Ok, I’ll jump in as well with a rejoinder to Rick. Yes, it is true that a recent study (a single study, I might add) found that cannabidiol, an active ingredient in marijuana, may alleviate symptoms of schizophrenia when taken alone.

However, this news hardly means that marijuana is neutral when it comes to mental disease. THC, the main active ingredient in mairjuana, causes paranoia and alters brain chemistry in a way that can cause schizophrenia later in life. Consequently, here are numerous studies showing a major link between schizophrenia and marijuana. Here’s a small sampling:

One 15-year study of 50,000 young people in Sweden, for example, found those who had tried marijuana by the time they were 18 were 2.4 times more likely to receive a diagnosis of schizophrenia. The Swedish researchers concluded that 13 per cent of schizophrenia cases could be averted if all cannabis use was prevented.

Another study of almost 5,000 subjects in the Netherlands replicated the findings, and also found that marijuana users were more likely to be diagnosed with schizophrenia during the study’s three-year follow-up period. Other studies suggested that subjects who used marijuana in their early teens were more likely to be diagnosed with schizophrenia by their mid-20s.

In a companion article, Hall and Degenhardt argue the evidence has policy implications. Young people should be warned of the marijuana-schizophrenia link, since most schizophrenics are diagnosed by their late teens, about the same time teens are experimenting with cannabis.

Obviously cannabidiol isn’t cancelling out THC.

Think of this in terms of drinking a screwdriver. You have orange juice, and you have vodka. The orange juice counteracts the effects of alcohol to some degree; it contains fructose, which helps the body burn off alcohol, along with essential vitamins and minerals that are taken away by alcohol.

However, it isn’t a wash — not even close. If you drink too many screwdrivers, you’ll be hungover the next day. It’s the same with marijuana; it tends to make you paranoid, and at the end of the day, it increases your risk of schizophrenia significantly. That may be a risk many are willing to take for a temporary high, but it’s something to factor into the calculations.

Make no mistake, Matt is a talented, insightful guy (with a Notre Dame education, for God’s sake!). So I offer no opinion of my own. I only engage the debate:

LONDON, May. 1 (UPI) — A British and German study suggested an active ingredient in cannabis reduced symptoms in schizophrenia patients.

It makes sense, per Matt’s article, that stronger strains of Mary Jane can have adverse affects that the children of the 60’s and 70’s (you know who you are, LST readers) never experienced. If so, and it is proven that these new strains are worse than alcohol, then I will concede the point. But I am not yet convinced.

For those of you who are willing to admit the “youthful indiscretion” of smoking pot, I must ask:

– Were you a better driver drunk or high?

– Were you belligerent drunk or high?

Dare we experiment with the conventional?

(Hat tip: Wino)

I just got home from the airport and CNN Headline News was on the TV. The discussion was about illegal immigration. The bottom of the screen read:

“Illegal Immigration Debate
Valuable Citizens or Criminals?”

Who else sees the incongruity in that question?

By the way, reports I heard on the radio said about 1,000 attended the demonstration in Los Angeles (so much for massive traffic jams), and Edd Hendee reported on KSEV that about 35 (excluding police and media) showed up for the downtown Houston rally this afternoon.

In almost an hour of coverage, however, Headline News failed to mention the lackluster turnout.

Update:

No one yet has commented on the incongruity in the Headline News “crawl.” I’m waiting.

Drug-crazed abandon!

New findings on marijuana’s damaging effect on the brain show the drug triggers temporary psychotic symptoms in some people, including hallucinations and paranoid delusions, doctors say.

British doctors took brain scans of 15 healthy volunteers given small doses of two of the active ingredients of cannabis, as well as a placebo.

One compound, cannabidiol, or CBD, made people more relaxed. But even small doses of another component, tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, produced temporary psychotic symptoms in people, including hallucinations and paranoid delusions, doctors said.

And why did Rep. Scott Hochberg (D-Houston) vote against protecting children’s right to express their religion?

Because then children might express their religion!

If the Senate approves it, student leaders will be allowed to summon Jesus Christ in prayer to help calm student nerves before a TAKS test, Rep. Scott Hochberg, D-Houston, said of the hypothetical situation before voting against the measure.

Or, a student leader can call on Allah if he or she is a Muslim. Or, a student leader can tell other students that it’s sacrilegious to pray to Jesus for comfort because “Jesus was not the son of God, Jesus was not the messiah,” Hochberg told his colleagues, noting some discomfort in their facial reactions.

Oh my goodness! If we allow kids to pray, they might actually do it!

“Under this legislation, students will be held captive to the expression of religious beliefs that they and their families may not share. Students will be able to promote their own religious views over everybody else’s, placing schools in serious legal jeopardy,” said Kathy Miller, president of the organization, which supports an agenda of religious freedom.

Whoa now. Let’s see how the Texas Freedom Network portrays itself:

A mainstream voice to counter the religious right

Hmm.

Given that our government is NOT inclined to uphold our laws with illegal immigration from Mexico and treat Mexican nationals better than US citizens (not enforcing vehicle laws, tax laws, giving them access to free health care and education), I’m putting this question out there for debate:

SHOULD MEXICO BECOME THE 51ST STATE OF THE UNION?

Pros:

• Mexico would have to follow US Federal law;
• The US could start to prosecute and root out corrupt officials
• Mexican citizens would not be treated better, they would be treated the same as US citizens;
• Mexican citizens would have access to schools, hospitals, services, etc and not have to “migrate” to the US in order to get it;
• The plentiful Mexican oil would become US oil; we would be able to govern it much better than the Mexican government without the graft and corruption;
• Current citizens of the US could buy and sell property in Mexico;
• The smaller border between Mexico and Guatemala would be easier to enforce than the current huge border with Mexico;
• We could get at and prosecute the drug lords that are currently receiving safe haven from the current corrupt Mexican government

Cons:

• It would cost a TON of money (see the re-unification between East and West Germany). (But are we spending that money anyway without any offset? i.e. access to Mexican oil and real estate?)
• It would be hard and maybe impossible to root out the corruption (see Louisiana and Chicago);
• It would drop the US border to Guatemala and make it easier for Central Americans to make it into US territories (if we don’t enforce our present borders, do you think the government will enforce the new border?)
• “Mexican” drug lords would become “Guatemalan” drug lord;
• The Mexican government or people have not requested this “unification” and would be opposed to it;

There are more “Cons” than “Pros” (not listed out), but like I said earlier, I am just throwing this out for discussion…

What do you think?

Do you Remember this? 

Joseph Faulder, a Canadian national who was convicted of murder in 1977 and sentenced to death. Secretary of State Madeline Albright attempted to persuade Texas Governor George W. Bush to grant Faulder a 30 day reprieve in which to consider the consular access issue, but failed in the face of Gov. Bush’s staunch support of the death penalty.

In fact when questioned about the death penalty for foreign nationals in 1999, George Bush (then Texas governor) responded:

“I think it’s fair. The courts think it’s fair. I think there’s ample time to review death penalty sentences. And if you’re referring to the Canadian, I’ll never forget the press conference [when] the Canadian press said, ‘What should be learned about your system?’ And I said, ‘The message is clear. Don’t come to Texas and kill somebody.’ You’ll be given fair access to the courts. We’ll give you full time to have your hearing. That’s exactly what we do in the state of Texas. But there will be consequences for bad behavior. So I believe the system is fair in the state of Texas.”

President Bush has had a change of heart. 

(Chron.com) The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider whether one of the six killers of Houston teenagers Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Peña should escape execution because he was denied a chance to get legal assistance from the Mexican Consulate.

As requested by the Bush administration, the high court will hear arguments in the fall on the case of Jose Medellin, a Mexican citizen sent to Texas’ death row in the notorious 1993 rape-murder case.

What is the motivation behind the Bush administrations request?  International law of course.

(kwtx.com) The International Court of Justice in The Hague has ruled the convictions of Medellin and 50 other Mexican-born US prisoners violated the 1963 Vienna Convention.

That’s because they were denied legal help available to them under the treaty.

The treaty requires consular access for Americans detained abroad and foreigners arrested in the United States.

Mexico had sued the United States in the international court, alleging the prisoners’ rights had been violated.

Texas wants to proceed with Medellin’s execution anyway.

But the Bush administration sides with Medellin in asserting that the president’s primacy in conducting foreign policy is being challenged.

President Bush, a former Texas governor, ordered new state court hearings for the defendants based on the international court ruling.

But a Texas appeals court said the president exceeded his authority by intruding into the affairs of the independent judiciary.

There you have it folks.  International court rulings trump US and states laws. 

Just an aside:

The Bush administration has said in court papers that while it disagrees with the World Court’s decision in the matter, it intends to keep its promise to abide by it.

The Texas court, the administration now argues in its “friend-of-the-court” brief supporting Medellin, is undermining Bush’s determination of how the United States will comply with its treaty obligations.

Regardless of what you think about the NBA (and it isn’t a thug league), you have to marvel at the ability of Robert Horry to make big shots. He did it again last night in Game 4 of the the Spurs/Nuggets series.

You just never know what direction Gov. Perry is going to go from day to day. I’m thinking this one is due to his recent setbacks in the Legislature and his declining popularity with conservatives.

Gov. Rick Perry said Monday that Texans who are legally licensed should be able to carry their concealed handguns anywhere, including churches, bars, courthouses and college campuses.

“I think it makes sense for Texans to be able to protect themselves from deranged individuals, whether they’re in church, or whether on a college campus or wherever they are,” he said.

“The idea that you’re going to exempt them from a particular place is nonsense to me.”

The context of his statements is in relation to the recent shootings at Virginia Tech and a traveling show about school safety. One of his traditional allies is against him on this one, the Texas Association of Business. They want to continue to allow employers to ban guns.

Companies also can prohibit their employees from carrying weapons onto their property. The Senate has approved a bill to allow handgun licensees to leave their weapons in their cars on company parking lots, but the TAB and many employers are trying to kill that legislation in the House.

For the most part, I agree with the governor about removing restrictions on where you can carry your concealed weapon. But I’m not so sure about bars and neither is the guy that sponsored the original concealed carry legislation.

Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson, who sponsored the concealed handgun law as a state senator in 1995, said he agreed with Perry that “we need more guns in schools in the hands of responsible people.”

But he drew the line at allowing guns in bars. “People get drunk there, and their aim is not as good,” he said.

I think it’s probably a good thing to keep guns out of bars but other than that, the governor is right on this one.

——————–

Concealed Handgun License Training– New licenses $100 (classes approximately every other week), recertification $80 (done weekly). Price includes all range fee, fingerprinting, notary work and photographs. Basic training available for persons who want a license but have little or no experience with a firearm. Ask about special group classes. Contact Austin Arrington 281-948-8373.

(click pic for story) 

Concealed Handgun License Training– New licenses $100 (classes approximately every other week), recertification $80 (done weekly). Price includes all range fee, fingerprinting, notary work and photographs. Basic training available for persons who want a license but have little or no experience with a firearm. Ask about special group classes. Contact Austin Arrington 281-948-8373.

——————–

Get paid to tell us what you think– Register to participate in one of our focus groups; earn money telling us what you think about politics, your community and consumer goods. Click here to learn more and sign-up!

——————–

——————–

Dawn Wolf Design– LST’s full-service graphic designer of choice. Talented, professional, competitively priced; a generous LST volunteer, we could not recommend her more highly. | 713-781-8900 | website

——————–