cannabis is bad mmmkay

[Deetee]

If anyone has tried the specialty strains going around (got some white widow currently), they know it's pretty much worth any psychosis down the line.

I hope that is a lame attempt at humour. As someone who has seen professionally the consequnces of severe psychosis, and had to personally help deal with the horrific social, family, physical and mental fallout that followed the onset of psychosis in a relative, I find your remark in very poor taste, and distinctly undeserving of the "cool" smilie.

 

[Skepticybe]

Except this is not a conflict of interest at all.
These authors are warning about the increased risks, so presumably the logically expected result of their warning will be a decrease cannabis use, and a decrease the incidence of illness requiring antipsychotic medication.
They risk biting the hand that feeds them.

The conflict may not be obvious but it is there, and what I quoted indicates a possible anti-marijuana bias on the part of some of the researchers.

Because marijuana is easily grown, readily available, and cheap, drug companies can't expect to profit if marijuana were to be FDA approved as a treatment for various conditions. In fact, many commercial drugs target ailments that are also thought to be treated by marijuana. This makes marijuana a potential competitor that could prove costly for some drug manufacturers. I'm not saying they actively conspire to misinform the public, just that their financial interests are aligned with the anti-marijuana efforts.

The researchers benefit because producing a headline-friendly anti-marijuana conclusion earns notariety, virtually guarantees the funding of additional research, and leaves them well positioned for various employment options with those who have anti-marijuana interests.

By contrast, if the study determined that marijuana decreased the risk of mental illness, it would be harshly criticized, future funding would be threatened, and they would jeopardize future work with anti-marijuana organizations.

There definitely seems to be an underlying incentive for reaching a anti-marijuana conclusion and avoiding that pesky distinction between causation and correlation.

 

[Cainkane1]

I can't smoke pot because it causes severe anxiety attacks when I do. However when I quit smoking everything was ok a day or so later. Its my guess that even if pot does cause schizophrenia the symptoms would subside after abstaining long enough for the drug to work its way out of your body.

 

[Dogdoctor]

The conflict may not be obvious but it is there, and what I quoted indicates a possible anti-marijuana bias on the part of some of the researchers.

Because marijuana is easily grown, readily available, and cheap, drug companies can't expect to profit if marijuana were to be FDA approved as a treatment for various conditions. In fact, many commercial drugs target ailments that are also thought to be treated by marijuana. This makes marijuana a potential competitor that could prove costly for some drug manufacturers. I'm not saying they actively conspire to misinform the public, just that their financial interests are aligned with the anti-marijuana efforts.

The researchers benefit because producing a headline-friendly anti-marijuana conclusion earns notariety, virtually guarantees the funding of additional research, and leaves them well positioned for various employment options with those who have anti-marijuana interests.

By contrast, if the study determined that marijuana decreased the risk of mental illness, it would be harshly criticized, future funding would be threatened, and they would jeopardize future work with anti-marijuana organizations.

There definitely seems to be an underlying incentive for reaching a anti-marijuana conclusion and avoiding that pesky distinction between causation and correlation.

It is very unlikely that marijuana would be as useful or safe as drugs made from the components of marijuana. Marijuana is composed of thousands of chemicals having numerous different pharmacological effects. So far there has been no herbal formula that is better than the drugs created from the plant. People don't want to study marijuana as a pharmacological drug because of this.

 

[kellyb]

I can see how the makers of anti-psychotics might want there to be a marijuana-psychosis link, since it could result in a heightened vigilance in evaluating pot users for psychosis, which could result in more prescriptions. Psychosis is a bit of a spectrum, and there are probably a lot of people out there that are just "a little tiny bit" psychotic and unmedicated. Identifying another risk factor could throw some people from one camp into the other, it seems.

My own wild guess on the pot-psychosis thing would be that it probably triggers an earlier onset in people who are predisposed. Maybe some of those people never would have become psychotic without the trigger, though.

I bet binge drinking does the same thing, too. With both, I'd guess it's a mix of self-medication for anxiety in the predisposed, and an actual effect of the drug exacerbating crazy-symptoms.

Just my own speculation....

 

[Dabljuh]

I hope that is a lame attempt at humour. As someone who has seen professionally the consequnces of severe psychosis, and had to personally help deal with the horrific social, family, physical and mental fallout that followed the onset of psychosis in a relative, I find your remark in very poor taste, and distinctly undeserving of the "cool" smilie.

You're telling us that Psychosis just ain't cool?

 

[Skepticybe]

My own wild guess on the pot-psychosis thing would be that it probably triggers an earlier onset in people who are predisposed. Maybe some of those people never would have become psychotic without the trigger, though.

This could be. It is generally accepted by most (even among defenders and users) that psychedelics can activate latent schizophrenia or other mental problems.

I also wouldn't be surprised to learn that some with mental illness use marijuana therapeutically because it helps alleviate some of the symptoms.

 

[Dabljuh]

I would, at this time, like to point out that "Schizophrenia" is one of the most idiotic diagnoses the Psychologists have ever come up with. In layman's terms, Schizophrenia means "Non-Standard Thinking", regardless of whether this is an actual problem for the individual.

(Psychiatry must die! Long live Xenu & Scientology!)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It's not the cannabis that's causing the effect. The trouble is, they're not able to separate out people who smoked dope from people who listened to psychedelic music. The music is what causes the non-standard thinking.

Or the black-light posters, or the piercings, or the tatoos or the chemicals in tie-dyed shirts, . . . . .

 

[TheAnachronism]

I would, at this time, like to point out that "Schizophrenia" is one of the most idiotic diagnoses the Psychologists have ever come up with. In layman's terms, Schizophrenia means "Non-Standard Thinking", regardless of whether this is an actual problem for the individual.

Oh, boy have we all been fooled! Here I was thinking that my friend was hallucinating that monsters were contaminating her food because she had a mental illness, with psychologists to back me up, and all this time she was just thinking non-standardly!

It all makes sense now.

 

[Miss Anthrope]

Oh, boy have we all been fooled! Here I was thinking that my friend was hallucinating that monsters were contaminating her food because she had a mental illness, with psychologists to back me up, and all this time she was just thinking non-standardly!

It all makes sense now.

 

[calebprime]

I can see how the makers of anti-psychotics might want there to be a marijuana-psychosis link, since it could result in a heightened vigilance in evaluating pot users for psychosis, which could result in more prescriptions. Psychosis is a bit of a spectrum, and there are probably a lot of people out there that are just "a little tiny bit" psychotic and unmedicated. Identifying another risk factor could throw some people from one camp into the other, it seems.

My own wild guess on the pot-psychosis thing would be that it probably triggers an earlier onset in people who are predisposed. Maybe some of those people never would have become psychotic without the trigger, though.

I bet binge drinking does the same thing, too. With both, I'd guess it's a mix of self-medication for anxiety in the predisposed, and an actual effect of the drug exacerbating crazy-symptoms.

Just my own speculation....

Actually, all of this would be close to my own speculation, including the conflict of interest issue.

My anecdotes: I have a diagnosed schizophrenic in my immediate family, as well as various immediate family members who medicate for anxiety.

I self-medicated with weed for anxiety, and because it helped to put me in the mood to listen to music. But I composed less and improvised more.
I never had trouble with memory or schizophrenic-like symptoms.

But being anxious is actually a better state of mind. It can be cured with composition, in my case. Composing cures everything except a bad back. (Some writers may recognize the therapeutic effect of writing.) More composing/writing leads to more composing/writing, and a better state of mind. It's a benign cycle.

This turns out to be the cure--not therapy, not medication.

Boy, when I drink, I feel like absolute crap during and afterward.

Translated into general terms, for others, this means simply: Do what you enjoy, what you must do--and see if you don't feel better. Could be charity work, could be gardening, could be jogging, could be playing checkers.

Sounds ridiculous, and it wouldn't work for some, but for me, it's the cure.

My point: Doing this has involved only doing it, nothing more, nothing less. Doing anything else--including therapy, posting here, socializing, drinking, smoking weed, are all avoidance of the thing that must be done.

This is the Stephen King solution. 4 hours in the morning--at least--every single day.

 

[andyandy]

I just love when these studies ignore the difference between correlation and causation.

So the researchers have found a correlation between marijuana use and mental illness. OK, let's accept that.

Please actually read the study. They haven't just "ignored" the difference between correlation and causation - they do discuss this in detail. Why is it that whenever a peer reviewed scientific study doesn't confirm an individual's preconceived notions that they immediately decide that the scientists who conducted the study must be complete morons?

 

[andyandy]

From your link, it appears that the 95% confidence interval is 20%-65% increased risk, so it looks like an increased risk is significant (assuming they didn't screw up somehow), but you need to say what the size of the confidence interval is, saying that it's 95% doesn't actually convey any information.

Ah, very true...

"There was an increased risk of any psychotic outcome of any person who had ever used cannabis (odds ratio 1.41 C.I 95% 1.20-1.65)"

A 95% confidence interval that the increased risk was between 1.20 and 1.65.

 

[andyandy]

I don't know where you live, but growing up I heard this constantly and my teenage kids hear the same thing now. It was, and is, standard practice to say whatever it takes to keep kids away from marijuana.

The official message is that cannabis is very very dangerous, more so than even alcohol or tobacco. Just last month I saw the head of the DEA on TV talking about "Pot 2.0" and how it is many times more dangerous because of the very potent strains now available. This is an outright lie; more potent pot means less needs to be smoked for the same dose, reducing stress on the lungs.

Can you imagine the head of the DEA going on TV to announce that pot is now safer because it is more potent and less needs to be smoked for a dose? That's when we know science is winning.

I was referring to this thread rather than politicians. Of course there is a strong anti-cannabis lobby - there is also a strong pro-cannabis lobby. One wants only to hear bad things about the drug, the other only good. How about actually hearing what the scientists say?

 

[Skepticybe]

Please actually read the study. Why is it that whenever a peer reviewed sceintific study doesn't confirm an individual's preconcieved notions that they immediately decide that the scientists who conducted the study must be complete morons?

I read the news reports from several different news sources, plus the links you posted. In all of those, I didn't see anything that addressed the possibility that cannabis use was an effect, not a cause. It seems likely that people prone to mental illness will show an affinity for cannabis, tobacco, alcohol, cocaine, meth, etc. I see that they adjusted for diagnosed mental illness, but their claim of a causal relationship is unjustified, unless all of the sources I've read have omitted critical information.

I didn't say the researchers were complete morons. But they failed to rule out the most likely explanation, instead skipping to one that is more advantageous.

I was referring to this thread rather than politicians. Of course there is a strong anti-cannabis lobby - there is also a strong pro-cannabis lobby. One wants only to hear bad things about the drug, the other only good. How about actually hearing what the scientists say?

You imply that the pro and anti camps are comparable, and that the researchers would reap similar career benefits if their study did not reach the conclusion it did. This is not the case. It is also wrong to assume that these kinds of studies are immune from these considerations.

Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, you can't ignore the tremendous inertia that favors the anti-cannabis side. They are well organized, well-funded (including tax money), and powerful. They have the full cooperation of most governments. This side has the active support of powerful government agencies like the DEA, who are willing to spread misleading and false information if it helps the cause. And many large, powerful corporations (drug companies) have a financial interest in cannabis never being approved for medical use.

By contrast, the pro-cannabis (even those seeking medical use only) is poorly funded, small, and generally lacks any meaningful influence. Virtually no legitimate businesses have a significant financial interest in the legalization or decriminalization of marijuana. Of course there are a few exceptions, such as CA dispensaries, but they are small and inconsequential compared to the anti-cannabis crowd.

I'm not saying that "the man" is keeping us down, if that's what you're thinking. I'm saying that there are significant financial and political issues involved, and in the cannabis debate science almost always takes a back seat to those issues. In fact the anti-cannabis lobby is so strong that in the US they are quite successful at preventing the research from happening in the first place.

In this study you have a researchers who
1) Apparently have a financial and professional interest in an anti-cannabis conclusion
2) Reached their conclusion despite not ruling out a more likely explanation, or an alternate explanation that should at least get equal consideration

The results of this study should be viewed in that light.

 

[andyandy]

I read the news reports from several different news sources, plus the links you posted. In all of those, I didn't see anything that addressed the possibility that cannabis use was an effect, not a cause. It seems likely that people prone to mental illness will show an affinity for cannabis, tobacco, alcohol, cocaine, meth, etc. I see that they adjusted for diagnosed mental illness, but their claim of a causal relationship is unjustified, unless all of the sources I've read have omitted critical information.

I didn't say the researchers were complete morons. But they failed to rule out the most likely explanation, instead skipping to one that is more advantageous.

rather than reading a news report you could actually read the study which I've already linked to twice. Then perhaps you wouldn't keep attributing positions to the scientists that suit your own opinions.

You imply that the pro and anti camps are comparable, and that the researchers would reap similar career benefits if their study did not reach the conclusion it did. This is not the case. It is also wrong to assume that these kinds of studies are immune from these considerations.

By such considerations you should dismiss every study which purports significance of anything. The charge that they are not objective in their approach is a serious one - and grounded as far as I can see in nothing more than your own personal dislike for the conclusions.

Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, you can't ignore the tremendous inertia that favors the anti-cannabis side. They are well organized, well-funded (including tax money), and powerful. They have the full cooperation of most governments. This side has the active support of powerful government agencies like the DEA, who are willing to spread misleading and false information if it helps the cause. And many large, powerful corporations (drug companies) have a financial interest in cannabis never being approved for medical use.

The study was conducted by British academics and published in a British medical journal. Even if there is significant government interference in academia and peer review in the states, what evidence do you have for such practise in the UK?

By contrast, the pro-cannabis (even those seeking medical use only) is poorly funded, small, and generally lacks any meaningful influence. Virtually no legitimate businesses have a significant financial interest in the legalization or decriminalization of marijuana. Of course there are a few exceptions, such as CA dispensaries, but they are small and inconsequential compared to the anti-cannabis crowd.

if cannabis was legal then there would be significant financial interests in the trade for a whole range of companies. The current system means that the $billions that are generated all go to non-legitimate sources - if it were legal then that money enters the real rather than shadow economy. And the government has the greatest financial incentive of all. Cannabis opposition is due to politics not finance.

I'm not saying that "the man" is keeping us down, if that's what you're thinking. I'm saying that there are significant financial and political issues involved, and in the cannabis debate science almost always takes a back seat to those issues. In fact the anti-cannabis lobby is so strong that in the US they are quite successful at preventing the research from happening in the first place.

but here science is taking a back seat because you can't see beyond your own polarised political opinions.

In this study you have a researchers who
1) Apparently have a financial and professional interest in an anti-cannabis conclusion
2) Reached their conclusion despite not ruling out a more likely explanation, or an alternate explanation that should at least get equal consideration

1)The lead researchers are from the Academic Unit of Psychiatry at Bristol University, from the others are from Cardiff University, Imperial College London and Cambridge University. What is your evidence for this statement?

2) Not true.

 

[Puppycow]

Please actually read the study. They haven't just "ignored" the difference between correlation and causation - they do discuss this in detail. Why is it that whenever a peer reviewed scientific study doesn't confirm an individual's preconceived notions that they immediately decide that the scientists who conducted the study must be complete morons?

Isn't confirmation bias amazing? We always find ways to rationalize information we don't like. Either way, smoking cannibas means that you are somewhat more likely to be schizophrenic. I know from personal experience that it made me feel paranoid, among its other effects on my brain, so it does not surprise me that prolonged exposure could lead to schizophrenia. Causation is the most obvious and likely explanation of the correlation in this case because cannibas is a psychoactive substance.

 

[andyandy]

Isn't confirmation bias amazing? We always find ways to rationalize information we don't like. Either way, smoking cannibas means that you are somewhat more likely to be schizophrenic. I know from personal experience that it made me feel paranoid, among its other effects on my brain, so it does not surprise me that prolonged exposure could lead to schizophrenia. Causation is the most obvious and likely explanation of the correlation in this case because cannibas is a psychoactive substance.

I agree - still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest,
Li la li, la li li li la li li...

Are you in Japan now? I always found the japanese approach to drugs pretty interesting - on Kyushu we were only able to get cannabis at vastly inflated prices pretty infrequently so i suppose you could say that their hardline approach is somewhat effective. But I'd have conversations with otherwise rational and intelligent japanese who'd genuinly believe that weed was as bad as heroin or crack - the government does seem to employ a "drugs are bad" blanket approach...
and without fail I would be stopped and searched every time I would come back into the country....which did sometimes make me wonder if customs employed a "gaijin are bad" blanket approach as well....

 

[joobz]

Ah, very true...

"There was an increased risk of any psychotic outcome of any person who had ever used cannabis (odds ratio 1.41 C.I 95% 1.20-1.65)"

A 95% confidence interval that the increased risk was between 1.20 and 1.65.

But with an incidence rate of 1% in normal population
we are looking at an incidence rate of 1.2-1.65%. In pharmaceuticals, that level of increased risk could result in a drug being pulled from market.
(obviously, it depends however on the cost/benefit ratio)