The Disasterous Concequences of Legal Marijuana in Oregon

‘Talk About Clusterf---’: Why Legal Weed Didn’t Kill Oregon’s Black Market
Legalization was supposed to take care of the black market. It hasn’t worked out that way.

[...] Over the last two years, there’s been such an influx of outlaw farmers that southern Oregon now rivals California’s notorious Emerald Triangle as a national center of illegal weed cultivation. Even though marijuana cultivation has been legal in Oregon since 2014, Jackson County Sheriff Nate Sickler says there could be up to 1,000 illegal operations in a region of more than 4,000 square miles. The Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission, which oversees the state’s $1.2 billion legal cannabis industry, estimates the number of illicit operations is double that.

Local law enforcement officials believe that people from every U.S. state and as many as 20 countries have purchased property in Jackson or Josephine counties. Cartels roll in and offer long-time residents as much as a million dollars in cash for their property, and hoop houses follow soon after the sale is complete. Residents have become accustomed to hearing Bulgarian, Chinese, Russian and even Hebrew spoken at the grocery store.[...]

      Read the whole thing for... many stories of lawlessness. Photos of massive amounts of trash and destruction. It's the lawlessness that is the most disturbing, as law enforcent seems unable to deal with it.

There is also the untold story, of mental health problems. Marijuana triggers Schizophrenia in some people with a family history of it. At the very least, there should be warnings about it on Marijuana products.

Marijuana, Mental Illness, and Violence

Oregon also has some of the most mis-guided mental health laws in the country, making it impossible to intervene to help people with illnesses like Schizophrenia. We had a tenant who was diagnosed with it after using legal purchased marijuana products. She lost her ability to work and pay rent, and became homeless. Even her family could not legally intervene. It was tragic, and it continues to happen to many unsuspecting people.

Legalization, and the way it was rolled out and implemented, has been disasterous. Drastic changes are needed, before things get even worse.

Genetics and Mental Illness: common roots?

Same Genetic Basis Is Found in 5 Types of Mental Illness

The psychiatric illnesses seem very different -- schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, autism, major depression and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Yet they share several genetic glitches that can nudge the brain along a path to mental illness, researchers report. Which disease, if any, develops is thought to depend on other genetic or environmental factors.

Their study, published online Wednesday in the Lancet, was based on an examination of genetic data from more than 60,000 people world-wide. Its authors say it is the largest genetic study yet of psychiatric disorders. The findings strengthen an emerging view of mental illness that aims to make diagnoses based on the genetic aberrations underlying diseases instead of on the disease symptoms.

Two of the aberrations discovered in the new study were in genes used in a major signaling system in the brain, giving clues to processes that might go awry and suggestions of how to treat the diseases.

“What we identified here is probably just the tip of an iceberg,” said Dr. Jordan Smoller, lead author of the paper and a professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital. “As these studies grow we expect to find additional genes that might overlap.”

The new study does not mean that the genetics of psychiatric disorders are simple. Researchers say there seem to be hundreds of genes involved and the gene variations discovered in the new study only confer a small risk of psychiatric disease. [...]

     

How about "Mental Illness Control"?

A Proper Response to the Connecticut Murders

[...] But no one can discount one over-riding issue that links every like event involving these types of mass murders, mental health. The Aurora, WV Tech and the Newton slayings all involve a significantly mentally ill individual.

We, as a nation, decided three or four decades ago, that we didn’t have the will or resources to create safe, reliable and appropriate facilities for those who suffer with mental illness. One reason we started to lose our appetite to deal with the mentally ill appropriately was the ever expanding definition that was being associated with the diagnoses. Eventually, every drunk and drug user was labeled mentally ill, and resources allocated to the mentally ill were quickly filled and demand for more and more and more resources taxed the mental health support system.

A history of tragic abuse in mental health facilities also came to light as mental institutions became the playground for every kook doctor who espoused a cure for mental health. With little or no oversight mental health institutions became a real life horror stories. One has to look no further than the lobotomy of Rose Marie Kennedy to demonstrate these abuses.

Thus, by the time the 1980′s rolled around mental health institutions were burdened with more demands for an every expanding diagnose and marked by the mark of abuse. Lost respect led to lost funding which eventually led to the closing of many public mental health institutions.

And, now, mental health, marred by expanded definitions, history of abuse and quackery, lost funding and lost public support, ranks low in the priorities of the American public.

We should realize that there are individuals, through no fault of their own, who suffer from mental illness, which needs to be recognized and dealt with. Additionally, families of these individuals need support, both in resource and emotional support. In return for this support the mental health community needs to stop the ever expanding definition of mental illness and separate those who choose to abuse drugs and alcohol from those who suffer from a non self-inflicted malady. [...]

Our country has had a long history of gun ownership, without these mass slayings. So what has changed? We used to lock up people who had serious mental problems. And now we don't.

*

     

The thoughts you think, and mental depression

They often go together:

Cognitive Therapy for Depression
Are your thoughts dragging you down?

Almost everyone has dark thoughts when his or her mood is bad. With depression, though, the thoughts can be extremely negative. They can also take over and distort your view of reality.

Cognitive therapy can be an effective way to defuse those thoughts. When used for depression, cognitive therapy provides a mental tool kit that can be used to challenge negative thoughts. Over the long term, cognitive therapy for depression can change the way a depressed person sees the world.

Studies have shown that cognitive therapy works at least as well as antidepressants in helping people with mild to moderate depression. Treatment with medication and/or psychotherapy can shorten depression's course and can help reduce symptoms such as fatigue and poor self-esteem that accompany depression. Read on to see how cognitive therapy or talk therapy might help you start thinking and feeling better if you are depressed.

Cognitive Therapy for Depression: A Thinking Problem

Cognitive therapy was developed in the 1960s as an alternative way to treat depression, says Judith S. Beck, PhD. Beck is director of the Beck Institute for Cognitive Therapy and Research located outside Philadelphia. She tells WebMD that the principle underlying cognitive therapy is "thoughts influence moods."

According to cognitive therapists, depression is maintained by constant negative thoughts. These thoughts are known as automatic thoughts. That means they occur without a conscious effort. For example, a depressed person might have automatic thoughts like these:

"I always fail at everything."
"I'm the world's worst mother."
"I am doomed to be unhappy."

Beck says automatic thoughts "may have a grain of truth. But," she adds, "the depressed person distorts or exaggerates the reality of the situation." This negative distortion helps fuel the depression.

With cognitive therapy, a person learns to recognize and correct negative automatic thoughts. Over time, the depressed person will be able to discover and correct deeply held but false beliefs that contribute to the depression.

"It's not the power of positive thinking," Beck says. "It's the power of realistic thinking. People find that when they think more realistically, they usually feel better."

Cognitive Therapy for Depression: How It Works

Cognitive therapy posits that most problems have several parts. Those parts include:

the problem as the person sees it
the person's thoughts about the problem
the person's emotions surrounding the problem
the person's physical feelings at the time
the person's actions before, during, and after the problem occurs

The way cognitive therapy works is a patient learns to "disassemble" problems into these various parts. Once a person does that, problems that seemed overwhelming become manageable.

During regular cognitive therapy sessions, a trained therapist teaches the tools of cognitive therapy. Then between sessions, the patient often does homework. That homework helps the person learn how to apply the tools to solve specific life problems.

"They make small changes in their thinking and behavior every day," Beck says. "Then over time, these small changes lead to lasting improvement in mood and outlook." [...]

The article continues on, comparing the success of cognitive therapy with other methods of treating depression, and also combined with other methods. It also talks about cognitive therapy used to relieve chronic pain, and reduce reliance on pain medications.

It concludes with how you might consider using cognitive therapy to improve your own depression, and where you might find help.

I did a post a while back, about the 2008 election, called: The Real Winner of the 2008 Election: Optimism.

In that post, I refereed to a book about Cognitive therapy, that I found quite interesting: "Learned Optimism: How to Change Your Mind and Your Life" by Martin E.P. Seligman. A description of the book:

Known as the father of the new science of positive psychology, Martin E.P. Seligman draws on more than twenty years of clinical research to demonstrate how optimism enchances the quality of life, and how anyone can learn to practice it.

Offering many simple techniques, Dr. Seligman explains how to break an “I—give-up” habit, develop a more constructive explanatory style for interpreting your behavior, and experience the benefits of a more positive interior dialogue. These skills can help break up depression, boost your immune system, better develop your potential, and make you happier.

With generous additional advice on how to encourage optimistic behavior at school, at work and in children, Learned Optimism is both profound and practical–and valuable for every phase of life.

The book had a chapter about the "optimism quotant" of political speeches, and how there are heaps of data to show that they can be used to predict the results of elections. Something to consider yet again in this election year, perhaps?

Anyway, I think it's a great book for anyone who wants to use cognitive therapy techniques to improve their own outlook and life. Like the woman in the article above said, "It's not the power of positive thinking, it's the power of realistic thinking. People find that when they think more realistically, they usually feel better." That's an excellent description of cognitive therapy, and a good description of the approach used in Seligman's book, too. A practical, useful approach to an important subject.     

Do Californians too easily suffer too many fools?

Garrido claimed black box could speak his mind

OAKLEY, California (CNN) -- The black box sat inside a cabinet. Philip Garrido had given it to a friend for safekeeping, and that's where the friend kept it.

The black box has jacks for plugging in headphones. Philip Garrido claimed it could speak his thoughts.

"He feels he can speak to you and me and everyone else using this box," said Garrido's friend and former business client, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

"He was a whack job, but he was a whack job who sounded like he had a really good heart," the friend added.

Garrido and his wife, Nancy, were arrested last month and charged on more than two dozen counts, including kidnapping and rape.

Authorities say the Garridos held Jaycee Dugard, 29, captive for nearly two decades in their backyard. Both have pleaded not guilty. Authorities have said Garrido, a registered sex offender, fathered Dugard's two children.

[...]

Three years ago, Garrido demonstrated the box for clients of his printing business. The clients, some of them at least, went along with his claims for the device.

"I didn't want to tell him you're a kook and you don't know what you're talking about," said Tim Allen, who owns a glass shop in Antioch.

Even so, Allen and several other former Garrido clients signed declarations saying the device worked.

"People believe in things. I didn't think it was my place to shoot him down," Allen said. [...]

Those statements I've emphasized in bold print, really reflect the culture in California, which places a lot of emphasis on "not being judgmental". I can understand that up to a point, but look where it can lead to when it's taken too far. Garrido's craziness was tolerated to the point where he was able to commit crimes and... do the things he did.

Could it be that sometimes a kook needs to be called a kook, and locked up if he's dangerous? There is too often a tendency too be overly concerned about damaging the self esteem of seriously disturbed people. What happened to Jaycee is sometimes the result.

One could argue that since Garrido was not criticized about the black box, he was thus encouraged to try to patent it and publicize it, thus attracting the attention of the police, leading to the rescue of Jaycee and her daughters. But you have to wonder, if his mental illness had not been so tolerated from the beginning, if it had been treated more as an illness than a self esteem issue, if he might have been prevented from kidnapping Jaycee in the first place?

I'm all for tolerance, but it needs to be tempered with good judgment too. Like so many things, it's a question of balance.
     

Why violent psychotics are not locked up

When I lived in San Francisco, I worked in the security business for 12 years. I remember having to deal with a lot of mentally disturbed people, many of them homeless.

Most of them were harmless to others, but clearly not able to take care of themselves properly or make good decisions without help. A few were obviously dangerous, to themselves and others.

Many on the left gleefully called it the Reagan legacy. And it's true, he did indeed play his part; yet Reagan was just one component. There was a coalition of liberal groups forming a "liberation movement" that had been pushing for release of mental patients from hospitals for many years. In the 1970's, this movement joined forces with fiscal conservatives to empty state run mental hospitals. This movement succeeded in other states as well.

Outpatient centers were supposed to replace the hospitals, at reduced cost. The left said this was more humane; the right said it would save money. When the outpatient centers failed miserably, funding for them was cut. The result is what we have today; chaos.

There is an excellent article by Dr. Jonathan Kellerman in the Opinion Journal that goes into this and much more:

Bedlam Revisited:
Why the Virginia Tech shooter was not committed.

An excerpt about the V-Tech shooting:

[...] Diagnosis from afar is the purview of talk-shows hosts and other charlatans, and I will not attempt to detail the psyche of the Virginia Tech slaughterer. But I will hazard that much of what has been reported about his pre-massacre behavior--prolonged periods of asocial mutism and withdrawal, irrational anger and hatred, bizarre writing and speech--is not at odds with the picture of a fulminating, serious mental disease. And his age falls squarely within the most common period when psychosis blossoms.

No one who knew him seems surprised by what he did. On the contrary, dorm chatter characterized him explicitly as a future school-shooter. One of his professors, the poet Nikki Giovanni, saw him as a disruptive bully and kicked him out of her class. Other teachers viewed him as disturbed and referred him for the ubiquitous "counseling"--an outcome that is ambiguous to the point of meaninglessness and akin to "treatment" for a patient with metastasized cancer.

But even that minimal care wasn't given. The shooter didn't want it and no one tried to force him to get it. While it's been reported that he was involuntarily committed to a "Behavioral Health Center" in December 2005, those reports also say he was released the very next morning. Even if the will to segregate an obvious menace had been in place, the legal mechanisms to provide even temporary "warehousing" were absent. The rest is terrible history.

That is not to say that anyone who pens violence-laden poetry or lets slip the occasional hostile remark should be protectively incarcerated. But when the level of threat rises to college freshmen and faculty prophesying accurately, perhaps we should err on the side of public safety rather than protect individual liberty at all costs.

If the Virginia Tech shooter had been locked up for careful observation in a humane mental hospital, the worst-case scenario would've been a minor league civil liberties goof: an unpleasant semester break for an odd and hostile young misanthrope who might've even have learned to be more polite. Yes, it's possible confinement would've been futile or even stoked his rage. But a third outcome is also possible: Simply getting a patient through a crisis point can prevent disaster, as happens with suicidal people restrained from self-destruction who lose their enthusiasm for repeat performances.

At the very least, in a better world, time spent on psychiatric watch could've been used to justify placing the Virginia killer on a no-buy gun list. I'm not naïve enough to believe that illegal firearms aren't within reach for anyone who really wants them, but just as loud dogs deter burglars and crime rates drop during harsh weather, sometimes making life difficult for a would-be criminal is enough. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) He goes on to explain why it has become impossible to intervene in cases such as this, and how we can expect more of the same, unless we become willing to deal with the facts that face us. This is a must-read for anyone who wants to understand how we have ended up with things the way they are, and what we might now consider doing about it.
     

Guns, drugs and psychos

All-or-nothing solutions like banning guns or drugs don't work

The all or nothing crowd keeps insisting that the 2nd Amendment needs to be repealed and all guns banned.

As for the use of antidepressant drugs by so many mass-shooters, I see some people are saying it's wrong to criticize antidepressant drugs, because such drugs help so many people.

Both arguments are too extreme, by taking an all or nothing approach. A more thoughtful approach is needed, and the following two blog posts seem to understand this. Here are the links, with some excerpts:

Anti-depressant drugs and mass killers

[...] There's nothing wrong with most of these drugs. Anti-depressant drugs such as Prozac and Zoloft have helped millions of people cope with depression. They are useful tools when used for adults who do not have severe mental disorders but they are no good for kids with serious problems.

[...]

The only solution is to identify sociopaths at an early age when it becomes obvious that they are anti-social, write hideous blood-thirsty plays and poems and kill cats. At that point they need to be put on anti-psychotic drugs not anti-depressants and, if the anti-psychotics don't curb their sociopathic behavior, then they need to locked up in loony bins. [...]

I've seen the use of antidepressant drugs in every mass shooting case I've read about. To acknowledge that is not to criticize the use of antidepressants, but to acknowledge that perhaps they are being misused when prescribed to people with serious mental illness problems.

Quote of the Day: Cesare Beccaria

[...] Consider the shootings in Germany in 2002, or the shootings in Scotland in 1996. (I apologize for not mentioning the Osaka school massacre of 2001 that left eight dead, but that was performed with a knife.) Our international critics should inquire as to why schools are always attacked by predatory psychos, regardless of how strict the firearm regulations are, as opposed to, let us say, police departments. Do this nonsense in a shopping mall and you will find citizens firing back, which is why shopping mall slaughters are unheard of. Universities like Virginia Tech, ironically, are gun free zones. A lot of good that does.

Indeed. "Gun Free Zones" are hunting grounds for psychopathic predators. In our past history, such large mass shootings have not occurred. We didn't have "gun fee-zones" back then, and we let citizens arm themselves as the 2nd amendment allows for.

We also didn't dispense anti-depressant drugs like candy to disturbed young people. Young people are still learning about self control; many have anger issues. Teens have raging hormones and are often too immature to handle their feelings constructively. Add to that deep mental problems, and then give them antidepressant drugs that lift their inhibitions... it's a recipe for disaster.

But rather than banning antidepressants (or refusing to look at their roll in these shootings), we could focus more on identifying people with serious mental problems, and getting them the appropriate help.

Instead of taking guns away from law abiding citizens, couldn't more be done to keeps guns out of the hands of psychopaths? Yet precisely because no system would be able to eliminate every possibility of danger, citizens must retain the right to arm themselves.

Whether it's guns or antidepressants, it's not the objects themselves that cause the problems, but the context they are used in. The answers lie in deeper examination of causes and effects in those contexts, not giving in to the all or nothing demands of the short-sighted.


Update 04-22-07: Now there have been copy-cat shootings and inspired incidents. I know the media has a responsibility to report the news, but endless coverage and over-publicity of the killers who do these crimes can be a problem in of itself.



Various groups want to use shooting tragedies to advance numerous causes, but isn't it ultimately about identifying truly mentally disturbed people, and intervening BEFORE they go on a murderous rampage?




The guy was nuts; call it mental illness or call it evil, that is the bottom line. How we can recognize and contain such dangerous killers before they act, in an open and free society like ours? That is the real problem we have to solve.