Margaret Trudeau "Marijuana can trigger psychosis"

66 posts / 0 new

Thu, 2013-08-22 15:38

terrytowel

Margaret Trudeau, who suffers from bipolar disorder, spoke openly with reporters about her experience with depression and the effect of her long-term marijuana use.

It is not uncommon for sufferers to self-medicate with alcohol or marijuana, she said, rather than reach out to family and friends or seek medical assistance.

"Marijuana can trigger psychosis," said Trudeau. "Every time I was hospitalized it was preceded by heavy use of marijuana."

Trudeau was hospitalized three times for mental illness.

Her first hospitalization followed the birth of her second child, Alexandre, while she was still married to Pierre Elliott Trudeau and living at 24 Sussex Dr.

Her most recent hospitalization followed the deaths of her son Michel, and Pierre Trudeau. Although she has suffered from mental illness for 35 years, it was not until the most recent hospitalization that she was diagnosed with bi-polar disorder.

"It's hard work. It takes maturity first to comply with the pharmaceutical. There's the feeling that it is taking away from your creativity, your spark. My doctor said 'No Margaret, it's your disease that's taking away from your spark.'"

Part of the hard work for Trudeau has been completely giving up the use of marijuana, something she once thought made her feel "wonderful."

"I miss it," she said of the pot- smoking. "It is a daily struggle. If it's around, I just don't stay around.

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=4fe4491e-aa55-4a43-9c7f-14c0ce...

Issues Pages:

Politics in Canada

Regions:

Thu, 2013-08-22 15:41

DaveW

out of curiosity: is that her last name any more? ... I thought she called herself Kempner

and

surely she realizes the impact of her statement on son Justin

Thu, 2013-08-22 15:46

Unionist

Ummmmmmmmmmmm...........

February 13, 2007?

And I wonder which scientific studies Dr. Margaret Trudeau had in mind when she made her ludicrous self-diagnostic statement - to the media.

Nice try, terrytowel.

ETA: Oh yeah, congratulations on finding a link which didn't show the date of the story! Well played.

Thu, 2013-08-22 15:52

terrytowel

Unionist wrote:

Ummmmmmmmmmmm...........

February 13, 2007?

I just finished reading her book (which was published in 2011). She writes many, many examples of how her pot use affected her personality.

http://www.amazon.ca/Changing-My-Mind-Margaret-Trudeau/dp/B00BCUGKME

btw I'm not anti-pot. Thought it would be interesting to contrast this satement, with Justin's statement on legalizing pot. Get a discussion going.

You should read her book, it was really facinating.

Sat, 2021-11-27 20:38

jfb

Thu, 2013-08-22 17:58

Unionist

Wow. Partisan hatred of the Liberals justifies trash science? That's a new one on me.

If Justin outmanoeuvred Tom on legalization, deal with it. Don't join the prohibitionist forces. That's my free advice.

Thu, 2013-08-22 18:39

Ken Burch

Ok. it may well be that marijuana can trigger psychosis.

This really doesn't come into play in the debate over whether pot should be decriminalized or even legalized.

Decriminalizing a substance doesn't have to mean assuming that the ingestion of the substance in question is absolutely harmless for everybody(no one who opposed alcohol prohibitition in the States ever made THAT particular claim about booze).

What Ms. Trudeau's story(and I think we can assume that people with mental health issues are in touch with what does and what doesn't make their conditions worse)tells us is that legalization will not mean the end of dealing with the consequences of people using marijuana or other drugs when they clearly shouldn't. There will always need to be drug treatment programs, there will always need to be programs for people with mental health issues to help those people gain control of their lives on their own terms and to understand what choices they should learn not to make(and those choices will be different for each person, btw-my use of the term "choices" here isn't meant to be judgmental or paternalist)and there will always be a need for continued learning and listening to those dealing with mental health issues and substance abuse problems. I doubt anyone here would disagree with any of the above

Margaret Trudeau has been through a great deal of misery in her life, and, whatever any of us might think of her late former husband, we should listen when she tells her story and respect her for sharing her experience.

Thu, 2013-08-22 18:48

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Unionist wrote:

Wow. Partisan hatred of the Liberals justifies trash science? That's a new one on me.

If Justin outmanoeuvred Tom on legalization, deal with it. Don't join the prohibitionist forces. That's my free advice.

I will say this, the REAL issue is the way Trudeau has cyniclly manipulated this issue for poliical gain. For my money,voters are stupid.

Thu, 2013-08-22 19:08

6079_Smith_W

Arthur Cramer wrote:

I will say this, the REAL issue is the way Trudeau has cyniclly manipulated this issue for poliical gain. For my money,voters are stupid.

I don't think one gets too far in politics without doing that at some time or another. That doesn't mean I'll cut my nose off and refuse to support good policy when I see it.

As for Margaret's story, as a piece about addiction it is worth hearing. As for dope causing psychosis, just because there is a demonstrated link in some cases, and just because she thinks there was one in her case, doesn't mean there is one in every case. So someone using her story to trash her son, get behind Peter McKay as he tries to show the cops who's boss, or otherwise demonize marijuana might want to think again.

Thu, 2013-08-22 19:32

#10

infracaninophile $infracaninophile's picture$

There seems to be a much better scientific case for legal pharmaceuticals, such as anti-depressants, triggering psychosis. Surely these are two separate issues: decriminalizing/legalizing substances and providing needed services for those who are negatively impacted by them.

Thu, 2013-08-22 19:49

#11

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

6079, I don't see how what you wrote addresses what I wrote. My issue is what did IS DOING. THAT's the REAL story! He's a fraud and the MSM is helping him GET AWAY WITH IT!

Thu, 2013-08-22 19:58

#12

socialdemocrati...

Not sure why to create a thread over a 2007 article.

Also not sure why her opinion on marijuana and psychosis is credible.

But even if there is some evidence of a link, it's to the extent that it's obvious: people who have a vulnerable mental state shouldn't be altering their consciousness. (The same would be true of alcohol: if you're depressed, alcohol is probably going to take you to a very dark place.)

And so it does not justify the draconian, counter-productive, failed policy of prohibition. (Not that anyone here has tried to defend that. Yet.)

Thu, 2013-08-22 23:49

#13

lombar

"Psychosis (from the Greek ψυχή "psyche", for mind/soul, and -ωσις "-osis", for abnormal condition or derangement) refers to an abnormal condition of the mind, and is a generic psychiatric term for a mental state often described as involving a "loss of contact with reality". People suffering from psychosis are described as psychotic. Psychosis is the term given to the more severe forms of psychiatric disorder, during which hallucinations and/or delusions, violence and impaired insight may occur."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis

I concur. Cannabis causes psychosis... in those that continue to advocate its prohibition. They have completely lost contact with reality and use violence to enforce this madness upon the rest of us. Their insight is impaired by their delusional beliefs about cannabis(for instance, Schedule 1 in the USA). They are psychotically obsessed with maintaining its prohibition up to and including denying cannabis is less toxic than alcohol.

Federal Drug Agency Denies Marijuana Is Less Toxic Than Alcohol

http://goo.gl/KccGrl

Sat, 2021-11-27 20:39

#14

jfb

Fri, 2013-08-23 11:22

#15

knownothing knownothing's picture

Unionist wrote:

Wow. Partisan hatred of the Liberals justifies trash science? That's a new one on me.

If Justin outmanoeuvred Tom on legalization, deal with it. Don't join the prohibitionist forces. That's my free advice.

There is no way that Mulcair could have come out for legalization, he would have been lambasted by the media. Trudeau is leading the 3rd party of the house so they can afford to raise more peripheral issues just as Jack used to. Besides everyone can see he is simply pandering when one considers his flipflops on the issue.

Fri, 2013-08-23 12:52

#16

Hunky_Monkey

If I recall correctly, Tom wants a new Le Dain type commission to study and consult drug policy and not just pot, before moving forward. Get all the stalkholders together and do it right.

We all know if by some miracle Trudeau ever becomes PM, we won't see legalization.

Sat, 2021-11-27 20:40

#17

jfb

Fri, 2013-08-23 14:06

#18

KenS

You know, the mind is a very funny thing, that we understand little of.

I'm one of many people I know of who have no evident signs of mental illness, and no family history.

Drugs open doors, and they do it indiscriminately. Even without the push from present or potential mental illness, some of us need those doors to stay closed.

I have a daughter who is so very much like me, and I think hearing about my experiences has managed to convince her that hallucinagenics are too likely to be a nasty crap shoot for her. But I wish she would swear off weed too.

So as far as I'm concerned, the potential to trigger nasty effects for people who do have definite mental health issues.... well, duh.

Sat, 2021-11-27 20:40

#19

jfb

Fri, 2013-08-23 14:21

#20

6079_Smith_W

KenS wrote:

... the potential to trigger nasty effects for people who do have definite mental health issues.... well, duh.

And sometimes the opposite effect. That's why I think Margaret's story is important in illustrating her case.... not necessarily everyone's case.

Fri, 2013-08-23 14:38

#21

KenS

I'm well aware it CAN have the opposite effect.

But I come down strongly against tacitly ecouraging desperate people to spin the roulette wheel.

I have no doubt that mainly or so-called 'recreational drugs' can help some people. But I think they need guidance. And I'll bet you that any professional would worry about taking that on. Doesn't take anti-drug paranoia to make you shy about that one.

There's a message there in observing the difference between thinking it might be good for some people, and knowing that your suggestions load you with personal responsibility.

Fri, 2013-08-23 14:51

#22

kropotkin1951

It only comes down to one thing and it is the same thing as the abortion debate. It is my body and I will choose what I want to do with it.

We don't need no flipping study to know that arresting people for pot is a breach of our Charter rights, the SCC has already ruled that it is. They then deferred to Parliament and said it had the right under Section 1 to breach our Charter rights. Studying the issue just means many more years of the state breaching what are supposed to be our fundamental rights.

Fri, 2013-08-23 14:56

#23

Unionist

Wow. Suddenly babblers are no longer in favour of legalization. All it took was some nitwit getting in front of a camera and saying he had smoked 5 times in his life.

Did you know that morphine is legal? Oh, and whiskey? Or should we have a commission with all the stakeholders looking at those as well?

I would definitely like to see political parties abolished - or at least the cult of one-leader dictatorship - and free the minds and mouths of honest people.

ETA: Um, where's [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/alberta-and-british-columbia/dana-larsen-will-an... these days?

Fri, 2013-08-23 15:03

#24

6079_Smith_W

Time to get back to reality, I think:

Seattle cops handing out nacho chips at hempfest

http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/seattle-police-continue-being-awesome-hand...

Fri, 2013-08-23 15:05

#25

Unionist

It's too bad Margaret Trudeau couldn't have been present when the B.C. Chamber of Commerce examined the issue of legalization of marijuana, to tell her story of how pot causes blindness and impotence (did I get that right??). I'm sure she would have jerked a tear or two:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uw3TDg4_wjo

Fri, 2013-08-23 15:15

#26

Ghislaine

I still really do not want Trudeau for PM, however it is refreshing to see someone a) answer the "did you inhale?" questions honestly and b) speak of pot as the harmless recreational drug that it is. He did it a few times, is not addicted, etc.

Fri, 2013-08-23 15:15

#27

mark_alfred

There was an episode of "The Nature of Things" on a possible correlation between mental illness and pot (see link). The link refers to some recent scientific research ("The scientists' groundbreaking work on the connection between marijuana and mental illness ..."), but I don't know if any of the work/research that it refers to was properly done (IE, peer reviewed, double-blind, over a long period of time studying a sufficient number of subjects, etc). Thus, it may or may not be "junk science".

Regardless, the article linked in the opening post adds more questions about Trudeau's recent conversion from anti-pot crusader to pro-legalization advocate. However, the fact that he's abiding by his party's policies regardless of what his own former opinion was (apparently decriminalization rather than legalization) isn't necessarily a bad thing. I myself feel legalization is a sensible option, but any such policy should be carefully taken (so, I'm not too disappointed that Mulcair sides more with decriminalization initially).

Sat, 2021-11-27 20:41

#28

jfb

Fri, 2013-08-23 15:20

#29

6079_Smith_W

@ KenS

Sure, I know someone who is in very rough shape right now, a condition which may have had something to do with him smoking tons of dope, so I am not downplaying that side of it.

My point is that no one is talking about a ban on alcohol, which has a far greater capacity to fry people's brains, cause birth defects and physical damage, and induce violent behaviour, or prescription drugs which are far more of a problem when it comes to addiction and damage.

Yet somehow these horror stories still have the power to trump the fact that marijuana is being recognized for its medicinal effects. And, while personally I'd recommend kids drop acid or shrooms rather than make themselves sick on booze, the fact remains that most of us smoked our fair share of dope with no ill effects whatsoever.

I'm not about to hand joints out to my kids, but remembering a few deadly car crashes from my school years, I know which environment I'd prefer them to choose, if they are so inclined.

Fri, 2013-08-23 15:26

#30

mark_alfred

That's interesting Jan. I guess the fickleness really should not surprise me, given the past record of the Liberals.

Fri, 2013-08-23 15:44

#31

terrytowel

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Not sure why to create a thread over a 2007 article.

Because it is creating a great discussion right now!

Fri, 2013-08-23 16:12

#32

6079_Smith_W

Reactionary, absolutely. Great, I'm not so sure.

Fri, 2013-08-23 16:12

#33

6079_Smith_W

Fri, 2013-08-23 17:18

#34

kropotkin1951

It seems that the BS about the strength of available THC products is capable of sucking both Tom and Justin. IMO neither one of those leaders will do anything significant on this file if elected PM.

janfromthebruce wrote:

‘IT’S NOT YOUR MOTHER’S POT’
A large cloud of marijuana smoke rose above the packed front lawn of Parliament Hill as pot activists (mostly teenagers) gathered for the annual marijuana demonstration. The Liberal party’s position has been for decriminalization for the possession of small amounts of marijuana. But Liberal MP Justin Trudeau is not in favour of decriminalization at all and feels that would be a step in the wrong direction. “It’s not your mother’s pot,” notes Trudeau of the stronger marijuana grown today, in contrast to the weed from hippie days. “I lived in Whistler for years and have seen the effects. We need all our brain cells to deal with our problems.” The day after the protest, a homeless man was seen combing through the Hill grass, looking for marijuana leftovers.

CBC wrote:

The New Democratic Party is trying to clear the air on leader Tom Mulcair's position on pot after the Young Liberals, hoping to score with younger Canadians on a day celebrated in marijuana culture, questioned his commitment to decriminalization.

Mulcair had created confusion about his party's position on March 18 when he said decriminalization would be "a mistake" because of the health risks associated with marijuana currently on the market.

But NDP spokesman George Soule said Friday that Mulcair was actually talking about legalization and said the NDP leader doesn't believe anyone should go to jail for possessing a small amount of marijuana.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/04/20/pol-mulcair-position-on...

Fri, 2013-08-23 17:48

#35

6079_Smith_W

Yes, it's kind of funny when the most progressive move in the room is being made by the cops.

Fri, 2013-08-23 18:26

#36

ERik Ar

I'd say tap water could have deleterious affects on those already prone to mental illness. Who knows, maybe there's some residual lead or mercury still lingering in our pipes.

So-called experts have been pulling data out of their butts about the supposedly dangerous effects of pot smoking since it was first made illegal, and media outlets have been hyping every half baked study supporting their whitebread prejudices ever since. (little known fact is thgat the original laws were used mostly to roust poor Mexican labourers and black jazz musicians) Yet I've yet to hear a single one explain how locking up even the most casual user for several years in a state pen, alongside hardened criminals, will help them overcome their supposedly anti-social personal habits.

Nice to see some hard data on Trudeau's real attitudes though, on the second most commonly used drug in North America. Maybe some NDPers here will post some of these contradictory statements on pro-Liberal sites like the CBC, TorStar and Huff-Po; the accumulating evidence might pay off next election.

Fri, 2013-08-23 18:36

#37

ERik Ar

I should add that decriminization-towards-regulated legalization would also weaken the Hells Angels' near monopoly on marijuana distribution, and allow a resurgence of milder, more interesting strains than the overly-inbred Skunk Weed clones we're stuck with now.

Fri, 2013-08-23 19:57

#38

KenS

I should have known that you couldnt share in some specific critical comments made about pot use and/or drug use, without it being read here as an argument against legalisation.

Reading a good number of comments here you would assume there was some sustained argument in the thread against legalization.

Fri, 2013-08-23 20:21

#39

6079_Smith_W

KenS,

Some people are better off not getting altered. I agree with you 100 percent. I already said that I took the story in the OP at face value.

It's also a wise idea these days to not take your eyes off your drink in a bar, and to know what is in anything you are offered to ingest.

But to refer to it as a roulette wheel is, frankly, nothing but fear mongering, IMO. While it may not exactly be an argument against legalization, it does imply that marijuana is somehow more dangerous that alcohol. And sorry, but that is nonsense.

Fri, 2013-08-23 21:52

#40

lombar

kropotkin1951 wrote:

It seems that the BS about the strength of available THC products is capable of sucking both Tom and Justin. IMO neither one of those leaders will do anything significant on this file if elected PM.

Well that doesn't leave any hope. Since the government is so incompetent about this kind of crime maybe its time to explore other areas of crime to make money from too. (/sarcasm)

Fri, 2013-08-23 22:29

#41

Maysie

Where's Slumberjack when we need him?

Fri, 2013-08-23 23:59

#42

Catchfire

Probably off on one of his, er, psychotic triggering sessions.

Sat, 2013-08-24 07:05

#43

KenS

Didnt say that pot is more dangerous, or even that it can be more dangerous than alcohol.

Unfortunate if that implication settled in.

But now that the subject comes in- I would say the dangers are different.

Alcohol is more dangerous because of the numbers of people and what it does to their lives.

Pot is something that FAR fewer need to stay away from. But there are also a host of people who absolutely dismiss that, even said away from the ears of reactionaries who use the saying of it.

Margaret Trudeau's warning was not directed at everyone. But she and what she said get attacked because she didnt have any science to back up her warning. Like that never happens around here.

Sat, 2013-08-24 07:49

#44

CanadaOrangeCat

I like the way that changing your mind about something is hypocrisy. Especially when you are changing your mind to a more positive (and pot-friendly) stance. Do you want people to remain rigid, or are you going to accuse them of hypocrisy for seeing the delta 4 tetrahydrocannibinol light?

Anyone who acts angrily against people who state the possible harmful effects of marijuana is clearly in denial. Cooler heads ought to prevail. Aren't pot users supposed to be cool? Where is the anger coming from? Chronic pot users are emotional cripples, to a great degree.

Perhaps, it might be safe to say that people who are prone to psychosis should stay away from marijuana, pain killers, alcohol, and even cigarettes for that matter. The Layton only knows we should all stay away from cigarettes.

According to some theory, neural complexes form to exist as representations of outside threats, the existence of which must be immediately denied for the sake of survival. As all perception is an internal representation of information received from the outside, these neural complexes are very accurate representations of those threats. The young individual subconsciously tries on behaviours with those neural complexes before attempting something in real life. Acting out is then based on what is determined to cause the individual the least harm from the threat. The individual survives even after the threat has gone. The problem is, so do the neural complexes. The emotional tension with the necessity of denial of these internal 'whipping posts' must be quelled with psychoactive substances or behaviors which release endorphins and other neurochemicals (and suppress others). Said complexes are the source of 'voices' and 'tapes' and feelings of inadequacy.

These neural complexes must by their nature be buried deep in layers of denial and hypocrisy. The only way that addiction and mental health problems can be solved is to root them out and return those neural resources to the core of personality. An individual may have to walk away from family and what he or she thought were friends to learn who they really are. If there is any wisdom at all in the Bible, this is it.

"Abusers and their enablers pull out all the stops in trying to make us feel guilty for removing ourselves from their destructive sphere of influence. People who have never experienced abuse just don’t understand how a family relationship could be so toxic that we might have no choice but to leave." -Luke 173 ministries dot org.

An addict has a 'family relationship' with their drug. A lady who was an obvious smoker (from her reek) was complaining about a toothache. I mentioned I lost some teeth until I stopped smoking. She then said she could not quit because 'of the stress'. Who is the boss, you or the pot? You or the cigarette? You or the ideology?

Sat, 2013-08-24 08:52

#45

Unionist

KenS wrote:

Margaret Trudeau's warning was not directed at everyone. But she and what she said get attacked because she didnt have any science to back up her warning. Like that never happens around here.

When I said "trash science" in post #5, I wasn't blaming Margaret Trudeau, but rather those who give her a platform - see post #1 and post #4. Especially the OP here. Based on a 2007 speech. At a time when we should be embracing legalization, not playing politics.

What a strange specific point in time to be discussing how weed can make you psychotic. Especially when that's not true.

Sat, 2013-08-24 09:37

#46

Francesca Allan

http://www.madinamerica.com/2013/08/psychedelics-not-a-risk-factor-for-mental-health-problems/

Sat, 2013-08-24 09:40

#47

Francesca Allan

janfromthebruce wrote:
some mental issues are genetically related such as bipolar disorder

Horseshit. At best, what's been proven is that mental illness can run in families. Well, so does net worth and religious affiliation but you'd be hard pressed to characterize these traits as brain diseases.

What's much more likely is when somebody is having trouble coping, rather than dealing with issues, they seek help from a pill bottle. The psychiatric industry acknowledges that antidepressants can cause mania. Once mania occurs, your diagnosis is upgraded to bipolar disorder. You now have a serious mental illness. Your psychiatrist will tell you that you must have been genetically predisposed to bipolar disorder. More horseshit. Big Tobacco tried the same thing when the correlation to lung cancer became clear.

Sat, 2013-08-24 10:00

#48

6079_Smith_W

Drunk VS. Stoned. Buzzfeed:

http://gawker.com/the-alcohol-requires-no-excuses-because-why-should-a-d...

From the comments section, Most harmful drugs, according to The Lancet:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harm

Sat, 2013-08-24 10:28

#49

Unionist

Let's nail down a few facts:

1. Marijuana is documented as causing leaning disorders. This has been known since the 12th century, if not earlier.

2. Anyone who calls marijuana "pot" hasn't used any in many years - if ever. In the 1960s and 70s we called it "grass" or "dope", now it's called "weed" (of course there are many other terms...).

3. Remember who promised "pot in every chicken"?

Sat, 2013-08-24 11:08

#50

Sineed

Like any drug, cannabis has adverse effects, including triggering psychosis in some people. This is well-documented, and acknowledging this fact doesn't mean anybody condones a continuation of prohibition.

Another fact: cannabis is less addictive than heroin, cocaine, alcohol, tobacco, and the benzodiazepines. And there are data finding it useful in the treatment of neuropathic pain, especially the kind suffered by people with multiple sclerosis.

For medical purposes, I condone using the pharmaceutical products, like Marinol and Cesamet, rather than smoking it. You know what you're getting, and you're avoiding the hazards of smoking. And the pharmaceutical products carry less of an association with triggering psychosis. I looked at many studies when I was in graduate school in 2010, and I couldn't find any study that found a triggering of psychosis from the pharmaceutical derivatives of cannabis.

I look forward to the end of prohibition so there can be a dispassionate evaluation of the medical benefits of cannabis without all the silly melodrama and political posturing.

Sat, 2013-08-24 11:49

#51

6079_Smith_W

But... but.... the melodrama is so much fun!

Blame George Takei, not me.

(edit)

"Little creep stole my stash" was one of the comments.