I have never heard a pomo ask what is cannabis? But surely you’re not of the opinion that it is a single substance, the term is generic and covers a wide variety of familial substances.

Ah, scientific motivation. This of course is where many scientists do get upset, but then I am tempted to say “methink the lady doth protest to much”.
Scientists are human, fallible and as susceptible to all sorts of extra-subjective motivations. Not least of which money is a huge factor in the scientific research industry.

I accept that scientists’ frame of reference is not objective and acceptable for discussion but to question their motivation is something else entirely. That is one reason why many are hostile to this analysis – it can be misinterpreted (ironically) as a personal attack.

AC1

In terms of scientific probability (particularly in this field) these are minimal results for maximum efforts.
But politicians and dare we say it the media do not speak the same language game and they may percieve “just one” fewer psychoses as a successful return on their investment!

The ACMD were these scientists hired by the Home Office?
Is there any reason why I should grant greater authority to their findings than to other groups (pomo undercurrent what questions are really being asked by whom and for what aim and purpose).

As regards alleged harmful affects of Cannabis and its causal relationship to schizophrenia this research:
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/184/2/110
indicates that from initial research the discouragement of cannabis use by a certain vulnerable profile of user should/would lead to approximately an 8% reduction in incidents of psychoses.

I would add as a caveat three points.
i) Constant research needs to be done into the effects of varying brands of cannabis, particularly the more potent psychoactive “skunk” variety – which in comparison to other types of cannabis has a significantly increased incidental effect of causing psychoses.
ii) As with any pomo view on scientific “research” and the authority we give it, we should question the methods and techniques, funding and aims of every programme (and not just those we may disagree with).
iii) What this research does raise is a) that reduction of psychoses would be about 8% (that is not a huge reduction in the population at large), and b) where Cannabis use may be speculated upon as a causal factor in developing psychotic illnesses it must be reiterated that it is only one among many other important factors (most important of which is the individuals predisposition to psychotic illness).

The consequence of the third point is that targeted programmes may reduce psychosis in those who are vulnerable to developing it through cannabis use and the Governments proposed legislation is not targeted (i.e. specific) it is general. This is indicative of a worrying trend in politics at the moment to make legislative generalisations – much like many recent alcohol debates the consequential problems of substance abuse in a minority lead to greater restrictions on the freedom of the majority.

The comeback question by many who support such generally restrictive legislation is who is going to pay for more specific programmes identifying then targeting vulnerable persons for whom substance use may lead to mental problems?