Study: Cannabis use increases the chances of developing a mental illness

[Apotheosis]

Interesting article. While I am always skeptical about scientific studies on marijuana use, this should really give people some food for thought.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=471106&in_page_id=1770&ct=5

Smoking just one cannabis joint raises danger of mental illness by 40%
By FIONA MACRAE and EMILY ANDREWS » Last updated at 23:57pm on 26th July 2007


There are great risks in smoking cannabis, a new report has revealed
A single joint of cannabis raises the risk of schizophrenia by more than 40 per cent, a disturbing study warns.

The Government-commissioned report has also found that taking the drug regularly more than doubles the risk of serious mental illness.

Overall, cannabis could be to blame for one in seven cases of schizophrenia and other life-shattering mental illness, the Lancet reports.

The grim statistics - the latest to link teenage cannabis use with mental illness in later life - come only days after Gordon Brown ordered a review of the decision to downgrade cannabis to class C, the least serious category.

The Prime Minister is said to have a 'personal instinct' that the change should be reversed, with more arrests and stiffer penalties for users.

Cannabis has been implicated in a string of vicious killings, including the recent stabbing of fashion designer Lucy Braham.

The authors of the latest study, the most comprehensive of its kind and commissioned by the Department of Health, said: 'Policymakers need to provide the public with advice about this widely-used drug.

'We believe there is now enough evidence to inform people that using cannabis could increase their risk of developing a psychotic illness later in life.'

The analysis does not look at the age at which schizophrenia is likely to develop. However, previous studies have shown that smoking the drug as a teenager raises the risk of developing schizophrenia in one's twenties or thirties.

The researchers, from four British universities, analysed the results of 35 studies into cannabis use from around the world. This suggested that trying cannabis only once was enough to raise the risk of schizophrenia by 41 per cent.

At greatest risk, however, were heavy users, with those who took cannabis over 100 times having more than double the risk of those who never touched the drug.

With up to 40 per cent of teenagers and young adults in the UK believed to have tried cannabis, the researchers estimate that the drug could be behind 14 per cent of cases of schizophrenia and other psychotic illnesses.

'Although individual lifetime risk of chronic psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia, even in people who use cannabis regularly, is likely to be low - less than three per cent - cannabis use can be expected to have a substantial effect on psychotic disorders at a population level because exposure to this drug is so common.'

Cardiff University researcher Dr Stanley Zammit added: 'Even if cannabis does cause an increased risk of developing psychosis, most people who use cannabis will not develop such an illness.

'Nevertheless, we would still advise people to avoid or limit their use of this drug, especially if they start to develop any mental health symptoms, or if they have relatives with psychotic illnesses.'

In an accompanying editorial in the Lancet, Dutch psychiatrists said the focus on heroin, cocaine and other Class A drugs meant the dangers of cannabis had been overlooked.

'In the public debate, cannabis has been considered a more or less harmless drug compared with alcohol, central stimulants and opioids.

'However, the potential long-term hazardous effects of cannabis with regard to psychosis seem to have been overlooked, and there is a need to warn the public of these dangers, as well as to establish a treatment to help young frequent cannabis users.'

Previous studies have shown a clear link between cannabis use in the teenage years and mental illness in later life.

Research completed by leading psychiatrist Professor Robin Murray in 2005 showed that those who smoked the drug regularly at 18 were 1.6 times more likely to suffer serious psychiatric problems, including schizophrenia, by their mid-20s.

For those who were regular users at 15, the stakes were even higher, with their risk of mental illness by the age of 26 being 4.5 times greater than normal.

It is thought that, used during teenage years, the drug can cause permanent damage to the developing brain.

Professor Robin Murray, of the Institute of Psychiatry in London, warned yesterday that the risks were likely to be heightened by the increasing use of powerful skunk cannabis.

'My own experience suggest to me that the risk with skunk is higher. Therefore their estimate that 14 per cent of cases of schizophrenia in the UK are due to cannabis is now probably an understatement.'

Marjorie Wallace, chief executive of the mental health charity SANE, said: 'This analysis should act as a serious warning of the dangers of regular or heavy cannabis use, doubling the risk of developing schizophrenia - a condition in which a person may hear voices and experience strange thoughts and paranoid delusions.

'The debate about classification should not founder on statistics but take into account the potential damage to hundreds of people who without cannabis would not develop mental illness.

'While the majority can take the drug with no mind-altering effects, it is estimated that 10 per cent are at risk.

'You only need to see one person whose mind has been altered and life irreparably damaged, or talk to their family, to realise that the headlines are not scaremongering but reflect a daily, and preventable, tragedy.'

However, others questioned the link, pointing out there has been little change in rates of schizophrenia in recent years despite the rise in cannabis use and the increasing strength of the drug. __________________________________________________ ___________________

Three heavy drug users and their horrific killings:
William Jaggs

Prolific cannabis user and killer: William Jaggs
William Jaggs, a 23-year-old Oxford University student and prolific cannabis user, stabbed fashion designer Lucy Braham 66 times at her home near Harrow, the public school in North-West London.

The paranoid schizophrenic was found covered in blood beside Lucy's body, having plunged the knife into his own chest last September.

The former Harrow pupil, whose father is a teacher at the school, started using drugs when he was 14, moving on from cannabis to cocaine.

He was sent to Broadmoor secure hospital this month for an unlimited period after admitting manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.

Richard Cazaly

Drug-crazed killer: Richard Cazaly

Drug-crazed drifter Richard Cazaly is believed to have stabbed pregnant Abigail Witchalls in Surrey, in April 2005.

Cazaly, 23, who killed himself five days after the stabbing, had a history of heavy drug use dating back at least four years.

His girlfriend, Vanessa MacKenzie, told police both she and Cazaly were regular cannabis users, smoking 'a couple of joints a day'.

Surrey police said Cazaly became psychotic and violent as a result of long-term abuse of drugs and the alcohol he had consumed on the day of the random stabbing.

Miraculously, Mrs Witchalls and her unborn baby survived the attack. Her young son - who she was pushing in a pram when she was set upon by Cazaly - was unhurt.

Thomas Palmer

Mind warped by smoking skunk: Thomas Palmer

Son of a nurse at Broadmoor Thomas Palmer butchered two of his friends during a woodland walk after his mind was warped by smoking skunk - a particularly potent form of cannabis.

Then aged 18, he virtually beheaded 16-year-old Steven Bayliss and repeatedly stabbed Nuttawut Nadauld, 14, near their homes in Wokingham, Berkshire in September 2005.

Palmer had started using the drug at 14. He told doctors he had not been smoking on the day of the killings but admitted to using skunk regularly in the weeks before the brutal attack.

In March this year, he was given a minimum 20 years in prison for the double murder.

[Bobmuhthol]

Plenty of murderers and schizophrenics look at porn, too, so porn also causes mental illness. Articles/studies like this make the stupidest correlations ever. There are always going to be criminals that do something and criminals that don't.

[Jayvn]

Most people I know that smoke marijuana are pretty mellow.. being that a shitload more teens smoke weed than admit to it for the 'official' %s and you're 40% up there..doesn't that mean about 30% of the future is going to be schizophrenic now? Was this study done by the same group that create the commercials where the girl smoked weed so she ended up pregnant? Just because you're daughters a whore, and doesn't like protection doesn't mean it was the cannabis' fault. Just because your kid plays FF7 doesn't mean that's a good scapegoat for when he shoots up the school.

[Methais]

Haha these people are so full of shit. The best part is:


Cannabis has been implicated in a string of vicious killings, including the recent stabbing of fashion designer Lucy Braham.

Seriously....LOL!

Can anyone tell me what the crime rate is in Amsterdam compared to the rest of the world, at least as far as murder or anything related to violence goes?

[StrayRogue]

Hilarious.

[Apotheosis]

Well, the killing thing is ridiculous, anyone with common sense knows using weed doesn't make you a killer. What I am pointing at is the article explaining cannabis use to developing mental illness. This isn't the first article/study that's pointed out how a certain chemical found in marijuana actually increases the likelihood of developing psychotic episodes and/or schizophrenia.

Psychotic episode doesn't necessarily mean you're going to go out and kill someone.

I don't smoke pot, but If I had a history of mental illness in my family, I would think twice before smoking it on a regular basis.

[StrayRogue]

Yes I do believe overuse of weed can effect your mental capacity. Definately in fact. Where that line is drawn is the hazy part. The same can be applied to smokers and drinkers as well (in terms of their own overall health).

The whole spin on how pot is the evil of mankind really makes me laugh. A good read on the over-critical perception of cannabis can be found in Reefer Madness, by Eric Schlosser.

[Sean of the Thread]

Haha these people are so full of shit. The best part is:



Seriously....LOL!

Can anyone tell me what the crime rate is in Amsterdam compared to the rest of the world, at least as far as murder or anything related to violence goes?

This was the funniest fucking part. Vicious killings?!? Now I've known a few who would fight for the last twizzler or Dorito but it usually ended like "ahh fuck it man".

[Asha]

Over here they're talking about knocking it back to class C controlled substance becouse there's more and more proof that the modern strains are more like high quality LSD.
When I quit drinking I turned to just getting stoned instead for a good year and I can tell you, I lost weight, worked out, acted less irrational and became much more creative musicly and artisticly.
My point can be that I think the article is bullshit.

[Back]

Gosh darn. Its a good thing alcohol is legal and safe. /sarchasm


WTF? Are we back in the Hearst days? Oh, wait a minute. Thats right. Except now its Rupert Murdoch.

[Sean of the Thread]

You had to turn it into that didn't you.

[Back]

420 forever yo.

[Nieninque]

Over here they're talking about knocking it back to class C controlled substance becouse there's more and more proof that the modern strains are more like high quality LSD.
When I quit drinking I turned to just getting stoned instead for a good year and I can tell you, I lost weight, worked out, acted less irrational and became much more creative musicly and artisticly.
My point can be that I think the article is bullshit.

Back to class B you mean.

Skunk is nasty shit. If they made this article about skunk, I would be more inclined to agree with it, rather than just about weed per se.

[Asha]

Yes I meant class B. And I'd also maybe agree if they meant skunk, which is horrible shit.

[ElanthianSiren]

I'm plenty crazy without weed.

Any time a study brings in percentages rather than raw data, I get suspicious (see 40%, 41%, double, 1.5 times and so on). It's not so bad if they bring in the percentages as their conclusion and use the raw data TO BACK THEM UP, but that doesn't seem to be the case here (I skimmed). I'd also be curious to see their collection methods. Also, I believe the peak onset of schitzophrenia has always been traced to late teens, 20s, and 30s. I'm not saying none of those people smoked a joint, I'm just saying, if you're doing stratified sampling by age group, you're going to get a disproportionate amount in those groups 1. that have smoked pot. 2. that are schitzophrenic. It's like the fox watching the henhouse to try to put that out there as a scientific conclusion with no methods.

Sorry, I killed your funny.

[Methais]

Well, the killing thing is ridiculous, anyone with common sense knows using weed doesn't make you a killer. What I am pointing at is the article explaining cannabis use to developing mental illness.

And what I'm pointing out is that if these people are dumb enough to say smoking weed is linked to vicious killings, why should we believe any of their studies at all?

[Stanley Burrell]

The guy in the hoody hanging around middle school pushing product isn't exactly an official of FDA qualification.

I'm not understanding the whole drug class #: I.e. Vicodin is a Class 3, whereas Percocet is a class 2. Unless I missed something, that means weed under scrutiny is as illegal as hydrocodone and MORE legal than oxycodone.

P.S. Nicotine purportedly affects areas of the brain that heroin binds to. If this (weed) is ever made into an all out teenage lecturing drug war, I pray it'd just do so equally with any other peer pressure substance: Ages 13-19.

Again though, if so-and-so twelve year old smokes marijuana on just the weekends until the fullish-grown age of 21, let's say, and throughout the course of this endeavour anonymous dealer X decided to mortar and pestle acid papers in the mix, you have about ten times where your habitual weekend potsmoker has entered a whole new class of bullshit into their bodies.

If you want to take it to the next level, start factoring in every other popularly-laced additive and your numbers will grow.

It is not just weed for the continuous teenage pot smoker -- The amount of hurdles and politics we'd have to overcome in order to have the certainty of marijuana = marijuana (like Amsterdam) has about as much of a chance of happening as Bush withdrawing our troops in Iraq in, say, three and a half minutes from now.

The fact that we can't overcome the legality hurdle will ensure that the shadiest of shady hollistics from your friendly neighborhood drug dealer are going to keep up until said impossible hurdle is overcome. And kids do NOT have hardly enough savviness about them to start running background check on their uncontrolled substances.

If weed was legalized tommorow and weed = weed, this study (a complete tertiary article, mind you) would be going even further out on a limb to gather its statistics.

And someone who has a psychological disorder, whether diagnosed or not, and enjoys the effects of THC as a way of getting them to calm their asses down, will not, if I had to imagine, go out copping any form of stimulant. Someone with hardcore lack of foci paired with paranoia, with a still developing brain as a teenager, absolutely risks the possibility of a schizophrenic break sooner or later due to neuron pathways interacting in a way that classifies marijuana as a hallucinogen.

All in all, I agree, tremendously, with its prescribed uses for patients with glaucoma, as well as its inhalation for chemo patients with far too much nausia to take oral cannabinoids, but not in any way, shape or form can anyone convince me that "it's just like having a drink."

[Back]

diatribe

Have caffine?

[Jayvn]

caffeine is some bad shit, it took me about 2 weeks of withdrawl when I quit drinking soda.

[Anebriated]

I started reading the thread but by the time I got to posting I couldnt remember what the post was about... oh well, ive got the munchies im goin to get some food.

[Sean of the Thread]

Could you fix the spelling of your new name before I have another OCD fit.

[Anebriated]

not gonna happen.

[Latrinsorm]

Plenty of murderers and schizophrenics look at porn, too, so porn also causes mental illness. Articles/studies like this make the stupidest correlations ever. There are always going to be criminals that do something and criminals that don't.Not this study. The study itself explicitly states "An association seen in an observational study does not necessarily reflect a causal relation."

Here's the chemmy thing I think Apotheosis was talking about: "The neurobiological sequelae of cannabis use, including modulated activity of dopaminergic, GABAergic, and glutamatergic neurons, are consistent with abnormalities described in people with psychotic disorders."

It always baffles me how some people trust their own notions unequivocally over scientific evidence.

[Methais]

Because scientific "evidence" these days is 90% bullshit of some biased study.

Or it could be that I know lots of potheads both young and old, and roughly 0 of them have any mental disorders.

[Nieninque]

And what I'm pointing out is that if these people are dumb enough to say smoking weed is linked to vicious killings, why should we believe any of their studies at all?

But what I would say also, is that if you are saying that there has never been a vicious killing by someone whose mood was screwed because of their use of weed (in any of its forms), then your argument is as good as those that say "ZOMG WEDE IS BADD!"

[Methais]

But what I would say also, is that if you are saying that there has never been a vicious killing by someone whose mood was screwed because of their use of weed (in any of its forms), then your argument is as good as those that say "ZOMG WEDE IS BADD!"

If anyone here can link a legitimate article where someone viciously murdered someone as the result of being stoned, I'll request to change my username to Warclaidhm and Haashek Rule for a month.

[Latrinsorm]

Because scientific "evidence" these days is 90% bullshit of some biased study.This is what I'm talking about. Even if your claim was correct (it's not), you've done nothing to demonstrate that this particular study is "biased". You hold a belief about this study without any evidence whatsoever beyond...
Or it could be that I know lots of potheads both young and old, and roughly 0 of them have any mental disorders.Unless you know 60,000 potheads in countries around the world, this study knows more.

It's not like these journals are hidden in the Secret Vatican Library or something, they're readily available. Why is it so difficult for some people to investigate a little bit?

[Stanley Burrell]

Have caffine?

Like cigarettes, caffiene is the Devil.

Respectively.

[Parkbandit]

I look at this 'study' in much the same way I look at the global warming 'study'. It's not so much about evidence, it's how you can use your data to bring about a desired change.

[Sean of the Thread]

But An Inconvenient Truth was so accurate and inspirational.

[Stanley Burrell]

Here's the chemmy thing I think Apotheosis was talking about: "The neurobiological sequelae of cannabis use, including modulated activity of dopaminergic, GABAergic, and glutamatergic neurons, are consistent with abnormalities described in people with psychotic disorders."

It always baffles me how some people trust their own notions unequivocally over scientific evidence.

Dopa levels can be dyed and monitored. I don't know about glutamate -- Deciphering Shakespeare can affect glutamate levels. I'm pretty sure you'd have to take an actual tissue sample of brain cells to fully measure GABA levels, and more importantly its inhibitory function. I'd say that it's an extreme gray area just due to an assumption, in a scientific study, that it (gamma amino butiric H+) is acting as an end all to undoubtable neurotransmitting data that can somehow reveal correlations between specific neuron pathways of seperate, much more specific-to-psychological-disorder neurotransmitters.

The concern of this tertiary article was in reference to what could be very realistic child to late adolescent data. What I doubt, sincerely, is that brain necropsies of schizophrenia patients with a clinically-diagnosed schizophrenia could, or even have been performed as a non-private study with the marijuana age controls this article mentions. I'd like to read over the primary and see how much inference (by comparison to tissue sample/culture/affinity tube post-mortem/etc.) is present in lieu of the thesis itself.

[Gan]

And what I'm pointing out is that if these people are dumb enough to say smoking weed is linked to vicious killings, why should we believe any of their studies at all?

And what I'm pointing out is that if these people are dumb enough to say that drinking is linked to vicious killings, why should we believe any of their studies at all?

Feel free to substitue 'drinking' with any other social malady.


I started reading the thread but by the time I got to posting I couldnt remember what the post was about... oh well, ive got the munchies im goin to get some food.

:rofl:

[Latrinsorm]

The concern of this tertiary article was in reference to what could be very realistic child to late adolescent data. What I doubt, sincerely, is that brain necropsies of schizophrenia patients with a clinical schizophrenia could, or even have been performed as a non-private study with the marijuana age controls this article mentions. I'd like to read over the primary and see how much inference (by comparison to tissue sample/culture/affinity tube post-mortem/etc.) is present in lieu of the thesis itself.The (loosely) cited study in the article did no tissue analysis. I can probably check later for where they got the info on how they decided those thingies did that other thingie after marijuana usage if that's what you're interested in.
I look at this 'study' in much the same way I look at the global warming 'study'. It's not so much about evidence, it's how you can use your data to bring about a desired change.I wonder what your take is on how they used the NEMESIS data.

[Apotheosis]

I tend to think we're seeing a chicken/egg argument here.

It's been understood for some time that young adults and people with mental health problems such as schizophrenia, depression, and other forms of mental illnesses tend to use drugs more frequently than people who are not facing these problems, they're also more likely to experiment with heavier drugs.

It's like the "gateway drug" theory. A small population of people using marijuana becoming addicted to heavier drugs exists, however a high population of people who use heavier drugs have used marijuana. (duh)

[Jazuela]

40% more than what? That's what I want to know. Nowhere in the article does it mention what the risk percentage is, of people who have never smoked pot at all. So, for all we know, the "usual" risk of non-pot-smoking adults is .0050 of all non-pot-smoking adults. Make the additional risk a nice even 50%, and you end up with .0075 pot-smoking adults being at risk for mental illness. Big whoop?

Without knowing what their "base number" is, that 40% means absolutely nothing.

[Latrinsorm]

I tend to think we're seeing a chicken/egg argument here.

It's been understood for some time that young adults and people with mental health problems such as schizophrenia, depression, and other forms of mental illnesses tend to use drugs more frequently than people who are not facing these problems, they're also more likely to experiment with heavier drugs.This is referred to in the paper as "reverse causation". They provide pretty convincing evidence for it not affecting the quality of their results. In brief (by which I mean in no way comprehensive), they investigate each study's use of baseline tests and structural equation modeling.
So, for all we know, the "usual" risk of non-pot-smoking adults is .0050 of all non-pot-smoking adults. Make the additional risk a nice even 50%, and you end up with .0075 pot-smoking adults being at risk for mental illness. Big whoop?This is also noted in their paper; the big whoop is that (putting aside the fact that we should be concerned about the health of every individual) in a national population the effect becomes, and I quote, "substantial". The raw risk of psychosis is "likely to be ... less than 3%", to answer your inquiry. When we're talking about 9% (the lowest end of their confidence interval) of the psychoses in the UK, does that seem like something worth worrying about to you?

[Jazuela]

So, the raw risk is likely to be less than 3%. Let's make it a straight 3%. Supposedly, pot increases that risk by 40%. Let's make it a more generous 50%. That means, the total after increase, is 4.5%. No, that really doesn't worry me. There are so many levels, types, and severeties of "mental illness" that 4.5%, an increase of 50% over the base 3%, just isn't significant. Not all mental illnesses are violent, or psychotic, or schizophrenia. Mild depression is a mental illness, and so is an uncontrollable twitch triggered by stress. Such an enormous range of severeties that the resulting 1.5% total increase is nothing, when spread out over that range.

Also, I don't know what a "confidence interval" is, if you wouldn't mind explaining.

[DeV]

It's been understood for some time that young adults and people with mental health problems such as schizophrenia, depression, and other forms of mental illnesses tend to use drugs more frequently than people who are not facing these problems, they're also more likely to experiment with heavier drugs.
They are also more likely to self medicate.

I barely skimmed the article so I was curious if they included statistics regarding the number of subjects studied who were predisposed to mental illness.

[Apotheosis]

They didn't include that information in the article, and while I don't immediately have statistics available, I spent 3 years working in health media and remember seeing statistics that supported the drug use increase in people with mental illnesses (self medication).

[Latrinsorm]

There are so many levels, types, and severeties of "mental illness" that 4.5%, an increase of 50% over the base 3%, just isn't significant. Not all mental illnesses are violent, or psychotic, or schizophrenia. Mild depression is a mental illness, and so is an uncontrollable twitch triggered by stress. Such an enormous range of severeties that the resulting 1.5% total increase is nothing, when spread out over that range.It's not "mental illness". It's specifically psychosis.
Also, I don't know what a "confidence interval" is, if you wouldn't mind explaining.Every statistical measurement has an element of chance to it. The confidence interval in this case is the range over which the value will fall 95% of the time.

Take flipping a coin, for instance. If you flip a coin 100 times, you're probably not going to get exactly 50-50. The uncertainty measure for a counting experiment like that is rad(n), so 10 in this case, which tells you that if you got 60 heads and 40 tails, this would not be evidence that the coin was weighted in some way.
I barely skimmed the article so I was curious if they included statistics regarding the number of subjects studied who were predisposed to mental illness.This is part of what they go into, at great length, in the "confounding factors" section of the study. Short version: functionally zero.

[firegirl]

Although I don't agree with some the points in that article...3 people I know through family/neighborhood got diagnosed Schizophrenic in their mid-30's after stopping their habit of burning.

One of them actually got arrested because he tried to choke his Brother - He thought his brother was going to bomb the Subways.

All doctors did state that it was Pot-related. It was not that the pot caused it though but did help it stay dormant.

[Apotheosis]

Oddly enough, one of the compounds in marijuana induces/creates schizophrenic-like states while another one suppresses it.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=TopNews&article=UPI-1-20070501-13374000-bc-britain-potsmoking.xml

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

The study, by the Institute of Psychiatry at King's College London and the University of Cologne in German, found that cannabidiol, a chemical found in cannabis, may reduce symptoms in schizophrenia patients, The Guardian reported Thursday.

Previous research found that another main ingredient in the drug, tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, has the opposite effect. Researchers believe THC worsens schizophrenia symptoms and can sometimes trigger the condition in some patients.

"One possibility is that there are good guys and bad guys within cannabis," said Markus Leweke, of the University of Cologne.

The research team compared the effects of cannabidiol and anti-psychotic drug Amisulpride on 42 schizophrenia patients. They found that both groups had improved after four weeks of treatment, but the cannabidiol group experienced fewer side effects from the treatment.

"Maybe the cannabidiol ameliorates some of the effects of the THC and maybe it actually might be good for you if you are psychotic," said Robin Murray, of the Institute of Psychiatry at King's College London.

Copyright 2007 by United Press International. All Rights Reserved.

[Sean of the Thread]

Seriously? This shit can't be real. The 60's and 70's would have burned the world down.

[Apotheosis]

obviously more controlled - double blind research should be conducted to prove this information, however I shall reiterate that it's probably a bad idea to use marijuana if you have a history of mental illness in your family.

[Apotheosis]

Seriously? This shit can't be real. The 60's and 70's would have burned the world down.

Not likely. I would attribute more mental health issues stemming from the 60's and 70's from use of hallucinogens (primarily LSD), amphetamines, and barbiturates.

[Bartlett]

I have seen a few of the "critics" of this article post previously that smoking weed causes a level of paranoia in the healthy, fun loving, mellow individuals who use it. Are you so in love with pot that you cannot accept the possibility that the drugs you are using could cause a permanent change? If you will concede that point, do you really believe that paranoid delusions could not lead to a violent outburst? I know a few people who have smoked weed a long time and other than having posters of the shadow government with halliburton and killer bees on their wall, they aren't any crazier than most of the people I know. Of course, I know a lot of people who drink quite a bit, but none of them beat their spouses or their kids. I guess that means any study which links violence to drinking is just whacked out.

[Sean of the Thread]

Not likely. I would attribute more mental health issues stemming from the 60's and 70's from use of hallucinogens (primarily LSD), amphetamines, and barbiturates.

That's what I was thinking. LSD will fuck homey up.

[Apotheosis]

That's what I was thinking. LSD will fuck homey up.

I think your avatar is too small.

[Gelston]

fucking hippies.

[Tsa`ah]

This is what I'm talking about. Even if your claim was correct (it's not), you've done nothing to demonstrate that this particular study is "biased". You hold a belief about this study without any evidence whatsoever beyond...Unless you know 60,000 potheads in countries around the world, this study knows more.

Actually no. The statistics presented by the study would indicate at least 1 schizo in any number of personal samplings (pot heads you know). His statement is pretty damned valid if he knows more than 10 potheads. If you count college to present, I probably know well over 100 potheads ... though I don't know their current mental state or of they're still potheads. Of those I do know currently and personally ... none are schizophrenic.


It's not like these journals are hidden in the Secret Vatican Library or something, they're readily available. Why is it so difficult for some people to investigate a little bit?

Well you can investigate all you want. Typically articles based on these journals, and even the journals themselves are pretty biased toward the research group performing the study. I can round up 50 "random" test subject with a family history of mental illness, specifically one form or another of schizophrenia, put them on a diet of green beans, peas, green eggs, and ham and conclude that over the course of a decade ... green foods contributed to the development of schizophrenia in about 43% of the test subjects.

The only way to validate the statistics of this study would be to confirm that this specific form of mental illness is not consistent throughout each subjects family history ... and there's nothing in their mental and emotional development that could lead to any other form of mental illness.

[Jazuela]

Thanks for explaining the confidence interval. In marketing, that's called a "margin for error," a term I'm more familiar with. I just re-read the article, and notice the first sentence does specify schizophrenia. The article is peppered with the word, but *seems* to discuss primarily mental illness rates as a whole. Confusing, to say the least.

I'm -still- not concerned, because it doesn't mention what the odds are of getting schizophrenia specifically in any given random sampling that excludes the use of marijuana as a catalyst.

I'd be more interested to see research done on schizophrenia patients who have never smoked marijuana, and any correlation between their illness and family history of the same illness, compared with a group schizophrenia patients who -have- smoked it, and have shown -no- correlation with family history of the illness. I think the results of research such as that would be far more telling. You could even throw in another group of patients, who have smoked it, and do have family history of it, whose symptoms didn't show up until -after- they quit smoking it. To see if the marijuana has actually provided a suppression of the symptoms.

[Latrinsorm]

obviously more controlled - double blind research should be conducted to prove this informationThis is a witty use of the word "should" (and I hope it was intended to be), as no scientist in the world is unethical enough to illegaly induce psychosis in his research participants.
The statistics presented by the study would indicate at least 1 schizo in any number of personal samplings (pot heads you know). His statement is pretty damned valid if he knows more than 10 potheads. If you count college to present, I probably know well over 100 potheads ... though I don't know their current mental state or of they're still potheads. Of those I do know currently and personally ... none are schizophrenic.You're not serious, are you? 10? Quick stats lesson: if potheads have a 4.5% chance of being psychotic and you know 11 potheads, you only have a 39.7% chance of knowing a psychotic pothead. Compound that with the chances of someone not trained in psychology being able to accurately diagnose psychosis and claiming "pretty damned valid" is pretty damned silly.
I can round up 50 "random" test subject with a family history of mental illness, specifically one form or another of schizophrenia, put them on a diet of green beans, peas, green eggs, and ham and conclude that over the course of a decade ... green foods contributed to the development of schizophrenia in about 43% of the test subjects.And you'd never get published. These guys specifically address family history as a confounding factor. Am I the only one who understands what a baseline test is? Doesn't anyone here remember Dallas Clark?
Typically articles based on these journals, and even the journals themselves are pretty biased toward the research group performing the study.Unless you can talk about the Egger test, I think you need to retract this statement.
just re-read the article, and notice the first sentence does specify schizophrenia. The article is peppered with the word, but *seems* to discuss primarily mental illness rates as a whole. Confusing, to say the least.The article is lousy, don't get me wrong. That's why I recommend reading the study itself. As stated above, family history is addressed as a confounding factor.

I just noticed that the article doesn't give an actual citation, so for anyone who's actually thinking about this, the study is titled "Cannabis use and risk of psychotic or affective mental health outcomes: a systematic review" and it's in volume 370 issue 9584 of the Lancet.

[Methais]

And what I'm pointing out is that if these people are dumb enough to say that drinking is linked to vicious killings, why should we believe any of their studies at all?

Feel free to substitue 'drinking' with any other social malady.



:rofl:

Because someone being a violent drunk is a fairly common occurence, usually depending on the person and/or what they're drinking. Some people are happy drunks on beer, and violet on vodka, for example. Others are just violent drunks no matter what they drink, and others are happy drunks no matter what they drink

But how many violent stoners have you come across? How many people have you seen smoke a joint and then become violent?


Although I don't agree with some the points in that article...3 people I know through family/neighborhood got diagnosed Schizophrenic in their mid-30's after stopping their habit of burning.

One of them actually got arrested because he tried to choke his Brother - He thought his brother was going to bomb the Subways.

All doctors did state that it was Pot-related. It was not that the pot caused it though but did help it stay dormant.

Weed keeps the peace. It's tough to argue that.

Anyway the point is, this study is bullshit. And I'm still waiting for someone to link me to a legitimate news article where someone viciously murdered someone because they were stoned.

[Latrinsorm]

Anyway the point is, this study is bullshit. And I'm still waiting for someone to link me to a legitimate news article where someone viciously murdered someone because they were stoned.The study doesn't say anything about murder or even violence. If I was in your position, I think I'd want to at least skim the thing before I made proclamations about whether it was "bullshit" or not.

I'm a little curious as to what your criteria for legitimacy would be for one news article over another, though.

[CrystalTears]

I believe he's looking for an actual case of someone going postal and turning to violence, rather than a study.

[Methais]

The study doesn't say anything about murder or even violence. If I was in your position, I think I'd want to at least skim the thing before I made proclamations about whether it was "bullshit" or not.

I'm a little curious as to what your criteria for legitimacy would be for one news article over another, though.

I just assumed that people, even you, would be able to figure out I that was referring to this section:


Three heavy drug users and their horrific killings:
William Jaggs

Prolific cannabis user and killer: William Jaggs
William Jaggs, a 23-year-old Oxford University student and prolific cannabis user, stabbed fashion designer Lucy Braham 66 times at her home near Harrow, the public school in North-West London.

The paranoid schizophrenic was found covered in blood beside Lucy's body, having plunged the knife into his own chest last September.

The former Harrow pupil, whose father is a teacher at the school, started using drugs when he was 14, moving on from cannabis to cocaine.

He was sent to Broadmoor secure hospital this month for an unlimited period after admitting manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.

Richard Cazaly

Drug-crazed killer: Richard Cazaly

Drug-crazed drifter Richard Cazaly is believed to have stabbed pregnant Abigail Witchalls in Surrey, in April 2005.

Cazaly, 23, who killed himself five days after the stabbing, had a history of heavy drug use dating back at least four years.

His girlfriend, Vanessa MacKenzie, told police both she and Cazaly were regular cannabis users, smoking 'a couple of joints a day'.

Surrey police said Cazaly became psychotic and violent as a result of long-term abuse of drugs and the alcohol he had consumed on the day of the random stabbing.

Miraculously, Mrs Witchalls and her unborn baby survived the attack. Her young son - who she was pushing in a pram when she was set upon by Cazaly - was unhurt.

Thomas Palmer

Mind warped by smoking skunk: Thomas Palmer

Son of a nurse at Broadmoor Thomas Palmer butchered two of his friends during a woodland walk after his mind was warped by smoking skunk - a particularly potent form of cannabis.

Then aged 18, he virtually beheaded 16-year-old Steven Bayliss and repeatedly stabbed Nuttawut Nadauld, 14, near their homes in Wokingham, Berkshire in September 2005.

Palmer had started using the drug at 14. He told doctors he had not been smoking on the day of the killings but admitted to using skunk regularly in the weeks before the brutal attack.

In March this year, he was given a minimum 20 years in prison for the double murder.

Sorry I didn't spell it out for you. Maybe you should have at least skimmed it. Here's a graphical representation in case you still don't understand:
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a162/DoyleHargraves/tshirt-m-sheep-black-art-280.gif

And...


I believe he's looking for an actual case of someone going postal and turning to violence, rather than a study.

:yeahthat:

[Latrinsorm]

Perhaps you need a refresher course on the difference between an article in a newspaper that clumsily makes reference to a study and the study itself.

First lesson: an article in a newspaper that clumsily makes reference to a study isn't necessarily the study itself.
Second lesson: in this particular case, the article in a newspaper that clumsily makes reference to a study isn't the study itself. Quoting the article when you're trying to back up your assertion that the study is "bullshit" is as applicable as quoting the Constitution or Dan Rather's blog.

Cliff notes:
study != article
article != study

Unfortunately, I don't have an oft-posted internet-based image to make this point. How about this as a substitute:
article--> :club: <--study

[Methais]

Well since this thread is about the article, that's all I have to go on. Feel free to link me the study itself then so I can rip that apart.


Unfortunately, I don't have an oft-posted internet-based image to make this point.

Don't worry, little camper. I got you taken care of.
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y197/red_anna/100_1327.jpg

[Latrinsorm]

Well since this thread is about the article, that's all I have to go on.If you want to talk about the article, talk about the article (and not the study). The only thing keeping you from looking at the study itself is you.
Feel free to link me the study itself then so I can rip that apart.It's in the Lancet, volume 370 issue 9584. I don't know what databases you have access to, but it's in sciencedirect.com for one. Failing that, there's always the library.

[Back]

Interesting article about this recent report.


(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maia-szalavitz/reefer-inanity-never-tru_b_58353.html#thc)Reefer Inanity: Never Trust the Media on Pot (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maia-szalavitz/reefer-inanity-never-tru_b_58353.html)




Watching the media cover marijuana is fascinating, offering deep insight into conventional wisdom, bias and failure to properly place science in context. The coverage of a new study claiming that marijuana increases the risk of later psychotic illnesses like schizophrenia by 40% displays many of these flaws.

What are the key questions reporters writing about such a study needs to ask? First, can the research prove causality? Most of the reporting here, to its credit, establishes at some point that it cannot, though you have to read pretty far down in some of it to understand this.

Second -- and this is where virtually all of the coverage falls flat -- if marijuana produces what seems like such a large jump in risk for schizophrenia, have schizophrenia rates increased in line with marijuana use rates? A quick search of Medline shows that this is not the case -- in fact, as I noted here (http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/09/19/reefer_madness/index.html) earlier, some experts think they may actually have fallen. Around the world, roughly 1% of the population has schizophrenia (and another 2% or so have other psychotic disorders), and this proportion doesn't seem to change much. It is not correlated with population use rates of marijuana.


--------------------------------------------------



There is more but this tid-bit pretty much sums it up.

[Latrinsorm]

It disgusts me that people don't have a problem with this line: "Around the world, roughly 1% of the population has schizophrenia (and another 2% or so have other psychotic disorders), and this proportion doesn't seem to change much. It is not correlated with population use rates of marijuana."

For Bacon's sake, the folks who did this study had actual citations to actual studies. All Ms. Szalavitz has is a reference to a proprietary search engine, AND THIS SATISFIES PEOPLE?

[Ignot]

if its on the internet then its true. Im satisfied.