Thread for Things That Made You Frown Today

[Warriorbird]

So one study that is no longer public, and another that is 12 years old is your definitive proof that 1 joint causes 0.2 now? % increase chance in schizophrenia? Am I getting that right?

I'm also reading that the most at risk from marijuana according to these studies are adolescents. The legalization movement in America is, to the best of my knowledge, setting the minimum age one can purchase the drug at 21. I wonder how it would affect these numbers if you removed the 15-20 cohort?

Yeah, it's a ludicrous claim with exactly 1/3 of the evidence early tobacco researchers had (at best).

He doesn't want to think about the 21 and up age or the onset ages of schizophrenia. He's also deeply convinced that it can "produce schizophrenia" in people who didn't have said potential already.

[Fallen]

Yeah, it's a ludicrous claim with exactly 1/3 of the evidence early tobacco researchers had (at best).

He doesn't want to think about the 21 and up age or the onset ages of schizophrenia. He's also deeply convinced that it can "produce schizophrenia" in people who didn't have said potential already.

Up until the last decade, children were rarely included in studies of medical treatments. As a result, much is still unknown about how children respond to drugs, some biologics (such as gene therapy), and medical devices."We had the peculiar situation of demanding a very high level of proof before a product was marketed for adults, but then having it used 'off-label' in children," says Dianne Murphy, M.D., Director of the Office of Pediatric Therapeutics at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This means that FDA did not have studies on how the product did or did not work in children, what different kinds of reactions children might have, or what the proper dose would be over the wide range of children's ages, weights, and developmental stages, Murphy says.

It's all silly. Those suffering from schizophrenia will often self-medicate with marijuana and other drugs. To date, I think i've seen one wide-scale study that attempts to control for that variable.

Hell, even some researchers favoring a casual link reject the idea of prohibition.

"In his article “Cannabis and psychosis: what causes what?” (http://f1000.com/prime/reports/m/5/1/)David Castle of the University of Melbourne argues for a causal link between cannabis use and anincreased risk of psychotic symptoms. He does, however, concede that very few cases of schizophrenia would be prevented by a global abolition of cannabis, an argument put forward by Suzanne Gage, Stan Zammit and Matt Hickman of the Universities of Bristol and Cardiff in their article entitled “Stronger evidence is needed before accepting that cannabis plays an important role in the aetiology of schizophrenia in the population” (http://f1000.com/prime/reports/m/5/2/)."

Here is the main takeaway: "In their conclusions, both sides agree that cannabis is a public health concern and that the public should be made fully aware of the risks associated with using the drug. Castle states that this particularly applies to those who have a family history of schizophrenia or who have experienced
psychosis-like symptoms, as they may be at greater risk."

As recently as 2010 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19783132

A total of 10 key studies from seven general population cohorts were identified by the search. Limitations were evident in the measurement of psychosis, consideration of the short-term effects of cannabis intoxication, control of potential confounders and the measurement of drug use during the follow-up period. Pre-existing vulnerability to psychosis emerged as an important factor that influences the link between cannabis use and psychosis. Whilst the criteria for causal association between cannabis and psychosis are supported by the studies reviewed, the contentious issue of whether cannabis use can cause serious psychotic disorders that would not otherwise have occurred cannot be answered from the existing data.

This isn't an open and shut issue as Latrin likes to make it out. It is still an area rife with debate. Many harmful substances are available to us. As adults, we should be made aware the risks but ultimately be free to make our own choices.

[Candor]

You use marijuana (legal or not), you're an idiot. Enough said.

[Androidpk]

You use marijuana (legal or not), you're an idiot. Enough said.

Wow, such logic.

[Fallen]

Wow, such logic.

No worries. Candor prefers alcohol, which as we both know is without any appreciable health concerns.

[Tgo01]

No worries. Candor prefers alcohol, which as we both know is without any appreciable health concerns.

One drink does not increase your chance of liver cancer!

[Fallen]

One drink does not increase your chance of liver cancer!

CURSES! Foiled again by such iron-clad logic.

[Warriorbird]

You use marijuana (legal or not), you're an idiot. Enough said.

Obviously. Please buy more of our less harmful product.

-The alcohol industry

[Methais]

You use marijuana (legal or not), you're an idiot. Enough said.

The same could be said with paying $15-50+ a month to play a text based RPG in 2014, yet here we are.

[DaCapn]

Certainly! The best link was Hall's 2014 meta-study in Addiction because that really covered everything, but that's no longer free to the public. The most important single study for my money is still Zammit's 2002 in the BMJ, because he was the first to control for family history and other drug use, and because his sample size dwarfs all others except the recent New Zealand work. (I'm sure you will note that his finding is only 2 per 1000 instead of my oft-cited 5 per 1000, but that is because the research has continued since then and the picture has grown bleaker.) I am operating under the assumption that his study will be free to view for you, if this turns out to be false please let me know!

I don't normally find myself in this area of the forums, and I don't intend to stick around. But being that I have access to the Addiction journal, and that I have passing interest in the topic, I had a quick look at that review article. It's far from the full picture that the article presents.

Researchers who remain sceptical about a casual explanation often argue that a causal hypothesis is inconsistent with the absence of any increase in the incidence of schizophrenia, as cannabis use has increased among young adults. There is mixed evidence on trends in schizophrenia incidence. An Australian modelling study did not find any increased psychosis incidence after steep increases in cannabis use during the 1980s and 1990s [98], but a similar British modelling study [99] argued that it was too early to detect any increase in psychosis incidence in Britain. Two case register studies in Britain [100] and Switzerland [101] reported an increased incidence of psychoses in recent birth cohorts, but a British study of people treated for schizophrenia in general practice failed to do so [90].

It is difficult to decide whether cannabis use has had any effects on psychosis incidence, because even if the relationship were causal, cannabis use would produce a very modest increase in incidence. The detection of any such increases is complicated by changes in diagnostic criteria and psychiatric services for psychosis, the poor quality of administrative data on the treated cases of psychosis, and possibly by social improvements (e.g. in antenatal care) that may have reduced incidence of psychosis during the period in which cannabis use increased

The risks of chronic use at a young age for those who have inherited a high probability of psychosis was quite interesting. Certainly a worthy caution for parents who have some kind of psychosis. Some of the pregnancy-related data were also interesting. Glad I ran into the post.