the other day. I am a relatively active investor and am always on the lookout for useful corporate governance information. I personally see environmental problems as a normal part of business in many industry sectors (I know this is a little off track, but it might explain my views a bit).

I suspect, Phil, that we have a fundamental difference in what meets the definition of a corrupt and dishonest company. For example I personally would not consider Du Pont a corrupt and dishonest company. Du Pont has a pretty clean record throughout its 204 years of existence. For a chemical, drug and explosives company I think this is extraordinary. It was rated the most socially responsible of all chemical companies by a recent Fortune survey (the top drug company was Johnson & Johnson). I think your definition of a corrupt and dishonest company would fail most large corporations that have operated for any significant period of time.

Out of interest, would you consider Australia's most socially responsible company, Westpac, a corrupt and dishonest company? It is the only company in Australia and NZ to receive a triple-A rating from Reputex (the top drug company was CSL, which got an A). This is despite previous issues relating to the Westpac letters affair, foreign currency loans, and connections with ERA (i.e., Jabiluka).

How do pharmaceutical companies rate amongst the top 100 corporate criminals of the 1990’s:

F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. (1)

BASF Aktiengesellschaft (3)

Haarman & Reimer Corp. (10)

Hoechst AG (12)

Damon Clinical Laboratories, Inc. (13)

Genentech Inc. (15)

Nippon Gohsei (16)

Pfizer Inc. (17)

Eastman Chemical Company (26)

Copley Pharmaceutical, Inc. (27)

Lonza AG (28)

Warner-Lambert Company (30)

Allied Clinical Laboratories, Inc. (44)

Ortho Pharmaceutical Corporation (44 tie)

Bristol-Myers Squibb (62)

Warner-Lambert Inc. (62 tie and see above at 30)

Abbott Laboratories Inc. may be in the running for number one this decade, expecting to pay out around 622 million for fraud. Also, an Abbott division, Ross Products, reached a civil settlement and agreed to pay $400 million to resolve claims that it had defrauded the federal (US) Medicare and Medicaid programs in a similar way.

Maybe the Bali nine were simply working with the wrong criminals.

Sorry, Gareth, I omitted to do you the courtesy of replying to your request to quantify my broad proposition that drug companies are dishonest and corrupt.

I’m sure if you take up my request and read the data provided you would agree that it would probably be safe to make the following proposition:

Most major drug companies (at least) are dishonest and corrupt.

Gareth, you did not heed my warning mate:

This about Hoffmann-La Roche:

“Roche's researchers in its laboratories in New Jersey published a report stating that Valium had only mild side-effects, including fatigue, dizziness and rash, but these were results based on only seven patients. The results from two other patients were not included because they considered their side-effects too severe to continue on the trial.

Statistics show that something in the order of 1.2 million people in this country are still in receipt of repeat prescriptions of benzodiazepines, some 20 or 30 years after the danger of that repeat prescription became well known."

Roche did their job well and made billions from this drug:

Class action? Yes, until (government) funding ran out. Seventy five courageous individuals also took action, until their funds ran out.

A conviction here:

COPLEY PHARMACEUTICAL
The generic drug manufacturer pleaded guilty to a felony count of conspiracy to defraud the FDA by changing manufacturing methods and falsifying records of the changes. Copley paid a fine of $10.65 million in 1997.

This about Dupont:

A judge on Monday approved the settlement of a class action lawsuit alleging a chemical used in making the nonstick substance Teflon contaminated water supplies near DuPont Co.'s Washington Works plant in West Virginia.

Wood County Circuit Judge George W. Hill called the settlement -- in which DuPont agreed to pay at least $107.6 million -- "a very shrewdly and competently organized proposal and it seems to be a very unprecedented action by a huge corporate defendant."

Hill noted that the settlement was finalized without any evidence that perfluorooctanoic acid, known as PFOA or C8, caused any disease.

More convictions - :

The Suyama drug company in Japan, read it on CBS here:

“Three former drug company executives accused of selling blood products tainted with the virus that causes AIDS were convicted Thursday and given brief prison terms.”

Another class action this time against Glaxo SmithKline:

“The class action Plaintiffs continue to allege that the public’s (and medical community’s), lack of awareness of Paxil withdrawal is due, in large part, to GSK’s efforts to counter the available data regarding Paxil withdrawal with marketing messages designed to downplay the problem.”

And more class actions and convictions:

“The cartel selling vitamins and related drug products perpetrated a truly massive fraud involving well over a dozen of the world's largest pharmaceutical and chemical companies. Every citizen in the developed world probably paid considerably more than they needed to for many foodstuffs and vitamins. The agricultural sector which uses large volumes of these products and includes them in food bore the brunt of the fraud.

The companies have probably paid out somewhere in the region of US $ 10 billion to settle the criminal and civil actions which resulted. The first exposures occurred in 1997. Class actions in the USA and Australia are ongoing.

The first companies were prosecuted in 1997 after a whistle blower helped the FBI to tape meetings. The substances traded through cartels exposed in 1997 included Methionine (chicken feed), Sorbates, Monosodium glutamate (MSG), Bromine, lysine and citric acid.

The ring leader Roche pleaded guilty in 1997 to collusively trading citric acid. It paid US $14 million and gave undertakings of good behaviour. When asked Roche executives specifically denied price rigging in their vitamin trade, even though those denying were actively involved at the time.

Note that those involved in this fraud saw what they were doing as "justifiable", even though they knew it was criminal. It is not surprising that they took no action after they were fined and that the fraud continued.”

And more:

“Bayer has paid US $ 271 million for defrauding Medicaid. Other companies are still being investigated and prosecuted.

In January 2001. Bayer became the first of 21 drug companies investigated over a 3 year period to pay a US $14 million fine for overcharging federal and 45 state Medicaid services for drugs. They did this by overstating the wholesale price on which the payments were based. This meant that Medicaid for the poor and destitute was paying more than Bayer's wealthier commercial customers which was illegal. Government requires drug companies to match their lowest prices when Medicaid was paying. Once again the case was whistleblower initiated.”

Oh dear, and it goes on (this time closer to home):

“Pfizer is by far the largest and most powerful of the multinational drug companies. Its wealth exceeds that of many countries. It probably exerts the greatest political influence. It was accused of influencing the Australian Minister for Health's office and undermining the activities of the PBAC, the body which controls the listing of drugs for Medicare payments and their pricing in Australia. Pfizer was in dispute over some of its drugs. Two government officials from the minister's department later joined Pfizer.

Pfizer paid out US $49 million to settle allegations of defrauding Medicaid. In May 2003, Boston was waiting for a settlement from Pfizer. Pfizer has set aside US $403 million to settle this. Pfizer recently purchased Pharmacia, which is the subject of a Medicaid fraud investigation in New York.

Pfizer paid US $20 million in 1999 for involvement in an international price fixing cartel.”

Gareth, I rest my case, “Drug companies are dishonest and corrupt.” Dishonesty, corruption, fraud and convictions, politics, questionable and corrupt relationships, would you like to continue or do you just want to play silly semantic games?

So you may think we are back to where we started, but this, my friend, is just the beginning. If you wish to play games so be it, but if you want to continue this discussion then go and read all the material provided and get back to me.

Are drug companies corrupt and dishonest?

Would you call bribing doctors to influence their prescribing and teaching “corrupt”? Is marketing that exaggerates benefits and glosses over or fails to mention risks “dishonest”? It happens every day of the week right around the world. Drug companies will do whatever they can get away with to maximize profits. Public health is only a secondary consideration.

Here are a couple of recent shining examples of drug company ethics. Firstly, Abbott Laboratories - from Boseley S., Drug firm censured for lapdancing junket,The Guardian, 14 February 2006:

“One of the world's largest drug companies has been disciplined by the industry's UK watchdog after admitting that its staff entertained doctors to greyhound racing, lapdancing and Centre Court tickets at Wimbledon. The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Authority (ABPI) ruled that the scale of the hospitality to doctors who might be influenced to prescribe Abbott Laboratories' drugs breached its code of practice.”

Then there’s Bristol-Myers Squibb, who’ve just been sued by their own shareholders. In January BMS

“set aside $185 million to cover an anticipated settlement of a shareholder lawsuit over Vanlev, an experimental high-blood-pressure medicine once touted as a blockbuster that was abruptly withdrawn from clinical trials four years ago. The lawsuit, pending in U.S. District Court in Trenton, alleges Bristol-Myers hyped the drug in an effort to boost the company's stock price, even though it knew the Food and Drug Administration would reject it…”

(From Jordan GE., Bristol puts funds aside for Vanlev settlement, The Star Ledger, 24 January 2006. Unfortunately, the link to this is no longer active.)

Fiona: Hi Robyn, the link is working now. I'm not sure what I did to it when reformatting as requested - sorry!

Gareth, you initially used my statement “Drug companies are corrupt and dishonest”. My terms were “dishonesty” and “corrupt”. For convenience you have introduced another term: “convictions”. I am unaware that I have used that term in relation to my discussion. It would appear this is a term you have introduced for your convenience.

Also for your convenience you wish to take the behaviour of tobacco companies out of the equation; so be it. It would appear we are in agreement as far as the behaviour of drug companies is concerned; however this was an excellent example supporting my discussion.

Now let’s have a look at your term “convictions” and allow me to ask you two questions.

1.      Do you believe that Hitler was dishonest and corrupt?

2.      Can you supply the evidence to prove that he was legally convicted of dishonesty or corruption?

In other words, dishonesty and corruption are not necessarily inclusive of convictions. There are many dishonest and corrupt individuals and organisations that have never been convicted. Why?

Could it be that in the case of drug companies they have both political and financial clout, and the ability to spend literally hundreds of millions if not billions (tax deductible) on defending themselves against individuals who can only spend their life savings (not tax deductible) in fighting for justice? Is it any wonder that there are few convictions?

How many actions (usually class actions, refer previous) have been taken against drug companies where the victims have settled out of court with the contractual proviso that no further action can be taken and that under no circumstances are they to reveal the terms of settlement? In other words, take some money and shut up: you can’t take further legal action nor can you talk to the press.

Gareth, do you want to continue with this discussion and what are your terms? For if you wish to introduce “convictions” then I would like to introduce “actions” and “settlements”.

A little warning; I am old enough and ugly enough to know when someone may be trying to play me for a fool, so if you wish to continue this discussion please bear that in mind.

At this point in time I will leave it there Gareth, if you wish to work with me on this one then be prepared for a long and revealing collaboration. However, if you are in this for the purpose of scoring points then I would advise you find someone else to play with.

Cheers mate.

Gareth, is this all about semantics of about common sense and honesty?

One example: tobacco companies claimed for years that there was no link between smoking and cancer. I am not even going to waste my time providing the links to substantiate this. If you don’t already know this then you must have had your head somewhere dark and silent for a long time. All I can say this is just one example of many dishonest claims.

Check out the claims made by Glaxo Smith Kline in relation to SSRI anti depressants:

This from Guardian Unlimited April 24 2004;

Drug companies have deliberately suppressed evidence that many antidepressants are unsuitable or even dangerous for children, according to psychiatrists and child health experts.

Researchers uncovered unpublished data about clinical trials of the most popular antidepressants on the market, known as selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs), which raise serious doubts about prescribing them to children.

And a quick look at this one in relation to the behaviour of drug companies.

Have a look at this one and after you have followed all the links, let me know your feelings.

If you want more information then I will give you more information, Gareth, on one condition: you read every bit of data I supply you with for I will guarantee I could keep you going for a thousand lifetimes. After you have read all the stuff on tobacco then we will get on to Librium, then Eraldin, then and then…

Are you game, Gareth?

Are you prepared to spend the time?

Or are you just doing a CP?

Phil Moffat, re your statement “Drug companies are corrupt and dishonest”.

This is a pretty extraordinary claim, don’t you think?

Firstly, a company is nothing more than a legal entity, any dishonesty or corruption is ultimately perpetrated by human beings. Secondly, are you suggesting this dishonesty and corruption pervades all, most, some or a couple of drug companies? Do you have any concrete examples of this? Perhaps some convictions of the bulk of the management structure at these corrupt and dishonest drug companies?

A landmark study of 50 087 Swedish Army conscripts by Andreasson et al (1989) concluded that:

Cannabis use is associated with an increased risk of developing schizophrenia, consistent with a causal relation. This association is not explained by use of other psychoactive drugs or personality traits relating to social integration.

The editors of the site (British Medical Journal) add:

1. Use of cannabis has been associated with an increased risk of developing schizophrenia

2. Alternative explanations for this association include confounding by personality or by use of other drugs such as amphetamines, and use of cannabis as a form of self medication secondary to the disorder

3. Self reported cannabis use is associated with an increased risk of subsequently developing schizophrenia, consistent with a causal relation

4. This association is not explained by sociability personality traits, or by use of amphetamines or other drugs

5. Self medication with cannabis is an unlikely explanation for the association observed

I do not think that this can be lightly dismissed, even though some attempt to do just that. But I am working at the moment on a borrowed computer, and I really do not have time to say much more right now.

Note that this and similar studies have no shortage of sceptical interpreters, who incline to what they want to incline to.

Jay,

Once again a thoughtful and considered reply, thanks.

“In many ways you seem to me to be wishing that the state will take the role of being guardian of our children's welfare and decisions. This simply for the most part is not the case …….. Many simply have very few of them as I am sure you are aware.”

There is much truth in what you say, especially in relation to the realities of children and opportunity. Although I don’t necessarily agree that I wish the state would take on the role of guardian, it would be good to think that we could at least offer all kids the opportunity of fulfilling and continuing employment, something that was taken for granted when I left school. However, the world has changed and become more competitive.

It would seem that we both are aware of the realities of the drug problem, especially in relation to youth so maybe (in the meantime) we could be looking at ways of creating more opportunities (for kids) across the board, regardless of the laws in relation to drugs, so that drugs will not become a convenient crutch to ease the pain of rejection. Of course, how we do this is something that needs to be addressed, and of course it will be a cost to the taxpayer.

Is it a cost worth bearing, and do you think this would help to mitigate drug use among the young?

Should we be putting more of our huge surplus into this, or do you feel it would be a waste?

I would be interested in your views.

Phil Moffat: "Fair comment, though I do feel that many who advocate legal drug use are not necessarily the young. But the guts of what you say is very true: we must thoroughly work through the pros and cons to work out this very complex problem. Of course the “man” will fight the people every inch of the way, so like you I do not have a lot of hope that the community will have the opportunity to formulate the best solution".

Personally, I do not think big business (drug companies) has a problem with legal drugs. Having had some experience with them, I can assure you the bottom line for them, like all business, is profit. Any legalisation of now illegal drugs would see the biggest ones stand to make a fortune. They would deliver the supply quicker, cheaper and have all involved from producers to suppliers on a contract quicker than you can say boo! Dressing somebody in a white coat does not make them a better human being.

Now, as for the children situation, I do not think that you are a babe in the woods, I know I am not. The real life fact is that some kids have a luckier break than others when being born. They have parents who take the time to care and actually take their roles with extreme seriousness, and or at least are in a position to be able to do this. This is no sure fire guarantee of future success but it is at least a start.

In many ways you seem to me to be wishing that the state will take the role of being guardian of our children's welfare and decisions. This simply for the most part is not the case and, one simply has to look at the number of parents wishing to send their children to private colleges and the like to understand that many others do not believe this either. Fact is, drugs do and will affect different groupings in society more so than others. The fact unfortunately also is that the groups most affected are also likely to be the most vulnerable. One of those unfortunate truths in life, I’m afraid. When one has, at least, options, that is exactly what it means: they at least have options. Many simply have very few of them as I am sure you are aware.

This reason, with a few others, is why I am not comfortable supporting legal profit-making drug use and a long way from agreeing with it. Now, you may well say these people are already being affected as we speak and this is true. The difference, however, is that I am not playing a part in it as a lawful member of society and I am not agreeing with something that my soul tells me is wrong and will end very badly for many people.

We can all sit back and laugh with the benefit of hindsight at our elders banning many of these thingsand the hopes they had when banning them. It still does not change the fact they did this because they thought these things were harmful and they were doing right. Even today I think there still is a large grain of truth in their original feelings.

Basically I am still far from convinced society is heading down the right path with a much, much more liberal drug policy.

Jay, thanks mate for your reply; it would appear we have similar concerns and a healthy cynicism of the “man”.

You wrote: “However, I only wish people to thoroughly think through all the pros and cons of wishing to see such a decision made. Things are often not as simple as they first appear. I feel that too often the legal drug advocates seem to be young people who in some way believe they will be socking it to the "man" so to speak eg Governments, alcohol, tobacco suppliers etc.”

Fair comment, though I do feel that many who advocate legal drug use are not necessarily the young. But the guts of what you say is very true: we must thoroughly work through the pros and cons to work out this very complex problem. Of course the “man” will fight the people every inch of the way, so like you I do not have a lot of hope that the community will have the opportunity to formulate the best solution.

I gave up on that on years ago and simply did what I thought was best in relation to my kids and whether through good parenting, good kids or just plain good luck things have worked out delightfully. I sincerely hope if you have kids that they also will be (are) fully prepared to deal with the “man” and his poisons.

On another note, I just caught a bit of A Current Affair or one of those dopey programmes at 6.30. It was about getting your kids tested for illegal drugs. I only caught a little of it but I have heard of this stuff before. It seems like the perfect way to alienate your kids and encourage them to rebel. It is also a way for the “man” to exploit an already delicate situation. I would advise any parent against doing this, as I feel there are far more mature and transparent ways to approach the problem.

Nice to see we could continue this discussion in a more realistic and sensible manner. Cheers, mate and all the best to you and family and of course your children (if you are fortunate enough to have any).

So let’s get back into the wheat thread and bash the shit out of each other ;-)

Phil Moffat: "I expect we would both agree that the government (the people) should make decisions in relation to the control and distribution of drugs, if drugs were decriminalised. I firmly believe that the distribution of drugs should not mirror the way in which alcohol is marketed. Why we still allow that drug to be promoted and advertised I will never know".

Sure the Government, ie the people, should make any decision they want: that is democracy. However, I do not care who controls any legal drugs. Somebody will have to make it and distribute it, I suspect under licence. Some people are going to get mighty legally rich and powerful out of it. That surely cannot be in dispute. Drugs of addiction mean just that, a returning customer base.

"Of course there should be strict laws about the sale and distribution of the substances and they should never be marketed in any way whatsoever. Of course this should be done in conjunction with education and public awareness campaigns about the dangers of the poisons we consume. We are doing this at present with tobacco and it would be hard to disagree that we are slowly winning, for there are far fewer smokers today than during the WW2 per capita".

Prescribed drugs of addiction are not advertised now. That does not stop either the knowledge of or consumer demand for them. I suspect any future ban on advertising for any future drugs of addiction will be equally as ineffective as it is now.

"Thanks, Jay, for your valid questions for I am sure we both agree that drugs in general do very little to enhance life and we would both agree that the fewer people using drugs the better. We simply have to come to some agreement in the best way of achieving this. I suppose it’s a community thing, but as long as we allow ourselves to be the pawns of the powers that be then we will have to put up with what we have now".

Yes, I agree that we live in a drug-soaked society both legal and illegal, and it is getting worse by the year. It seems one cannot feel anything these days without the attempt made to shove one thing or another down ones throat. This is why I have always expected that one day we will see illegal drugs entering the legal fray in one way or another. Simply there is way too much money involved for them not to. I do, though, wonder how hard the equivalent of the home-brewing kit will be cracked down on this time around.

However, I only wish people to thoroughly think through all the pros and cons of wishing to see such a decision made. Things are often not as simple as they first appear. I feel that too often the legal drug advocates seem to be young people who in some way believe they will be socking it to the "man" so to speak eg Governments, alcohol, tobacco suppliers etc.

One thing I have picked up in my life experience is the "man" always wins. And in this debate no matter the final decision either way the "man" will win again. As a society I guess we all have to decide whether we will be winning along with him.

I have never been sure and I am becoming even less sure as the years go by that this will be the case.

Jay: “Is it correct for the state to allow something to be supplied that is of no medical benefit and can in fact be quite harmful?”

I will take it your term “something” means drugs in the context of this discussion, for lollies have no medical benefit yet they can be quite harmful by ruining appetite and fostering bad heating habits, especially with kids. Diabetes is now quite a prevalent disease owing to poor diet and obesity. Diabetes type 2 is now affecting kids, yet some years ago this was unheard of. So should we ban sugar and Maccas?

You wrote further: “If the answer is in the affirmative, and made into a personal legal choice issue than why should a legal market for drugs that have no other purpose than to serve as a pleasure purpose not be allowed?

This question gets down to the real issue for, as I have stated before, decriminisation of drugs is the lesser of two evils. However, the question you raise is a valid one in respect to supply. In other words, who is going to supply the drugs and how do they go about it? The black market or the white market?

I expect we would both agree that the government (the people) should make decisions in relation to the control and distribution of drugs, if drugs were decriminalised. I firmly believe that the distribution of drugs should not mirror the way in which alcohol is marketed. Why we still allow that drug to be promoted and advertised I will never know.

Somehow, we, the community will have to work out a way so that those drugs in existence and freely available on the black market are available (in moderation), yet not promoted or glorified. Maybe we could develop drugs that have a similar effect to amphetamines and opiates yet are not as dangerous. Maybe that’s how drug companies could contribute, but they would have to be policed.

Of course there should be strict laws about the sale and distribution of the substances and they should never be marketed in any way whatsoever. Of course this should be done in conjunction with education and public awareness campaigns about the dangers of the poisons we consume. We are doing this at present with tobacco and it would be hard to disagree that we are slowly winning, for there are far fewer smokers today than during the WW2 per capita.

Thanks, Jay, for your valid questions for I am sure we both agree that drugs in general do very little to enhance life and we would both agree that the fewer people using drugs the better. We simply have to come to some agreement in the best way of achieving this. I suppose it’s a community thing, but as long as we allow ourselves to be the pawns of the powers that be then we will have to put up with what we have now.

Phil Moffat: "Ritalin also is an amphetamine based drug fed to kids who supposedly have ADD. Also diet pills fed mainly to women are amphetamine based drugs. Pills and medicines for colds and flu also have amphetamines in them, these are bought over the counter. The stuff is all around us".

Yes indeed, most drugs we see as illegal are used in one legal form or another; the average joe would be quite shocked!

These chemicals used for correct purposes in the correct doses are not in themselves harmful; at least, not proven to be as of yet. In fact, in many cases they can be of a major benefit, eg opiates for severe pain relief. This is why this cannot be a debate about a medical problem.

The fact that the chemicals in drugs are used in the wrong doses is for one reason and one reason alone: for the purpose of seeking a form of high for no other reason than for pleasure. This reason in itself makes this a moral debate. Is it correct for the state to allow something to be supplied that is of no medical benefit and can in fact be quite harmful?

If the answer is in the affirmative, and made into a personal legal choice issue, then why should a legal market for drugs that have no other purpose than to serve as a pleasure purpose not be allowed? As I have stated before, a legal drug market would be a huge unbelievable money-making machine. This would no doubt lead to large drug companies and the like inventing chemicals that we can only imagine. Maybe safer drugs than today’s variety, maybe not.

At this point in time these companies are at least obliged to operate under lawful measures if not ethical ones. As I have asked already, if heroin is to be made freely and legally available why not say crystal meth or any other of the numbers of drugs out there?

Jay, yes indeed; however, I do feel that a controlled environment is the lesser of two evils. I feel I have made myself quite clear on that one from my previous posts. No good gaoling kids and destroying their lives for trying drugs.

I’m sure if we discussed this topic in a mature and unemotional manner then we could figure a solution that would be better (by far) than what we have now.. Drug companies are corrupt and dishonest, but at least they supply drugs in doses and quality that are generally reliable (excluding drug companies in India and Africa). Governments of course could insist on proper drug trials and police the industry properly to mitigate the problems I have mentioned. But they have to have the will to do it.

Have you ever investigated the role drug companies have played in keeping certain drugs illegal and why?

PS. thanks for the link to krank (crystal methamphetamine), I did find it last night and thought it described crystal meth (speed, amphetamine) in a very honest fashion. It’s a mug's drug (if taken regularly and often) and I personally feel it is worse than heroin. Some of our well known leaders were very addicted to it as I mentioned earlier. Ritalin also is an amphetamine based drug fed to kids who supposedly have ADD. Also diet pills fed mainly to women are amphetamine based drugs. Pills and medicines for colds and flu also have amphetamines in them, these are bought over the counter. The stuff is all around us.

Phil Moffat: "You see, I do have a personal axe to grind when it comes to drugs for I have seen how legal drugs are put on the market, destroy people, then research is carried out to discover that these drugs were poorly tested and marketed hastily in the first place. I have seen what these drugs do and how the drug companies play hard ball when they have to answer for their greed and dishonesty. I have seen someone very dear to me treated like shit, resulting in their death because of this."

Well now, Phil, can you understand my confusion about why you feel the need to so readily hand over control of known about very addictive drugs to the same people you are complaining about? The only thing changing is the illegal into legal; everything else all remains the same.

Also for those enthralled with the words “medical supervision”, I can assure you all that every drug, and I mean every single one, is marketed and the information supplied is from drug companies themselves. So perhaps in the light of how profitable a highly addictive drug like heroin (somebody whether personally or taxpayer will have to pay) you may be able to understand my sceptical outlook on such "centres" and "suppliers"?

Graeme Finn: "Jay White, your all or nothing argument is stupid as there are always shades of grey."

Well, why is it stupid? Would you like to explain why some drugs should be left illegal whilst others are made not only legally available but also taxpayer funded? What makes one stoner's drug of choice more privileged than another’s?

"Also, your attempt to denigrate all drug users as "stoners" has already been refuted by me with reference to professional medical practitioners succumbing to addiction despite not being despised hippies or "stoners". Use of that term just shows that you let your prejudices interfere with your logic".

A stoner is a person on drugs. Hence if a doctor is using for a high he/she is also a stoner. The same way a person totally out of it on alcohol is a drunk.

"I take it you must support people gettting burgled and mugged, because without reform of the drug laws that is what will continue to happen."

I don't support any criminal activity and never have. If attempting to stop people being burgled is the precursor for making a drug freely available, that would just about mean every single one of them must be thus, no?

I think you might find not only heroin addicts commit crimes. If crime was the method based on what should be legally handed out somebody could soon make a good case for alcohol being one of those drugs. Hence an alcohol treatment centre, or as I would call it a pub with free beer!

Ian McDougall, this is what I said on the depression thread in relationship to the marijuana discussion:

It would interest me to see more research done on this topic, as I suspect that young developing brains may be disadvantaged by using any type of drug, especially alcohol. Are you aware of any similar surveys into teenagers, alcohol use and mental illness?

Although I am not trying to twist this post into an alcohol bashing thing I feel that we, as a community, should be investigating the effects of all drugs (used by juveniles) on human brain development and do that research in a very sincere manner.

Ian I would dearly like to see research done, on all drugs, legal and illegal, Hell, they giving kids tranquilizers and Ritalin (speed) these days and we don’t know their effects on the developing brain. Makes you wonder why there is limited research on these matters, but then again, the people making the money from these drugs wouldn’t really care. Check out how the drug companies are marketing to kids now. A little research may be of benefit for you will see just how corrupt the drug industry is, whether legal or illicit.

You see, I do have a personal axe to grind when it comes to drugs for I have seen how legal drugs are put on the market, destroy people, then research is carried out to discover that these drugs were poorly tested and marketed hastily in the first place. I have seen what these drugs do and how the drug companies play hard ball when they have to answer for their greed and dishonesty. I have seen someone very dear to me treated like shit, resulting in their death because of this.

So bring on the research, I say, but let’s do it across the board with all drugs, not just the ones the powers that be want to keep illegal for commercial/competitive reasons.

Tom Sadler, sorry about the link: try this. It is actually not a badly balanced site, it gives both the pros and cons for all drugs in a fair why, I think.

"But I doubt that the advocates of a change from the War on Drugs strategy to a harm minimisation strategy have a secret agenda to have all drugs freely supplied. Even those advocating an extreme legalisation policy don't call for the Right to Free Coke".

Well, why not, Tom? Is it because, say, cocaine is seen as a drug for the rich, so therefore they can afford it on their own? Why pick one drug and not the other? Or is the aim to destroy this dark seedy side of life known as the "black market" which basically means tax is not being paid. Why should it not be all or nothing?

As has been stated earlier, many illegal drugs are quite legal depending on the setting used and who the prescriber is, things such as methadone, morphine, tomazapan, mandrax, valium, nitrous oxide, ephedrine, ketamine etc. The interesting thing with many of these drugs is those that have invented and market them are quite legal aboveboard companies (they pay tax and make profits and have shareholders). So if we are to legally allow drugs such as heroin to be freely available, why not allow major drug companies the latitude to invent new and more exciting ones strictly for legal profit? I am sure with the right amount "R & D dosh hopefully tax deductible" this would not be too difficult.

I think with the drug debate – which is in fact a moral debate – always has been and not a medical one no matter how much some would like to make it, there is no end to it. If you do not think large drug companies should be allowed a free-for-all in this industry for whatever reason, perhaps you can see the point made by people such as myself against legal freely prescribed heroin at taxpayer cost. I really cannot see the difference no matter how hard I try between heroin being used for no other medical reason than to get one "stoned" against any other drug now on the "stoners’" banned list. The only difference here is that tax would be paid (no black market), which seems to be such a major selling-point for so many here.

Phil Moffat asked me yesterday for scientific proof that marijuana causes mental illness, specifically schizophrenia. I did a Google search of the web and reported as follows: “A Google search of the web this morning under "marijuana, schizophrenia" yielded quite a number of sites (ie 537,000) with information related, and the opening page had many reports of scientific studies on it, with this one at the top of the list. This indicates that dope smoking may have a different outcome for adolescents than for people who begin later in life.” (My italics)

To this Phil replied: “For the record, 1,960,000 Google links relate to “marijuana health benefits”; while “marijuana health dangers" relate to 757,000 links. Do you think providing the number of links that relate to a particular subject is a scientific way of proving the veracity of such a topic? Although I am not a scientist, I would expect that scientists would laugh at such a suggestion.”

Well, I suppose they would. The point I was making is that there is a lot in the scientific literature and other material out there pointing to links between schizophrenia and marijuana. As for “proof”, it depends what you mean by it, and which school of philosophical thought you belong to, I suppose. Ultimately it will depend on your personal selection of a point at which you consider that the evidence has tipped enough to one particular side of the issue.

Something had indicated to me that “dope smoking may have a different outcome for adolescents than for people who begin later in life.” In one sense, Phil clearly took it to be the fact that I had turned up 537,000 sites on my Google search, and hence his rejoinder above. An ambiguity (for which I take full responsibility) may be the source of this confusion. But then Phil went on to show that he had followed the link (to the ABC Catalyst site, quoting from the show’s narrator as follows: “Currently there is not enough evidence to say that marijuana causes schizophrenia and there’s not enough to say it doesn’t. But with two out of three young Australians trying marijuana, they do need to understand the risks.” So that link had not provided Phil with satisfactory proof.

Then he added the following: “One would expect with so many young people now trying marijuana there would be a schizophrenia epidemic by now. Is there?”

I will have to return to that later. In the meantime, let us consider a further comment by Phil on this particular researcher’s approach and work:

"…Dr Martin Cohen (from the link you provided) stated:

"He had a hunch that smoking cannabis could be irreversibly changing the way an adolescent brain develops, to make it function more like the brain of a schizophrenic.”

Then Phil added: "... there is a lot of difference between a hunch and empirical proof. It would appear we have a long way to go before we can establish proof one way or the other. But I will repeat what I wrote in the depression thread in relation to marijuana use by the young…” Et cetera.

The et cetera turns out to be about alcohol, not marijuana.

So let us consider without Phil’s style of selective quotation the evidence for the dangers involved in marijuana smoking, specifically in relation to schizophrenia, that is to be found on this one site (for the moment we will ignore what is on the 536,999 others. And I am sure the ABC won’t mind a lengthy quote, as the material has already been broadcast free to air.)

(Narration): Dr Martin Cohen is trying to find out why. He’s a psychologist at the Hunter Medical Research Institute, and he’s comparing the functioning brain of young heavy dope smokers with the brains of schizophrenics. He had a hunch that smoking cannabis could be irreversibly changing the way an adolescent brain develops, to make it function more like the brain of a schizophrenic.

Dr Martin Cohen: During adolescence the brain’s going through tremendous change. The neural networks and parts of the brain are changing the way that they’re actually interconnecting to lead to development of the thinking capacities of an adult. Cannabis actually affects the way these processes occur and actually affects the way that the brain will be hard wired for later life.

(Narration): He’s comparing the brain function of four different groups. Firstly there’s schizophrenics with no history of drug use. Secondly heavy cannabis users. Then schizophrenics who also use cannabis. And finally a control group with no history of drug use or schizophrenia.

So how do these different brains perform? One important brain area the MRI task targets is the cerebellum; the area responsible for coordination and movement.

Martin found that the people in the control group activate the cerebellum extensively, but the schizophrenic sufferers show a marked reduction in activity. In the cannabis smokers, cerebellum activity is reduced even further, and schizophrenics who also use cannabis show no activation at all.

It was the same story for the frontal cortex, a critical area of the brain responsible for attention, memory and complex thinking tasks.

You can also see that in the frontal cortex the first episode schizophrenia patients and the cannabis users show a very similar pattern of lack of activation of this prefrontal cortical region. And once again there is no activation at all in the schizophrenic cannabis users.

Paul Willis: So overall what does this mean? That the brain of a marijuana user is more similar to that of a schizophrenic?

Dr Martin Cohen: Absolutely. There’s actually very similar patterns of lack of activation in the cannabis users and the first episode schizophrenia patients.

Narration: Martin’s research is suggesting something really worrying for ALL dope smokers; smoking cannabis is going to change the way your brain works.

Only some dope smokers will develop schizophrenia. But cannabis does seem to be changing the way a young adult’s brain develops so it functions more like a schizophrenic brain. And this is reflected in their behaviour.

Dr Martin Cohen: Clinically we see very similar deficits in their ability in terms of cognitive functioning, their thinking functions but also in terms of their planning, their organisation and their capacity to be motivated and exercise drive and be social.

George: If I want to focus myself on anything I can still do it but it’s usually the surrounding things which seem unimportant that will just slip out of my memory if I’m smoking a lot of pot. Like I’m more liable to forget what day it is, or what show I was watching that morning.

Narration: Martin still doesn’t know if these effects are permanent or not.

Dr Martin Cohen: In subsequent years these cognitive deficits might actually become more evident and interfere with their day to day functioning as well as predispose them to mental illness.

Narration: And for schizophrenia sufferers like Mark that’s a risk he wished he’d known he was taking.

Mark: As far as I’m concerned marijuana no matter what you say is bad.

Narration: Currently there is not enough evidence to say that marijuana causes schizophrenia and there’s not enough to say it doesn’t. But with two out of three young Australians trying marijuana, they do need to understand the risks.

Dr Martin Cohen: The adolescent use of cannabis is particularly risky and I would advise people if they are contemplating using cannabis, especially early on in life, wait, wait until there’s more evidence.

Note the part quoted by Phil, and the context in which it is originally presented: “Currently there is not enough evidence to say that marijuana causes schizophrenia and there’s not enough to say it doesn’t. But with two out of three young Australians trying marijuana, they do need to understand the risks.”

I would like to deal now with some of Phil’s other points, but unfortunately I have a plane to catch tomorrow morning. I will try to rejoin this discussion while travelling, but it may not be possible.

Junkies were/are all around us, here are a few:

John F Kennedy, multi drug user, steroid and amphetamine addict.

Anthony Eden, drug user and amphetamine addict.

Winston Churchill, drug user, alcoholic and amphetamine addict.

Many, many more in high places.

George W. Bush?

Ian McDougall: It would appear that you have successfully debunked your original claim that “Marijuana is worse, because it sends too many of its users raving mad.”

For the record, 1,960,000 Google links relate to “marijuana health benefits”; while “marijuana health dangers" relate to 757,000 links. Do you think providing the number of links that relate to a particular subject is a scientific way of proving the veracity of such a topic? Although I am not a scientist, I would expect that scientists would laugh at such a suggestion.

The link you provided states:

“Currently there is not enough evidence to say that marijuana causes schizophrenia and there’s not enough to say it doesn’t. But with two out of three young Australians trying marijuana, they do need to understand the risks.”

One would expect with so many young people now trying marijuana there would be a schizophrenia epidemic by now. Is there?

This “conclusion” from the Journal of Mental Health, published in 2003 in relation to the homeless:

“The prevalence of schizophrenia has remained relatively stable over the past two decades despite deinstitutionalisation continuing over the same period.”

One could assume that drug use among the homeless is probably more prevalent than in others. So far I believe the approach and comments from Mike are far more unemotional and reasonable than what you have offered so far.

I would also like to bring to your attention that those poor souls who suffer from schizophrenia are not raving mad and it would appear if you do some more research you will discover that this disease has more to do with family and genes (proven) rather that marijuana (not proven). However, you use schizophrenia in defence of your “raving mad” comment. I’ll let you decide whether your comment was ignorant, “clever” or just plain emotional. But to date you have yet to show any evidence, just maybes, hunches and hypotheses.

You wrote:

“Many people can smoke dope for long periods without lasting ill effects beyond respiratory and possibly cardiovascular damage. Those who want to keep smoking in my experience also want to dismiss and/or explain away any discomforting scientific evidence of harm. We generally believe what we want to believe.”

Yes indeed, Ian “We generally believe what we want to believe.” Do you have any evidence that smokers dismiss scientific evidence, or is this observation based on emotion rather than science?

Having said that, Dr Martin Cohen (from the link you provided) stated:

” He had a hunch that smoking cannabis could be irreversibly changing the way an adolescent brain develops, to make it function more like the brain of a schizophrenic.”

Ian, there is a lot of difference between a hunch and empirical proof. It would appear we have a long way to go before we can establish proof one way or the other. But I will repeat what I wrote in the depression thread in relation to marijuana use by the young:

“It would interest me to see more research done on this topic, as I suspect that young developing brains may be disadvantaged by using any type of drug, especially alcohol. Are you aware of any similar surveys into teenagers, alcohol use and mental illness?

The destructive effects of alcohol on the human brain are a scientific fact and in this case it would appear we both agree that drugs and youth are not a good combination.

Finally, Ian, you immediately dismissed the Anslinger material by stating:

“The Anslinger material is a straw man, on the level, say, of a report by the Holy Inquisition of the late middle ages on the effects of witchcraft or masturbation.”

You obviously did not do your homework (or misunderstood) for your throwaway line supports the point I am trying to make. The comments and line that Anslinger pushed in relation to “reefer madness” had no relevance to fact yet he used such “information” to play on public fear and ignorance to criminalise the drug for the benefit of such organisations as the DuPont Company; in the same way that George Bush and Co. played on fear and ignorance to wage a really stupid war for the benefit of companies like DuPont. Same shit different decade, when will we ever learn?

Who did Anslinger marry and what was his relationship to those who benefited most from the criminalisation of marijuana? There are lots of facts to be found, not hunches, not hypothesis but documented evidence that may be of benefit.

Somehow I suspect that you may have a personal axe to grind in relation to the marijuana thing, for your comment (and defence) of same is revealing.