Reefer Madness!

Since you are reading this, you have probably already checked today’s Penny Arcade, which links and briefly discusses this article. My own incredulity spurs this post, though I don’t know if I will be able to organize my thoughts into a response that does justice to the topic—I am still at work, and apparently I am expected to be working.

This affront to journalism is an assault on cannabis and video games on that harkens back to the days of Reefer Madness. The article includes quotes doctor-like individuals and offers statistics without linking them to studies or discussing the legitimacy of said studies. It maintains a focus on cannabis use and the consumption of violence through the video game Grand Theft Auto, the conclusion of the article concerning itself exclusively with the affects of cannabis and its correlation with mental illness.

“Paul Jenkins, chief executive of mental health charity Rethink, said: 'While there can be several triggers for mental illness, we know that if used by people under 18, cannabis doubles the risk of psychosis.”

That is interesting. I would love to read this study and see what kind of sample size, what kind of blinds, and what data collected could indicate such a thing and not be purely correlational. Were there ECGs taken to monitor mental activity in pre-adults? Did they administer cannabis to healthy individuals? I am inclined to believe that a study run by a mental health institute will probably work with people who have mental health issues. These people may also have marijuana issues, but the two are not directly linked by any solid evidence. Here’s what their “study” probably looked like: We have 100 nuts willing to take our survey. All of them have received treatment through the program, meaning all of them have mental health issues. 66 of them had also smoked cannabis before the age of 18, and 33 had not. This is not a real study. This is correlation.

Or maybe it is a study. I have a study of my own. I have spoken to twenty UC Davis students or graduates, and 15 of them smoked cannabis before college admittance. Therefore, cannabis triples a high school student’s odds of getting into UC Davis.

Hurray, I’m a Scientist! I’m ordering a white coat as you read this.

“Professor John Henry, a clinical toxicologist, said: ‘People are beginning to realise that cannabis is not the puff and relax substance that people used to use.’”

Okay, I’ve forgotten how to name all my logical fallacies, so someone should help me out. Our dear professor leaves little room to disagree with a totally unbased claim. And if you do not agree, then you are not people. And you are stupid.

I don’t understand how this article can draw all its conclusions against cannabis. The article stipulates that the guy is a paranoid schizophrenic, that he was also using cocaine and had not taken his prescribed medicine in two weeks. Drugs and violent video games may have spurred the act of violence, but it cannot be forgotten that this kid was already damaged. Perhaps instead of doing the conservative two step and pointing the finger at societies vices, the journalist should have asked how a previously diagnosed pre-adult paranoid schizophrenic gained access to cocaine, cannabis, and a violent video game, in addition to copious amounts of time to immerse his mind in said game. Maybe the journalist should be asking who was responsible for this unstable individual, not what catalyzed the crazy into violence.

I could continue, but I don't really have any interest in writing a serious rebuttal.