Daily Pot Use Tied To Age of First Psychotic Episode

An anonymous reader writes "Reuters reports, 'In a study of adults who experienced psychosis for the first time, having smoked marijuana daily was linked to an earlier age of onset of the disorder.' ..."This is not a study about the association between cannabis and psychosis, but about the association between specific patterns of cannabis use ... and an earlier onset of psychotic disorders,' Dr. Marta Di Forti, who led the research at the Institute of Psychiatry at Kings College, said in an email. Among more than 400 people in South London admitted to hospitals with a diagnosed psychotic episode, the study team found the heaviest smokers of high-potency cannabis averaged about six years younger than patients who had not been smoking pot. Psychosis is a general term for a loss of reality, and is associated with several psychiatric diseases, including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. ... "The thorny question is whether they might otherwise have developed the disease or would have not had mental illness. It's a distinction we haven't figured out yet," Compton said. ... It is still unclear whether there are safe levels of use for cannabis, she added. '"

Comments

Cause and effect may be backwards

[TheRealMindChild]

Perhaps these folks were smoking that much pot as a coping means ("self medicating") because of their troubles, rather than pot causing the troubles

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[dyingtolive]

I'm afraid that doesn't fit the narrative.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[Anonymous Coward]

No no no, this is a medical condition known as "Reefer Madness." It also causes you to sleep with black men and get knocked up with mullato babies, embrace communism and start acting like a swish.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[king neckbeard]

How do you figure that? I'm pretty sure that these conditions exist in some state prior to one's first episode. There's also the fact that this particular pattern might select itself for certain demographics more than others, and the environment they are in might contain factors that do influence this.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[Anonymous Coward]

A) It's proven that people with mental illness do tend to self medicate.

B) x -> y DOES NOT MEAN y -> x i.e. If many people that have experienced a psychotic episode smoked pot, it does NOT mean smoking pot increases the likelihood of psychotic episodes.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[ihtoit]

oh, yes, 1936.

"Marihuana turns you GAY!!"

Well, fuck me, as long as that's all it does...

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[Zakabog]

From the article -

But the evidence has been unclear. For example, one recent study from the Netherlands found it's equally possible that people prone to psychosis may be more likely to smoke pot, possibly as a way of "self-medicating" (see Reuters Health article of December 25, 2012, here: http://reut.rs/1d7aIvU)

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[JoeMerchant]

Perhaps they became paranoid because "the man" was really out to get them.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[Anonymous Coward]

methinks your sarcasm detector is busted.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[Baloroth]

Perhaps these folks were smoking that much pot as a coping means ("self medicating") because of their troubles, rather than pot causing the troubles

Possibly, but that doesn't fully explain why people who smoked pot at an earlier age (under 15) were more likely to have psychotic episodes at an earlier age, nor why those who smoked stronger pot in larger quantities were also more likely to experience such episodes. The study found both effects. And since the study focused on people who had psychotic episodes in the first place (i.e. people who likely had mental issues to start with), it's unlikely self-medication is the explanation. Possible, of course, but unlikely.

Obviously, we'd need a study that has people smoke pot with a control group that doesn't smoke pot to be sure, but that might never happen due to legal and ethical concerns.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

> methinks your sarcasm detector is busted.

Too much pot perhaps?

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[MisterSquid]

Perhaps these folks were smoking that much pot as a coping means ("self medicating") because of their troubles, rather than pot causing the troubles

Already mentioned in TFA:

But the evidence has been unclear. For example, one recent study from the Netherlands found it's equally possible that people prone to psychosis may be more likely to smoke pot, possibly as a way of "self-medicating" (see Reuters Health article of December 25, 2012, here: http://reut.rs/1d7aIvU)

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to smoke pot a lot in my mid teens (in the 80's). One time I had a very scary panic attack while in school after smoking some at the bus stop. I didn't know it was a panic attack at the time because I never had one and did not know what the hell was going on. I was able to play it off as I was just sick but it scared the shit out of me and they sent me home. Where I lived people were more accepting of pot use so the school nurse probably suspected drugs but just let it ride. My mom knew I smoked pot and I talked to her about it and she explained what she thought had happened. None of the others that smoked that same pot that morning had any problems so I know it was not spiked with something else. I smoked pot for about the six months but I did not like to if there was a chance I'd be by myself since I associated the panic attack with the pot. I made my friends were going to be staying around or we were doing something in a group. About 6 months later I eventually just quit doing it and haven't touched it or anything except alcohol since. I don't think it was the pot that caused my "problem", probably just made a problem I had worse. At the time, my dad had just died from cancer, it was close to Christmas, I had basically stopped going to school, my mom was in total shambles from my dads death, my paretns business was about to fold without my dad being around, there was a lot going on I was probably under a lot of stress. I went almost 25 years until I had my next panic attack. Turns out my mom and sister both have them. My mom worse. A lot of people have various levels of panic attacks, I did not know that until I started poking around and lightly touching on the subject with some friends and trusted co-workers.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[Curtman]

Marijuana use has increased drastically since the 1920's, from thousands to millions. There is no corresponding increase in psychosis. Does that fit your narrative?

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[Nutria]

There is no corresponding increase in psychosis.

And you know this exactly how?

Re: Cause and effect may be backwards

[O('_')O_Bush]

Let's be fair here. In the 1920s up through the 1950s/1960s, it was fairly common for a man to have a bitchy wife be committed to a mental hospital, and in the 1940s/1950s they were even labotomized for "anxiety and agitation".

There may have, in fact, been lower rates of psychosis in the 1920s onwards until the 1960s/1970s, but given the diagnoses at the time, it'd hard to ever be sure or be able to draw a direct comparison.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[ganjadude]

The actual studies show that pot use can bring on the symptoms sooner than non pot smokers. No where in the research does it show that pot use causes schizophrenia. Ive written research projects on this in the past. This new research seems to back that earlier research up quite nicely however

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[Curtman]

It's been documented in may places.

Decline in the Incidence of Schizophrenia in Finnish Cohorts Born From 1954 to 1965

If there was a causal link between marijuana use and schizophrenia for example, there would be an increase that could be shown in historical data. The evidence instead suggests that maybe some people have been successful at self-medicating.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[SpankiMonki]

This just in:

Heavy adolescent pot use (particularly the high-potency "purple erkle thunderskunk" variety) can cause the premature loss of the ability to form paragraphs.

(sorry, but I couldn't resist)

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[TsuruchiBrian]

Not necessarily. It could be that marijuana increase schizophrenia, and some other factor decreases schizophrenia fore than marijuana increases it. I'm not saying this is the case, but you can't just look at a period where schizophrenia decreased and say that everything that increased in that time period can't be increasing schizophrenia.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[Luckyo]

Finns use alcohol heavily, but marijuana usage in the country is fairly low and stable afaik. If anything, that would suggest that alcohol isn't inducing schizophrenia. Which is pretty unlikely to be true.

Study itself makes it clear that they assume that certain factors causing the mental illness have declined. Perhaps it's the brutality of life, and not needing to worry about tomorrow? We do have quite a bit better social security network around here than before WW2 for example.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[Curtman]

If the incidence of schizophrenia decreases during the same period as marijuana usage increases, it becomes very difficult to show a causal link. That's the situation this discussion leads to. Incidence of schizophrenia should follow the increase in marijuana use when plotted against time, it doesnt. It's inverse.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[rmdingler]

Yes. Unsurprising.

I suspect there is another, much more insidious link, and it's along the lines of the withdrawal (period of increased likelihood of suicide) associated with the cold turkey withdrawal from multiple other prescription mood amplifiers.

Likely because it's supply is principally illegal, there are times when the days medication is unavailable.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[rmdingler]

Dick.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[mcgrew]

Yes. Not the GP but the AC you responded to.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[deviated_prevert]

Perhaps they became paranoid because "the man" was really out to get them.

Lets get our terms defined here. A paranoid psychotic episode is only one possible aspect of a psychosis. Perhaps the individual might experience fits of uncontrolled laughter and even the munchies, these episodes can been seen in many people who show signs of psychosis. Or individuals who smoke pot for that matter. Reality distortion during a psychotic episode is a difficult thing to quantify and can vary in degree to such an extent that qualifying every episode that requires intervention to be a psychotic one is a fools gambit.

However would you like to have someone who smokes high potency pot on a regular basis for an airline pilot? From my experience most who are heavy pot users are better suited for janitorial work or a space academy. Or a even a regular spot on reality tv shows. I personally even temporarily considered surrendering our planet to these guys while waiting for your order at KFC like I once did when considering whether or not to ask the clerk if they were having trouble plucking the chickens because the order was taking too long and I HAD THE MUNCHIES! Either way to conclude that psychosis is always manifested in paranoid delusions on the contrary, delusions are an integral part of our psychological make up as a species and can even be productive if seen in a more gentle context.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[mcgrew]

If group A's symptoms start earlier than group B and both self-medicate, group A will self-medicate first.

And there may be no causality at all. A third factor may trigger both schitzophrenia and marijuana use in some group of people.

Obviously, more study is needed.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

> Yes. Not the GP but the AC you responded to.

lol In your case it sounds like not enough pot.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[denzacar]

Obviously, we'd need a study that has people smoke pot with a control group that doesn't smoke pot to be sure, but that might never happen due to legal and ethical concerns.

That's easy.
Just check the records of all psychotics who haven't smoked pot prior to their first episode - then compare their ages.

Actually, that's EXACTLY what the did in this study.

The earliest onset was seen among those who used high-potency cannabis daily - on average their first psychosis was 6 years earlier than for non-users.

And since the study focused on people who had psychotic episodes in the first place (i.e. people who likely had mental issues to start with), it's unlikely self-medication is the explanation. Possible, of course, but unlikely.

Why would it be unlikely?
Under the assumption that the psychotic episode has an underlying cause other than just smoking pot, they could have been treating that underlying cause by self-medicating with pot.

As for the study we'd need (har-har), it would have to include many thousands of children who would be separated into several groups. The study would last for several decades during which time participants would be tested for drug use daily.
Groups would be given either a single potent dose, several less potent ones, a single less potent dose but the participant would be told that it IS a very potent one, several groups would get several levels of both single and several doses, one group would be carefully kept clean of any pot use by having them handcuffed to a police officer (one per participant) and one group would get a full blown placebo.

Then, we sit back and wait until they all die while we gather the psychotic episode incidence among all the groups.

Study could be funded through well informed investments into snack and bong industries.
As for the legal and ethical concerns, one way to get around that is to convince military that it is actually a study to create super-soldier serum.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[Curtman]

Is schizophrenia on the decline in Canada?
The preliminary comparison showed a 42% decrease in the number of first-admission schizophrenia cases over 20 years. In the main study, the annual inpatient prevalence rates decreased significantly (52%) from 1986 to 1996 with no corresponding change in outpatient rates, regardless of sex. Although total major affective disorders increased, this was due to an increase in major depression, not bipolar disorder.
This is the first Canadian case-register study to support the widely reported falling rates of schizophrenia in other parts of the world over the last 40 years. Since this is a geographically limited prevalence study based on only 10 years of data, further research over longer periods of time in other regions of the country is required to support or refute these findings.

Canadian teens lead developed world in cannabis use: Unicef report
This is the second time in a row that the WHO study has ranked Canadian teenagers as the highest cannabis users, though the percentage of teens itself has dropped. In 2002, the same survey showed that 37.5 per cent of 15-year-olds in Canada had used cannabis in the past year.

Etc...

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[mcgrew]

I suspect there is another, much more insidious link, and it's along the lines of the withdrawal (period of increased likelihood of suicide) associated with the cold turkey withdrawal from multiple other prescription mood amplifiers.

Dude, we're talking about POT, not heroin or cocaine or alcohol or tobacco. Pot is not addictive. One can of course be habituated; if I'm used to having a glass of orange juice every morning for five years and then there's none, I'm going to miss it. If I'm clinically depressed it may drive me to suicide, but that doesn't reflect on the orange juice, it reflects on a mental illness.

I've been smoking pot for over 40 years. Sometimes none is available and sometimes I can't afford it. Yeah, I miss it when I can't afford it or there isn't any available, but if I can have my coffee or pot but not both, I need my coffee.

This has nothing to do with addiction. It has to do with other mental illnesses.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. Are you that really out of delusional? Or are you trolling...

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[dyingtolive]

I never said it was MY narrative.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[SpankiMonki]

Thanks for posting, I feel less guilty now. BTW, sorry about your dad. I lost mine to cancer as well.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[JoeMerchant]

I know a high level engineer / manager in this State's largest electric utility who had a serious MJ usage habit, for decades, and he was more competent in his job than most. The main problem he had was keeping the habit hidden from people who didn't approve of it.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[Curtman]

You do not understand what the person you replied to is saying.

I do. I'm only suggesting that if marijuana use increases 1000% and there is no epidemic of schizophrenia afterward, there doesn't seem to be any reason to assume a causal link, or to fear one..

There may be underlying factors influencing the decrease in schizophrenia, but there is absolutely no evidence that using cannabis will increase your likelihood of being diagnosed with it.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[MobSwatter]

Yeah, nevermind the ones intelligent enough to figure out the current oppression scam, lets make pot heads the terrorists!

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[TsuruchiBrian]

Showing causal links is difficult regardless. You have to do more work than just showing a correlation or an anti-correlation.

Incidence of schizophrenia should follow the increase in marijuana use when plotted against time, it doesnt. It's inverse.

Hospitals make people sicker. If hospitals made people healthier, you'd expect people who went to hospitals to be healthier than people who didn't, but in fact you find just the opposite.

This is the kind of logic that results from using this kind of "common sense" approach, rather than actual science.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[TsuruchiBrian]

I do. I'm only suggesting that if marijuana use increases 1000% and there is no epidemic of schizophrenia afterward, there doesn't seem to be any reason to assume a causal link, or to fear one..

We shouldn't be *assuming* causal links either way. You need to actually show causal links using real science and legitimate statistical methods.

There may be underlying factors influencing the decrease in schizophrenia, but there is absolutely no evidence that using cannabis will increase your likelihood of being diagnosed with it.

No there isn't any evidence. And I wasn't suggesting that there was. But you have to rule these sorts of things out properly. That's the reason for doing real statistics. You can't just assume that marijuana causes schizophrenia and you can't assume it doesn't.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[knightghost]

Perhaps these folks were smoking that much pot as a coping means ("self medicating") because of their troubles, rather than pot causing the troubles

Test case #1: Psychosis at age X, pot = 0
Test case #2: Psychosis at age (X - 6), pot = N

I'm sure someone can take that and do a proof.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[ihtoit]

well, I'm at... wait, you look familiar.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[Jane Q. Public]

But the only way to do that legitimately is to rule out confounding factors... and in a case like this, there are so many potential confounding factors that it may well be a near-impossible task.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[hey!]

Or maybe people who don't smoke powerful weed die younger...

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[Anonymous Coward]

As a smoker for many years who then decided to quit I had great difficultly for a number of weeks/months. Pot had been used as a means for me to rest my mind after a hard day working in IT and enabled me to sleep deeply. Without the pot I suffered from insomnia and at the time I had been quite depressed over other matters. Quitting was quite difficult as it also forced me to face the reasons for my insomnia and depression. Had they been worse than they where and I had been inclinded to take my own life I'm sure quitting could of been seen as a reason for me to of taken my out life. I'm in 100% agreement that pot doesn't cause mental illness but it can shield people for a period of time from it, for awhile. Mental illness is just like a blown tire on your car, you can keep going for a period of time but eventually your going to have to stop and fix the problem.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[wonkey_monkey]

- Bruce

Rules 1, 3, 5, 7 - no poofters.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[nbauman]

Perhaps these folks were smoking that much pot as a coping means ("self medicating") because of their troubles, rather than pot causing the troubles

Which causes which? Good point.

From TFA:

But the evidence has been unclear. For example, one recent study from the Netherlands found it's equally possible that people prone to psychosis may be more likely to smoke pot, possibly as a way of "self-medicating" (see Reuters Health article of December 25, 2012, here: http://reut.rs/1d7aIvU)

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[sjames]

What?

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[harperska]

It seems as though while smoking any plant creates a risk for lung cancer as all smoke contains known carcinogens, smoking a particular plant high in cannabinoids has shown to result in a near negligible real-world incidence of cancer, suggesting that while cannabis smoke contains carcinogens, it must also contain substances that have an anti-carcinogenic effect.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[demonlapin]

Also the time period during which drug therapy for schizophrenia became available. Schizophrenia is one of several neurologic diseases which exhibits a "kindling" effect - the more psychotic breaks you have, the more likely you are to have one in the future.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[demonlapin]

Actually, lung cancer doesn't really take off until people have around 30-40 pack-years (i.e., 1 pack per day for 30-40 years or 2 packs per day for 15-20) of exposure. Even very heavy pot smokers don't usually hit those quantities of total smoked plant.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[FatdogHaiku]

Perhaps these folks were smoking that much pot as a coping means ("self medicating") because of their troubles, rather than pot causing the troubles

I'll go with that as long as it explains me seeing the RSS headline as "Daily Pot Use Tied To Age of First Psychedelic Episode"...
Then again, sometimes the letters just crawl around a bit...

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[demonlapin]

But since schizophrenia has a kindling effect - the more episodes you have, the more likely you are to have one in the future - there is plenty of reason to believe that delaying onset is a valuable thing.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[the_povinator]

A lot of people in this discussion are suggesting that pot users may be "self-medicating" and this may explain the correlation with schizophrenia. I don't follow the science closely enough to be able to cite specific studies that contradict this, but it's unlikely for the following reason. Marijuana and the drugs that are used to treat schizophrenia have *opposite* effects on the brain. THC increases dopamine; anti-psychotic drugs decrease dopamine.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[Maxo-Texas]

Have to watch out for funny use of percentages too.

For example, when you say pot increases psychotic episodes by 50% and the increase was from 7 per 1,000 to 10 per 1,000.

I'd like to see the basic rate per 1,000 or per 100,000 included when they say things like this.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[Luckyo]

My point is that we know that alcohol does in fact cause severe mental problems.

As a result, the similarity points at the conclusion that it's something else entirely that's affecting the issue, such as for example better diagnosis. Like not seeing things like homosexuality, weird behavior, or just being different as a mental illness that needs to be treated. This was a common issue in early 20th century and that is the comparison point.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[Luckyo]

Heavy pot smokers that start in teens hit the magic number of "fuck, my alveoli are enlarged and can't function as oxygen exchange all that well any more" (emphysema) around the age of 30 though. Smokers that start around the same time usually hit that about ten years later or so. It's one of those things they don't really advertise because it doesn't sound as scary as "oh god that awful looking cancerous lung" but pretty much any doctor that works with human lungs will tell you that onset of emphysema happens much earlier and is a severely limiting factor to human life.

Cancer comes much later, but not being able to take more than a few running steps before you start running out of oxygen even though you're pushing 60 breaths a second is quite a nasty problem to have for decades before cancer comes to finish you off.

Then there's the whole issue of drug use and addiction being concentrated to the same people, so most addicts are to an extent mixed users.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[DrPBacon]

I'll bring the melons. - P.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[Travis Mansbridge]

He was being pedantic. As am I. Huzzah!

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[Internetuser1248]

This conversation is about marijuana. Your refences to alcohol, meth and 'drugs' in general suggest that you make no distinction between these substances and marijuana. The is an overwhelming body of evidence that suggest that marijuana is different to these other substances, in terms of its psychological, social and health effects. Ignoring this and lumping them all together suggests to me that you are serving an agenda rather than attempting to actually add information to the discussion.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[serviscope_minor]

I need my coffee.

That's because caffeine does have withdrawal symptoms. I went overboard a while back on coffee: you get insensitised and need more for the same effect. Eventually, when I needed some very fine motor control skills, I realised I had to go cold turkey for a bit.

Oh god that was a miserable fortnight and included headaches, sleeping trouble, bad indigestion and a real jonesing for coffee.

Anyway, it passed and now I drink coffee in much more sensible quantities.

As for addicted: coffee (caffeine) is mildly addictive. It is possible to quit, but I like coffee a lot. Provided I'm sensible, why would I want to stop?

This is the thing that annoys me about some people talking about (say) pot. "If it's not addicitive, then quit." Why would one want to quit to prove a point to some random nay-sayer who won't be convinced anyway? One could say much the same about fried potato. No way I'm going to stop eating that because it's so darn delicious (and the hefty dose of fat and carbs does have an effect on my mood). Of course I could stop eating it, but no, I'm not going to.

I'm not a pot smoker/eater myself, but these arguments really annoy me. For some reason people seem to think they're OK because it's a "drug".

I'm also not going to stop drinking fine scoth either to prove I'm not addicted to booze.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[Antonovich]

Heavy pot smokers that start in teens hit the magic number of "fuck, my alveoli are enlarged and can't function as oxygen exchange all that well any more" (emphysema) around the age of 30 though. Smokers that start around the same time usually hit that about ten years later or so. It's one of those things they don't really advertise because it doesn't sound as scary as "oh god that awful looking cancerous lung" but pretty much any doctor that works with human lungs will tell you that onset of emphysema happens much earlier and is a severely limiting factor to human life.

Are we talking about the active substances involved or the method of delivery here? Both nicotine and THC are consumed in a variety of different formats and ways, and I'd be willing to bet that the phenomenon you are talking about is not particularly prevalent in THC consumers who get it via digestion, for example. Even in smokers of cannabis, there is considerable region variation in preferred methods and formats - leaf/buds, oil, hash, etc., many places around the world mix cannabis products with tobacco and smoke a joint like a normal cigarette, pipes, bongs, vaporisers, etc.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[hawkinspeter]

I agree with what you're saying, but fell that I should point out that hospitals often do make people "sicker".

Here's a current instance of a Welsh hospital: http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/hospital-visitors-urged-stay-away-6498464/ . They're warning people to stay away to stop the spread of norovirus.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[Curtman]

People being treated with drug therapy for schizophrenia have it. For there to be much fewer people seeking treatment and ever being diagnosed with it cant be attributed to better drug therapies unless those people treat themselves.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[Luckyo]

Neither. We are talking about observable consequence of certain unhealthy habits, such as liver cirrhosis and short term memory problems for chronic alcoholics, or emphysema for chronic smokers of various unhealthy substances.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[CauseBy]

Sure maybe. Maybe Jesus cast his magic powers to make it seem like marijuana is safe even though it's not. But in science we don't protect a hypothesis, when it is contraindicated by the evidence, by inventing unknown unrecorded unexplained confounding factors. That is the opposite of how reason works.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[CauseBy]

I'm familiar with that claim and it seems overwrought. Wouldn't it be easier to say that those suffering from psychosis tend to do more poorly in life, end up hanging out with the dredges of society, where drug use is more common?

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[Demonoid-Penguin]

Drugs are the actual cause of psychotic disorders in many. If you look at the state you're in on the drug, you're shit wasted, experiencing all the effects of psychotic disorder, including hallucinations,

Oh yeah? Where do I get that pot? I haven't seen any trippy Thai since the 70s - when the small mountain growers were all driven out and the trade was replaced with Columbian grown in the lowlands - and I've made more than a few trips back since then.

You cherry pick the facts to support a deep emotional investment in an unsupportable belief.

The "researcher" makes a living conflating correlation and causation. AKT1 gene my arse. Marta is full of shit. Most psychotics have their first attacks in the late teens - but "proof" "Skunk cannabis" causes psychosis is that smoking it "for many years" (you read the study right?).

If you spend most of your time stoned on strong Indica you are psychotic. The rest of us smoke because we enjoy it as part of our lives. If you indulge regularly in something that leaves you couch-locked it's not the drug that's the problem - it's the motivation. Those people smoke "to get out of it" - their poly-drug users (classic "self-medicators"). But hey, it's not my fault I'm a fat fucker either, I inherited the heavy bone genes, it was a childhood diet, poor self-esteem, distorted body image, blah blah - and any "scientist/dietician/psychologist/neuroscientist" that supports that view isn't doing in a cynical attempt to further their own career so lets just all have a big hug OK?

I'll stick with the facts - a large percentage of people my age have been smoking for 40+ years, we're just not the people you would pick as "smokers". Nor are our children or grandchildren.
Now pick up that mop and get back to work before I fire your arse!

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[MooseMiester]

Or, people who consume excessive amounts of any drug have what we now classify as "mental illness"; e..g. psychosis, neurosis, personality disorder, etc. It doesn't take many hours reading history books - or even watching PBS/Cable/Satellite TV to discover that people have been seeking out these substances, and consuming them, for a very long time. Some people can tolerate them, others cannot, and others take them to excess (and their ultimate detriment). Given that evolution has not eradicated this desire from humans after a few million years, perhaps, just perhaps, we are wasting our time trying to "fix" humanity here, and the trillions of dollars spent trying to eradicate drug use would be better spent understanding how to prevent it, and treat it, and keep the abusers from committing crimes that destroy innocent people.

In other words, some people are going to get high too often no matter what you try and to about it.

Our insistence on eradicating this behavior by throwing insane amounts of money at eradication, which isn't working, is foolish. When the fix doesn't work, you do something else, not apply the fix more vigorously. Doing something over and over with the same result is, in fact, is form if neurosis.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[MakerDusk]

That pretty much falls into the category of a working alcoholic. A little bit makes a dry task not seem as dull. Who hasn't had a beer while they worked? Having a bit of weed is the same thing, depending on your tolerance. Some people manage to function with copious amounts of intoxicant in their system. Being intoxicated is being intoxicated: some can work with it, some can't. I wouldn't recommend getting drunk and working on something which requires fine motor skills. I also would not recommend doing the same with weed.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[Aighearach]

methinks your sarcasm detector is busted.

Online sarcasm was deprecated in 1986.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[Aighearach]

Dave's not here, man.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[Aighearach]

Exactly. And it is well known that marijuana causes an increase in active disease in people predisposed to schizophrenia. These are people who are likely to drift in and out of a disease state if unmedicated anyways. The studies already have shown that it does not cause schizophrenia in people not already at risk.

This study is about a different thing, psychotic episodes. And it is the same type of result; it shouldn't be assumed to imply a causal link in people not already predisposed to have psychotic episodes. It is potentially a bigger deal than schizophrenia, because in that case people can quit using and the effect usually goes away within 2 years. With psychotic episodes, it is unknown if this reversal will happen.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[demonlapin]

DSM-IV criteria require symptoms to be present for six months before a diagnosis of schizophrenia can be made, but you might choose to treat after a single psychotic break.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[TsuruchiBrian]

Maybe Jesus cast his magic powers to make it seem like marijuana is safe even though it's not.

Confounding factors don't have to be supernatural to be non-obvious. And yes, you are supposed to take appropriate steps to discover and account for confounding factors you are not yet aware of. You don't get to pretend that there aren't any until they are proven to exist, especially given the likelihood that there are confounding factors you are unaware of.

But in science we don't protect a hypothesis, when it is contraindicated by the evidence, by inventing unknown unrecorded unexplained confounding factors.

Exactly! we don't protect a hypothesis like "Marijuana doesn't cause schizophrenia". We attack it to see if it can withstand scrutiny. Just like we attack the hypothesis that "Marijuana does cause schizophrenia". Neither hypothesis gets a free pass.

That is the opposite of how reason works.

Actually it is reasonable to should follow accepted statistical methods that do not allow you to conflate correlation and causation. We actually do have the tools to determine causation, and "common sense logic" that regular people think they possess is simply no substitute for actual science and statistics.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[gzuckier]

methinks your sarcasm detector is busted.

i don't get it.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[gzuckier]

even if you take the study at face value, and skew the cause/effect in the alarmist direction, what is it actually saying?
that if you overuse cannabis, you are likely to become psychotic a few years earlier than you would have otherwise.
Really? geez.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[gzuckier]

Not necessarily. It could be that marijuana increase schizophrenia, and some other factor decreases schizophrenia fore than marijuana increases it. I'm not saying this is the case, but you can't just look at a period where schizophrenia decreased and say that everything that increased in that time period can't be increasing schizophrenia.

it's well established that it's caused by the sun, and anyway it hasn't increased in 17 years. wait, aren't we on AGW yet?

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[gzuckier]

No more difficult than if they both increased... It's always a difficult, multifaceted problem to isolate what causes a given effect. You do not understand what the person you replied to is saying.

technically, yes; but in practice, if you want to use multivariate regression or the equivalent to demonstrate an actual correlation between two items which are negatively correlated overall, you have really got to make a hell of a strong case, with a well established mechanism for your correlation and for whatever it is that's driving your dependent variable in the wrong direction.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[gzuckier]

The damage caused by cannabis alone is definitely nowhere near as unmistakable as tobacco. Pretty much everybody who knows tobacco addicts can see for themselves that their lung function fails over the years, but getting evidence of such an effect for marijuana is pretty iffy, even with sophisticated statistical analysis of good studies.
"COPD risk among people who smoked marijuana, but not tobacco, was slightly higher than among nonsmokers, but the increase was not statistically significant." Tan, W.C. Canadian Medical Association Journal, April 14, 2009.
(they found a somewhat greater increase in risk for smokers of both tobacco and marijuana than just tobacco alone; that's not too surprising, tobacco is synergistic for the bad effects of other substances, as it interferes with the lungs' ability to clear themselves of foreign substances)
"Given the consistently reported absence of an association between use of marijuana and abnormal [lung function] or signs of macroscopic emphysema, we can be close to concluding that smoking marijuana by itself does not lead to COPD" Tashkin, D. New England Journal of Medicine, 1976; vol 294; similarly http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2665954/
"Currently, the evidence that smoking cannabis causes emphysema and bullae is limited to these case reports and therefore remains anecdotal. Although Tashkin et al. demonstrated modest short-term decreases in gas transfer (DLco) among 30 men allowed to smoke cannabis ad libitum for 94 days,[15] none of the population-based studies have been able to confirm that cannabis consumption is associated with persistent impairment of DLco.[11,15,16] This is in stark contrast to tobacco smoking, for which a reduction in DLco is probably the most sensitive indicator of parenchymal lung damage. In Aldington’s cross-sectional study, exclusive smokers of cannabis were much less likely to show evidence of emphysema on high-resolution CT scans than tobacco smokers, suggesting that macroscopic emphysema is not a common consequence of cannabis use.[11]" http://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/747982_4
"Smokers’ lung function was worse, unsurprisingly (pack-a-day tobacco smokers had FEV1s 63 mL lower; 20-pack-year smokers’ FEV1 were 101 mL lower). But in marijuana smokers who had smoked up to 3,650 marijuana cigarettes (10 “joint-years”), FEV1 and FVC were higher than matched nonsmokers. At these common levels of marijuana use, there was a steady dose-response relationship: the more marijuana smoked, the better the lung function (FEV1 increase of 13 mL/joint-year). Even in the heavier marijuana users, FVC remained significantly elevated by 76 mL over nonsmokers. Only those smoking large amounts of marijuana every day began to display decreases in lung function. All these trends were highly statistically significant (p 0.001), and supported by the large sample size and body of spirometric data." Pletcher MJ et al. Association Between Marijuana Exposure and Pulmonary Function Over 20 Years. JAMA 2012;307:173-181.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[rtb61]

Marijuana is a plant, grown to supply fibres for clothing, ropes etc. and, the seeds with a high protein content for human consumption. Now if you are talking the various other substances to two most well known being THC and CBD, both of those have completely different affects and the ratio between the two have major differences in intoxication and pain relief.

Basically the bullshit propaganda is pretty obvious as it just lumps marijuana together because it affects pharmaceutical corp profits, alcohol profits, wood pulp profits, synthnic fabric profits and keeping it illegal feeds the insane ego of psychopaths and narcissists who want to destroy peoples lives and target marijuana users gives them plenty of people to crush, lord it over and destroy (those people are truly sick fuckers) and it has nothing at all to do with the intoxicating affects.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[Luckyo]

Let me simplify. There are far fewer studies on cannabis than tobacco for one simple reason: number of users and illegality of usage. That makes conducting reliable studies on people with similar level of impact pretty much impossible.

So it remains "anecdotal". Which in this case means "doctors actually working with patients keep consistently seeing the effect but clinical studies find it hard to pinpoint due to low pool of potential candidates for testing".

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[Demonoid-Penguin]

even if you take the study at face value, and skew the cause/effect in the alarmist direction, what is it actually saying? that if you overuse cannabis, you are likely to become psychotic a few years earlier than you would have otherwise. Really? geez.

News at 9, if you drink whisky every waking hour you'll develop mental "problems" - oh wait, you have mental problems if you drink whisky every waking hour.

A lot of people smoke. A lot of people smoke a lot. (and it didn't start in the 60s, just became mainstream, I'm a grandfather and my grandfather "goofed off" in the Merchant Navy "as a lad". Cannabis in Scotland predates the Romans.)
So it's a subject I'd like to see researchers take seriously - but the the current regime of "funding is only available for research into the dangers" and the piss poor science doesn't do that. In the UK where that crap researcher did that "polling" you've got a few major factors that stop me from taking the "paper" seriously. Absolutely no effort is made to seperate the effects of contaminants - deliberate or otherwise from the effects of cannabis. I've seen some alarming studies of the contaminants in street weed in the UK - radioactive lead and polunium in the Nigerian imports and hydro fed with fertilizers made from metal refining by-products, even silica being added to Dutch imports, and the majority of local grow-op bud is heavily contaminated by cut flower preservatives used to try and increase profit by making the buds weigh more (Budswell, glycrerine, etc). Then you've got environmental pollution resulting from poor ventilation in overlit grow-rooms - as well as nasty levels of nitrates from overfertilization (nitrides when smoked).
I've also seen some interesting results from a study in Australia where classes of students were interviewed by men and women - even when the surveys are properly structured (which they often aren't) people lie. In the UK, the US, and Australia hospitals and GPs gather data that is deliberately misused to support particular anti-pot agendas*1. If you wind up in an Emergency room or a psych ward your answers to drug use questions will be misinterpreted to further those agendas. No surprise that we suddenly have an enormous number of people "wanting help to quit cannabis" when the police are no longer allowed to issue a simple fine (no criminal offence) for cases of small possession and cultivation. The Drug Council suddenly find proof for further funding citing an "increase in arrests" followed by courts in (for example) Australia offering mitigation or suspended sentences if the person being charged "seeks treatment".

*1 actual case - a car leaves the road and ploughs through a house injuring a guy sleeping. He goes to hospital and is asked if he ever smoked cannabis. Not "were you under the influence of cannabis at the time of incident".....(sigh)

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[Talderas]

This is the thing that annoys me about some people talking about (say) pot. "If it's not addicitive, then quit." Why would one want to quit to prove a point to some random nay-sayer who won't be convinced anyway? One could say much the same about fried potato. No way I'm going to stop eating that because it's so darn delicious (and the hefty dose of fat and carbs does have an effect on my mood). Of course I could stop eating it, but no, I'm not going to.

I'm not a pot smoker/eater myself, but these arguments really annoy me. For some reason people seem to think they're OK because it's a "drug".

I'm also not going to stop drinking fine scoth either to prove I'm not addicted to booze.

People have a bad habit of taking statements literally whenever it will let them trivialize and ignore what other people say. To the layman there is no difference between drug addiction and drug dependence. They lump both in as addiction. What I see, as an outside observer is the laymen using addiction as an argument to which pot advocates tend to respond with the true statements that pot is not an addictive drug. Since the laymen tend to be ignorant of the difference between drug addiction and drug dependence it just spirals down from there because the laymen aren't able to articulate that it's the dependence that they are concerned with. I find that when drug dependence is used, instead of addiction, pot advocates tend to not fair as well because all their normal talking points tend to be structured against the fact that pot is not addictive. So the advocates don't address the points that the detractors are concerned with.

For what its worth, it does appear to me that many pot users do have a psychological dependence on marijuana use. They, perhaps unconsciously, use language that suggests dependence (need vs like) or describe scenarios of repetitive use or situations where they feel uneasiness or other issues when separated from the drug.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[twocows]

No, you see, he started smoking pot because of the void in his life left by not understanding sarcasm.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[CauseBy]

Exactly! we don't protect a hypothesis like "Marijuana doesn't cause schizophrenia". We attack it to see if it can withstand scrutiny. Just like we attack the hypothesis that "Marijuana does cause schizophrenia". Neither hypothesis gets a free pass.

Good try, but the null hypothesis doesn't need protection. It is the default assumption. Bone up on your Science 101 and come back to argue another time.

We also don't need to protect the hypotheses that space aliens didn't cause me to fail a math test, or that lion roars don't cause earthquakes. To posit a causation requires evidence; to posit no causation is just the starting position.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[TsuruchiBrian]

There is a difference between saying "I have proven that lion roars don't cause earthquakes statistically" and "I am assuming lion roars don't cause earthquakes because this seems too unlikely to even warrant effort to verify"

I think it is reasonable not to do any research into whether lion roars cause earthquakes.

Are you really suggesting that you think it is reasonable to say that every chemical in marijuana has zero effect on schizophrenia, and that we are so confident we don't even need to check?

I am not saying that we need to act as if marijuana does cause schizophrenia until it is proven that it doesn't (e.g. recommending schizophrenics not use marijuana, etc). I am just saying that we need to acknowledge that from a scientific point of view we don't know the answer to this question until we do the work.

The difference between lion roars and earth quakes is that no one can even give a plausible reason to of how this might be true (as far as I know). Even if someone "proved" a causal link between lion roars and earthquakes, the focus would immediately be on what this person did wrong to arrive at such a ridiculous conclusion.

If someone actually did prove a causal link between marijuana and schizophrenia, I don't think anyone would say "How can that be, it is impossible for these things to be related". So I don't think this is a good comparison.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[TsuruchiBrian]

Also, speaking of "Science 101" and the null hypothesis...

When you are assuming the "null hypothesis" usually it means you are about to do an experiment where this hypothesis is contrasted with an alternate hypothesis.

You don't get to simply neglect to then do the experiment and assume the null hypothesis is true.

Also when you say things like:

Good try, but the null hypothesis doesn't need protection. It is the default assumption. Bone up on your Science 101 and come back to argue another time

It makes you an asshole. And when you are wrong, it makes you a dumb asshole. When you need to resort to proclaiming yourself the winner of an argument, it is a sign of weakness. It just makes you look ridiculous, like a losing fighter dancing and celebrating around the ring after the bell to influence the judges into thinking he won. Sometimes the winning fighters do this too, but if you won convincingly, you shouldn't need to.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[Some_Llama]

"Lastly, if you go into a hospital or see your doctor on pot or meth, even if they know you used. They're likely to give you a diagnosis of schizophenia or bipolar, and start major tranquilizer/antipsychotic treatment immediately."

this is complete bullshit, i know from personal experience that if you are in a hospital, under observation because of the effects of drugs they will wait until your system is cleared of the drugs to make a definitive diagnosis, they know all too well the effects of all of the major drugs and how they can mimic actual psychological conditions... they are there to help you not hurt you.

in the case i know first hand, the treatment of tranquilizers and/or anti psychotic drugs was completely voluntary and unless there is a court order for these treatments prior to hospitalization it is illegal to force a patient on this medication or any medication other than that which might save their life (e.g. naloxone for heroin overdose).

unfortunately your glaring misunderstanding of how mental institutions work either smacks of ineptitude or outright ignorance, but hopefully not willful ignorance.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[strstr]

see, in theory that would be correct. but in practice, it is not.

I point you in the direction of my friends case. young guy, completely healthy at age 18. smokes a ton of pot, .. decides to try meth out of pure pressure. the dude went hay wire, psychotic as fuck, took his underage girlfriend on a speeding spree, then got arrested for all the crimes he'd just committed, WHICH included kidnapping his underage girlfriend, outrunning a few cops, wreckless driving and endangerment, etc.

No one got hurt and his girlfriend had the time of her life, but cause she was 17 the judge said her mom could press charges on her behalf.

Anyway, dude was taken to jail high off meth - although he was functional and coherent. he was apparently hallucinating off his ass in jail, and the guards took it upon themselves to beat him up and tase him. They did not try to do any type of detox or hospital care for the meth, ... the taser caused him to have a heart attack and caused brain damage from the severe convulsion he had after it struck, which basically could have been IMO an issue with the meth in his nervous system. At the hospital, they did not diagnose "meth use," and he was shipped off to a state mental institution for evaluation, where they diagnosed him with bipolar. they forced a ton of drugs on him, misdiagnosed, and sent him back to court to use the insanity plea, resulting in forced commitment to the mental health system where he's now stuck living out his 5+ year sentence for a crime he pleaded guilty to but was not guilty of.

Out of all the guys I know at the local state hospital, nearly half are there due to some drug condition. At least all my friends I met in there got there on drug induced psychotic episodes, and they were not observed and let go once the drugs wore off.

I do not know of many hospitals that will not see your psychotic episodes on drugs as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or psychotic disorder not otherwise specified. because the drugs cause all the effects of psychosis and bipolar, including rage, manic episodes, anger outbursts, hallucinations, paranoia, etc. And people seriously get treated like they're really mentally ill. Come into the ER on heroine in Eugene, raging out, and they'll give you antipsychotics (Geodone/Haldol). And you might leave diagnosed with psychosis and other conditions.

also, they can force any drug they want usually, based on the doctors opinion that it was an "emergency" and impractical to obtain informed consent. they do it all the time in Oregon. you get practically no say in the matter. they will usually start an involuntary medication process the day of admittance, and I have seen to many doctors not wait for the process to be done before forcing medications.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[ihtoit]

giggity.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[CauseBy]

Are you really suggesting that you think it is reasonable to say that every chemical in marijuana has zero effect on schizophrenia, and that we are so confident we don't even need to check?

Nope, this is what I'm saying, quoth:

But in science we don't protect a hypothesis, when it is contraindicated by the evidence, by inventing unknown unrecorded unexplained confounding factors.

If you study two things, and there is no measurable correlation between them, then it is only reasonable to conclude that there is no link between them. Although it is technically slimly possible that the two things are linked, but some confounding factor precisely counteracts the link such that the measured correlation is zero, that cannot be reasonably proposed without some evidence. Speculation isn't good enough, which is what you did when you said this:

It could be that marijuana increase schizophrenia, and some other factor decreases schizophrenia fore than marijuana increases it.

That's all I'm saying. Anyway I don't feel combative about this issue so I don't want to harp on it. It's a minor point.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[CauseBy]

Fair enough. I am an asshole. I'm not wrong though. The null hypothesis is the assumption that two phenomena are unrelated and what I said is that the null hypothesis doesn't need special protection. That is right.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[TsuruchiBrian]

But in science we don't protect a hypothesis, when it is contraindicated by the evidence, by inventing unknown unrecorded unexplained confounding factors.

You don't need to invent them. But you can and should assume that there are some, and take appropriate steps to mitigate the effect of possible confounding factors you may be unaware of.

If you study two things, and there is no measurable correlation between them, then it is only reasonable to conclude that there is no link between them. Although it is technically slimly possible that the two things are linked, but some confounding factor precisely counteracts the link such that the measured correlation is zero, that cannot be reasonably proposed without some evidence.

If you have already taken appropriate steps to eliminate confounding factors, and there is no measurable correlation then it is reasonable to conclude that there is no link. If you haven;t taken the appropriate steps to eliminate confounding factors, then it doesn't really matter what you measured because it's not really useful.

Speculation isn't good enough, which is what you did when you said this:

It could be that marijuana increase schizophrenia, and some other factor decreases schizophrenia fore than marijuana increases it.

I also said I wasn't suggesting this was true or even likely to be true. I was saying that it is important to take steps to eliminate confounding factors because things like this can and do happen. This is why we have statistical methods to mitigate confounding factors

Concluding that there is no link between schizophrenia and marijuana from the fact that schizophrenia went down during a time when marijuana usage went up, is not scientifically or statistically rigorous. You need more data to make such a conclusion. For example a double blind study with a simple random sampling, etc.

Re:Cause and effect may be backwards

[TsuruchiBrian]

When you do an experiment, if your hypothesis is proven true then the null hypothesis is disproven. If you don't actually do an experiment, then you haven't done anything to prove the null hypothesis.

I don't know what you consider "special protection", but I am claiming that you need to actually do an experiment to conclude a null hypothesis in a scientifically rigorous way.

When we assume that lion roars don't cause earthquakes because it's a stupid hypothesis. We haven't actually proven the null hypothesis, we are just assuming on intuition and not on evidence.

If we actually did an experiment and can not show a link between lion roars and earthquakes, then you can conclude the null hypothesis by default. But you have to at least try before arriving at this conclusion.

This just in...

[wiredlogic]

People with addictive personalities more prone to mental problems. Who'd have thunk?

Re:This just in...

[sg_oneill]

People with addictive personalities more prone to mental problems. Who'd have thunk?

Or , ya know, you could actually read the article. Its not about how prone someone is, its when the symptoms start. Schizophrenia shows early symptoms in childhood, and if you've got it, you will succumb to psychosis eventually. Whats happening here is the pot smokers are succumbing earlier. This wont affect most people, but those who are succeptible, perhaps pots a bad idea. The trick scientifically is identifying those in danger.

Re:This just in...

[JoeMerchant]

But, is it the THC, or the lack of social support and constant surreptitious activity required to obtain and use pot that leads to earlier onset?

Put another way, would the same thing have been found in a study of alcohol use during prohibition? Or, will the same study replicated today in Colorado, have different findings?

 

Re:This just in...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Or , ya know, you could actually read the article. Its not about how prone someone is, its when the symptoms start. Schizophrenia shows early symptoms in childhood, and if you've got it, you will succumb to psychosis eventually.

Hhhm, I didn't see that in the article.

Re:This just in...

[Will.Woodhull]

Parent post as well as several others are missing an obvious key piece of information:

This is not about typical pot smokers. This is about persons who get stoned every day (and some are probably somewhat stoned every waking minute).

Being stoned most all the time is of itself aberrant behavior, so its association with other aberrant behaviors that cause a diagnosis of psychosis should not be a surprise. A useful conjecture is that there may be a single underlying cause that can lead to chronic marijuana abuse or psychotic behavior, but thinking in terms of one progressing somehow to the other is not so useful.

At a guess, the typical use of marijuana is probably more like once a week, or two or three times a month. Has anyone seen any studies of how frequently pot smokers get stoned?

Re:This just in...

[pspahn]

Simple, do the study here in Denver where people smoke openly and have no worries about "constant surreptitious activity".

Re:This just in...

[mcgrew]

I would think it's likely a combination.

Re:This just in...

[mcgrew]

I've seen no studies, but I know a lot of pot smokers and it's all over the board. Some smoke rarely, some grab the bong before they're out of bed. I'd say there are a lot of daily smokers, though, most working-class (construction, factory) folks I know are sober all day, come home, eat dinner, then smoke a few hitters and drink a few beers while watching the tube.

As Oscar Wilde said, "Work is the curse of the drinking class."

Re:This just in...

[quantaman]

People with addictive personalities more prone to mental problems. Who'd have thunk?

Or , ya know, you could actually read the article. Its not about how prone someone is, its when the symptoms start. Schizophrenia shows early symptoms in childhood, and if you've got it, you will succumb to psychosis eventually. Whats happening here is the pot smokers are succumbing earlier. This wont affect most people, but those who are succeptible, perhaps pots a bad idea. The trick scientifically is identifying those in danger.

I'm not sure the OP is wrong, or that this shows the pot is harmful.

As you said the pot isn't causing the schizophrenia because the schizophrenia is there already, it's just correlated with an earlier onset of psychosis. So this is consistent with people who have a more severe form of the disorder self-medicating to cope, it's also consistent with people having other emotional issues that make them more prone to both pot use and psychosis.

The 6 years is a big number so assuming their numbers are good a causal effect definitely can't be dismissed, but it's not the only answer.

Re:This just in...

[Nyder]

People with addictive personalities more prone to mental problems. Who'd have thunk?

Or , ya know, you could actually read the article. Its not about how prone someone is, its when the symptoms start. Schizophrenia shows early symptoms in childhood, and if you've got it, you will succumb to psychosis eventually. Whats happening here is the pot smokers are succumbing earlier. This wont affect most people, but those who are succeptible, perhaps pots a bad idea. The trick scientifically is identifying those in danger.

So you are saying if you are susceptible to Schizophernia, pot might make it happen sooner then it would if you didn't smoke pot.

Seems to me you have a ticking time bomb anyways.

Re:This just in...

[Nimey]

Almost nobody RTFAs and would rather wharrgarbl, especially about hot-button topics like guns, government, and marijuana legalization.

Slashdot is not a place for intelligent conversation of anything remotely controversial... but then again, almost no place on the Internet is.

Re:This just in...

[sjames]

However, if the schizophrenia starts in childhood, that means it predates the use of pot, which lends credence to the theory that mental illness leads to pot.

Re:This just in...

[CauseBy]

"Whats happening here is the pot smokers are succumbing earlier."

Look carefully and you will se that this is circular reasoning. Try this rephrasing: "what's happening here is that those who succumb earlier were smoking pot". That reverses the causality.

So which one is it? I don't know but a properly crafted study could find out.

in the context of society..

[gl4ss]

..there probably isn't a "safe use level".

however, and here is the big thing, the thing to test against should be daily alcohol use of comparable amount - or if possible, test against whichever it is the people choose if they have both options available.

though, I'd reckon that if you're likely to have psychosis of some sort you're already more likely to be choosing to be a fucking _daily_ pot smoker for 20 years - if you get little crazy from being high 20 years that's not even news - but that is not the point, you go pretty fucked just from drinking 8 beers a day for 20 years too...

Re:in the context of society..

[JoeMerchant]

There certainly wasn't a "safe use level" of LSD - just ask the Dead Heads serving mandatory minimum sentences.

Re:in the context of society..

[ihtoit]

I think I'd rather ask Dr. Leary or Dr. Hofmann.

Who both and independently not only worked out the threshold dose through self-experimentation, using the same methods they also discovered what are even now considered the Holy Bible of lethal dose and one of the few successful chemical interventions to treat alcoholism.

Re:in the context of society..

[ihtoit]

yeah that was pretty much it according to Hoffman. He was all but drinking the stuff neat and all it was doing to him was intensifying the experience.

Re:in the context of society..

[phantomfive]

Such as, being arrested for being high while driving?

You will get arrested if a cop catches you high while driving. Impaired driving is illegal (even if it's from a completely legal substance, such as sleeping pills, or from nothing but overwhelming anger at your neighbor).

Re:in the context of society..

[YttriumOxide]

(alcohol isn't "addictive" in the same way as cannabis, I assume from a background of absolutely zero knowledge)

Alcohol is significantly more addictive than cannabis. This relatively well-known chart is a good starting point (despite being ugly and imprecise; it covers the general idea).

My theoretical solution for a lot of things is "legalise it, tax it, regulate it" - a solution that cuts out a lot of the problems of illicit SUPPLY (which is the main problem with such things), not illicit, personal substance abuse. But I'm just not sure that approach is worth the gain for something like cannabis.

While I have no personal interest in cannabis (I don't like any drug that messes with my ability to think clearly - cannabis and alcohol both included), I do think this approach is exactly what is needed for a variety of drugs, cannabis included. Take a look at how many people are currently in prison for cannabis related offences around the world (and especially in the US) and think about what it's costing to keep them there. This - in and of itself - is enough of a reason that it'd be worth it.

Re:in the context of society..

[YttriumOxide]

There certainly wasn't a "safe use level" of LSD

Being a successful professional, a great husband and father, making inroads to becoming a moderately successful author (see sig), and having used LSD extensively for the past 16 years, I must respectfully disagree vehemently with that statement...

Re:in the context of society..

[mcgrew]

..there probably isn't a "safe use level".

What's the "safe use level" of peanuts? My daughter is allergic to them, they can kill her.

If there's heart disease in your family, you might want to exercise a little and watch what you eat. If there's cancer in your family you might want to avoid gasoline, tobacco, nail polish, hair dye, and other carcinogens.

If there's mental illness in your family, you might want to avoid substances and situations that affect the brain. What's so hard to understand?

Re:in the context of society..

[mcgrew]

Holy Bible of lethal dose

Now I'm intrigued, I thought there was no lethal dose of LSD; at least, that's what I've read. Do you have a link?

Speaking of LSD which is only kinda on topic, let me bring it squarely on-topic: how many of these folks that were studied for pot were indulging in other drugs as well? LSD can cause psychotic episodes in otherwise mentally healthy people, it's doom for someone prone to schitzophrenia. It's been my experience that crazy people usually don't stick to a single drug. One trouble with assembling statistics is making sure you've accounted for all the variables.

Re:in the context of society..

[JoeMerchant]

I could also have said "safe possession limit."

The point being, society's laws make the drug dangerous, regardless of the physical / biological danger of the drug.

Re:in the context of society..

[tftp]

Being a successful professional, a great husband and father, making inroads to becoming a moderately successful author [...]

Those are side effects of LDS, not of LSD.

Re:in the context of society..

[JoeMerchant]

I was referring to being imprisoned for LSD usage. You, sir, have obviously been very discrete and careful for the past 16 years (assuming your post is truthful), but in certain states, based on your words, the local sheriff could order a posse to your house, strip you away from your job and family and have you sent to prison for many years - and the Judge would be powerless to help you, regardless of your positive standing in the community.

I'd hardly call that "safe."

Re:in the context of society..

[dryeo]

Holy Bible of lethal dose

Now I'm intrigued, I thought there was no lethal dose of LSD; at least, that's what I've read.

It's roughly the same as water, something like 2 inches, enough to submerge your nose, fill up your lungs and kill you from oxygen starvation.
Also I'd guess, like pot, if large mass of it is dropped on you it'll also kill you.

Re:in the context of society..

[YttriumOxide]

That's not really the point. The question isn't whether X is less harmful than Y, the question is whether X is harmless enough to be legal.

Firstly, if Y is considered harmless enough to be legal and X is less harmful than Y, then surely the question of whether X is harmless enough to be legal is already answered, isn't it?

Secondly, asking the question this way ignores the harm of X being illegal. The war on drugs is a very harmful thing to society - far more so than the drugs themselves.

I fully believe that if all recreational drugs were legalised, there would be new problems in society that we hadn't dealt with before, but the overall amount of harm would be lower.

Re:in the context of society..

[novium]

I wish more people would think of it that way. On both sides. I've gotten caught in a few too many very irritating conversations with people who were...damn, really, the only way to say it was that they were evangelists for various mind-altering substances who would seriously not let it go when told that while I was appreciative, I wasn't interested in experimenting because of a family history of mental illness and a tendency to psychotic episodes triggered by drug use. But it's HARMLESS, those are all LIES blah blah blah and you're just a TOOL of the CONSPIRACY AGAINST FREEDOM and blah blah blah. On and on for ever. Sigh. It was really, really weird, I'd never before encountered anyone whose reaction to being turned down on sharing was anything but "oh, cool. More for me".

Re:in the context of society..

[CauseBy]

Impaired implies a lower level of execution. The evidence suggests that marijuana does not lower the level of driving execution, therefore marijuana is not a driving impairment under laws which generically describe driving while impaired.

To make driving under the influence of marijuana illegal a legislature would have to pass a specific law, and many have done that.

Re:in the context of society..

[phantomfive]

The evidence suggests that marijuana does not lower the level of driving execution,

False. To verify this, go make a movie of yourself driving while high, and when you watch yourself afterwards. Here's a summary of some studies, and stop getting your information from "High Times"

Re:in the context of society..

[ebvwfbw]

..... should be daily alcohol use of comparable amount - ... drinking 8 beers a day for 20 years too...

Safe level is no more than 18 drinks a week. You should limit it to 2 a day. Then on the weekend you can go over a bit. That's what my Doc told me. I know a guy that tried to do about 15 drinks of whiskey in a day. Wonder it didn't kill him. He was yacking. Swore off of fireball.

Re:in the context of society..

[YttriumOxide]

Are you suggesting that you, an individual, is a statistically significant sample size?

Certainly not if you're looking for evidence of general action; however if you consider the original statement that there is no safe level of LSD use, then it only requires one 'negative' to disprove it.

Also, beyond simply myself there is plenty of research that shows LSD is an extraordinarily 'safe' substance by pretty much any measure you care to choose (with the exception of legal ramifications, which is a societal issue, not a drug issue).

Reefer madness?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's strange timing that this study is being released around the time Colorado has fully legalized pot, Washington is well on their way to doing so, and you can get "medical marijuana" in other states.

I'm not sure what the motivation is. Personally, I don't see a very good future for the middle class (automation of pretty much every job is coming,) so it would seem that it would be in everyone's best interest to keep most of the unemployed population stoned every day to reduce petty crime. I guess I'm just a pessimist though.

The whole war on drugs thing just needs to be dropped. Let everyone have whatever they want and plow the money you were putting into police and prisons into treatment programs for people who voluntarily want to stop.

CAPTCHA: syringe. Holy coincidence!

Re:Reefer madness?

[fustakrakich]

The whole war on drugs thing just needs to be dropped.

Why do you want to kill a golden goose? Join the dark side of prohibition and make billions.

Re:Reefer madness?

[Uberbah]

Personally, I don't see a very good future for the middle class (automation of pretty much every job is coming,)

Not so much automation as executive greed. The superrich have created a system where not only do they not have to worry about the state of the society in which they live, but where they profit in times of booms and busts. Reap the windfall of the housing boom, get bailed out when it tanks, and then snap up real estate to resell or rent.

Re:Reefer madness?

[drinkypoo]

The superrich have created a system where not only do they not have to worry about the state of the society in which they live, but where they profit in times of booms and busts.

That's one of the ways in which capitalism is inherently unfair anyway. The more money you have, the more money you can make, leading to a runaway condition.

Re:Reefer madness?

[JoeMerchant]

Climate deniers aren't the only ones who cherry-pick "scientific studies" for publicity campaigns.

Re:Reefer madness?

[ihtoit]

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to start using the latest study on the feeding habits of the lesser spotted hippokangorocibull to debunk that which has already been debunked just to satisfy your preposterous appetite for the absurd.

Re:Reefer madness?

[Nutria]

capitalism is inherently unfair

Yes, capitalism is unfair. Sadly, all other economic systems -- when implemented in large scale, and in the real world -- are even less fair. Otherwise, the Soviet Union would have survived while the US collapsed.

Re:Reefer madness?

[phantomfive]

Two things:

1) There have always been marijuana studies (see here for a sampling). You must not have noticed them before.
2) You will see more studies in the future, because with it legalized, it is easier to study.

Re:Reefer madness?

[ultranova]

Yes, capitalism is unfair. Sadly, all other economic systems -- when implemented in large scale, and in the real world -- are even less fair. Otherwise, the Soviet Union would have survived while the US collapsed.

So maximum fairness is the same as maximum efficiency, the only difference between SU and US was the economic system, and there are only two possible economic systems?

Nice logic.

Re:Reefer madness?

[cold fjord]

It's strange timing that this study is being released around the time Colorado has fully legalized pot, Washington is well on their way to doing so, and you can get "medical marijuana" in other states.

I'm not sure what the motivation is.

The motivation appears to be for British scientists to conduct research into important medical issues, such as mental illness, and how what are known to be psychoactive drugs interact or influence it. Sometimes science finds a potential problem with habits, foods, or substances you enjoy. Sometimes it provides substitutes, sometimes it can cut the harm, sometimes it recommends avoiding it.

Re:Reefer madness?

[Nutria]

So maximum fairness is the same as maximum efficiency

Certainly I've never thought such an idea.

Re:Reefer madness?

[pspahn]

Speaking of side effects of the War on Drugs, there was an interesting story the other night on the news in Denver.

A lot of pot shops are employing military grade security personnel to protect them these days. Granted, one of the most likely reasons is that this is a cash based business (the only non-cash transactions are based on creative use of ATMs), so there is motivation from others to rip them off on their way to deposit their monies. However, it is clear that the need for such specially trained security is due to the fact that pot was illegal for so long and run by the black market. Now you have those same thugs trying to rip off these businesses trying to get their hands on the product so they can take it back to the black market.

Had there not been a War on Drugs in the first place, there really wouldn't be this need for such high security at these shops.

Of course, on the other hand, it has helped to improve our local economy. I would say that I have approximately 20 friends that I see on a regular basis. Out of those 20, nearly half of them are employed directly by pot facilities, and several more are employed indirectly by businesses that have pot shops as clients.

There are many effects the War on Drugs has had on our society, and most of those effects are not going to be known until the War on Drugs ceases to exist.

Re:Reefer madness?

[tgv]

It's called utilitarianism, and it's the best way to guarantee a miserable life for the vast majority. People who advocate it, should be sent back to the 19th century and forced to live in an orphanage. Or they could read Dickens, and see the errors of their ways.

Re:Reefer madness?

[mcgrew]

There's got to be a "slip through your fingers" joke there somewhere but I'm too stoned to think one up.

Re:Reefer madness?

[tftp]

Note that USSR was not known for any fairness, anywhere. Every worker within a class (with few exceptions) was paid the same regardless of his skills, talent and output. An illiterate worker at the factory was earning more than a scientist. A political worker, who made no products and wasn't even good at management, was showered with money and perks. USSR was anything but fair, and that's why people ran away from it whenever they could; and that's why when USSR fell nobody shed a tear for the venerable Communist Party. CPSU wasn't even good at the only thing it pretended to do - to rule the society. Ask anyone who lived in USSR and you will be told all kinds of tales. For example, food was distributed not according to who had money or who had need, but according to where one worked, bypassing the stores (they had empty shelves.)

Re:Reefer madness?

[BasilBrush]

Sadly, all other economic systems -- when implemented in large scale, and in the real world -- are even less fair. Otherwise, the Soviet Union would have survived while the US collapsed.

There's no logic in that statement. Fairness on the one hand, and winning an economic and military cold war on the other are completely different things.

Re:Reefer madness?

[BasilBrush]

Is the guy whose parents decided not to teach him to string together complete sentences selling beer for minimum wage at a basketball game while a dozen multi-millionaires play a game on the court? If they were paid $50 a day less per game, do you really think that that would and should result in the guy who carries beer around being suddenly more valuable to the crowd that's there to watch?

Your question implies that the only way you can see the world is capitalistic. Which shows no defence of capitalism at all. You assume it's natural and moral that basketball players earn millions and beer sellers earn little. But there's nothing natural or moral about it at all. It's simply a political system you were probably born into, and have swallowed hook, line and sinker.

Capitalism is the currently dominant political system. That doesn't mean it's the ultimate one. Any more than feudalism was when it was the dominant political system.

Re:Reefer madness?

[Nutria]

Eh?

Capitalism is not fair, but it is fairER. To put another way, it is the least unfair.

That is why it has lasted longer than communism.

Re:Reefer madness?

[Nutria]

What makes you so sure the US isn't going to collapse?

The US might collapse. If it does, it will still have lasted much, much longer than the USSR and so be judged "better". Not the absolutist term "perfect", but the relative term "better".

Of course, if it does collapse, there will be many who would say that it collapsed because in the end too few workers supported too many non-workers.

Re:Reefer madness?

[Nonesuch]

Frankly, this "timing is a big fucking conspiracy" card is tedious, which we also see played e.g. by the NRA when tighter gun control laws are proposed after a mass shooting incident. Same thing with AGW, after a destructive hurricane or storm. There is never an "ideal time" to report study results. People who disagree should respond to the substance of the study, including its methodologies and perhaps on the legitimacy of the data. Not "gee why alla sudden so much interest in this seems funny doncha think?"

Since you bring it up, check out the recent FOIA documents obtained by Judicial Watch regarding Mayor Bloomberg's organizations actions in the hours following the Sandy Hook shooting. Specifically, look for this email, sent just after midnight, where they discuss what legislation to try to ram through in the aftermath. There's a good analysis here. Turns out, there really are conspiracies by gun control and anti-drug organizations to "leverage" high-visibility events to "surf in blood".

Re:Reefer madness?

[ScentCone]

You assume it's natural and moral that basketball players earn millions and beer sellers earn little

It is natural. There are very few people who can play top-level pro basketball. By definition, the best are chosen for their skills on the court, their ability and willingness to work with the team and coaches, etc. Far, far more people (billions of them?) are able to carry trays of beer around. Someone setting up a business to entertain crowds of people by displaying highly skilled competitive team athletics and serving them drinks have to do what they have to do in order to attract the right people to perform those tasks. Why would an athlete spend all of that time and energy working out, practicing, risking injuries, and all the rest if your preferred system would prohibit the team from paying them more than they'd earn for doing a job that requires less effort, no commitment, and which almost anyone could do?

And it's moral. Because the alternative is someone like you dictating what each skill is worth, or dictating that everyone must earn the same no matter how good or rare their skills may be. That you've swallowed that notion as preferable to two people arriving between themselves at an understanding of what a given effort is worth - that's pretty awful. People like you have ruined entire societies, and murdered hundreds of millions of people to hide the fact that dictating relationships between buyers and sellers always fails.

Re:Reefer madness?

[tftp]

This was a very familiar situation in USSR. I was an engineer there, not a worker. However my father, an experienced doctor, at some point said "enough is enough" and quit his medical field altogether. He got a job at a salt distribution warehouse, to carry sacks of salt from one place to another. His pay increased twice, if not thrice.

You are right, of course, that many scientists (all over the world!) work not for money but for fun. They love their work. However... this recipe is only good if you are all alone in the world. You'd be perfectly happy pushing the boundaries of knowledge from 9am to 5pm (or much later) and then returning home, in your little single room, which doesn't even have a bathroom or a kitchen - you'd share those with people who live in other rooms. You'd never invite a girl to your room, firstly because no girl wants a poor scientist, secondly because you cannot entice her to visit you in that shared apartment, and thirdly you will not want all your neighbors to discuss your friends. But since you are single (forever!) this is not a concern at all.

Fortunately for demographics, such people are not very numerous. Most people are interested in families and children. They want their own apartment, their own car, and their own country home (dacha.) They do not want to live on pasta 364 days per year; they need clothes for themselves and for the children, and toys, and things, and vacation in Sochi. All this requires money (and knowing people who will sell you what you need; remember, stores are empty.) The meager salary of a MNS does not pay for any such thing. Eventually the wife spells out the offer that cannot be refused: "Get a real job and be a real man who earns money for the family. Or else." However displeasing such words can be, they do make sense. Some people - many! - surrender to the inevitable, abandon their scientific or engineering - or medical - careers and become lowly workers. All this is because workers were paid FAR MORE than specialists with several years of university education. You can see for yourself how disastrous such a policy would be for any country. Why was it in place? Because USSR was, officially, a state of proletariat; the "intelligentsia" (all those scientists and engineers) were just fellow travelers that had to be tolerated because they are useful.

I can write books on this subject, as can anyone who grew up in USSR. You cannot simply apply logic and derive an answer - USSR was actively and aggressively defying logic for sake of political dogmas. The facts on the ground are just what they are, and not what an educated and friendly foreigner (such as you) would think they are.

Re:Reefer madness?

[tftp]

Of the many systematic failures resulting in the USSR's inability to bring about a "workers' paradise" and eventual collapse, was "lack of eager participation in scientific fields" really so disastrous?

In one word, yes. In many words, a country doesn't have to have science. I haven't heard of many Kenyan or Mongolian scientists; but those countries exist and are viable enough. Science is needed to improve the world. A side effect of that is increased wealth of the population, and presige, and influx of students, and many other things. A country without science will be a mere consumer of goods that others invent and produce. Such a country is lucky if it has something (natural resources) to sell in exchange for other countries' math and drawings and ideas. Many countries have nothing to sell; sucks to be them.

Apparently, the Russian technocrats' estimates for "sufficient" pay to keep scientists happy can't have been too far off the mark --- after all, the USSR kept apace of the West in scientific development (and often in the lead)

Those had many causes. But good salary was rarely one of them. First, as you say, people were willing to make sacrifices. Secondly, at the top of the pack Academicians were paid well. Thirdly, some science was so important (nuclear, spaceflight) that no money was spared. Unfortunately, the downfall of all that began under Brezhnev, and by 1990's the process of decay had completed, with research facilities standing empty, and renting space out to newborn capitalists who used rooms where chemical labs used to be to simply mix electrolyte for car batteries. Did you notice the mass exodus of Russian scientists around that time, when the mechanism of exit visas was loosened and then removed? Did they escape their country because it was good? No, they escaped because they couldn't survive on scraps that the government threw them, and because they couldn't do any science because there was no money to buy equipment or visit conferences. All they could do is to sit in their old labs and drink alcohol. Some chose that path; those who were younger and who had future ahead of them, they found jobs abroad and left as fast as they could.

Note also the positive feedback loop here. As scientists and engineers run away, whole factories become unable to manufacture complex goods. Those factories close, and replacement goods are brought in from China. This results in disappearance of competent workers - and the resulting domino effect wipes out the whole industry. This can be seen in the USA as well - hard to assemble product A if all its parts B, C and D are not made locally. That's how nearly all computers are assembled in China (Taiwan.) Do you think there are workers left in the USA who can work a steel mill? Hardly anyone, outside of gray-haired old-timers, can work on a lathe or on a milling machine and produce accurate, high quality parts. I work with machinists, and I know who they are - a dying breed that lives on small orders from startups from Silicon Valley.

on the other hand, better than a society where tens of millions of workers live in conditions worse than you describe.

Conditions of life in USSR were markedly worse than conditions in the West. Salary of an experienced engineer was, say, 2400 roubles per year. A new car (if you can get one!) costs 6000 roubles. A condo costs about 10,000 roubles. Compare to US realities. An engineer would be getting, say, $50K/yr. and he can get a new car for $15K, and a condo for $40K - just by walking into the sales office and giving them the money. In reality, US people were very, very poor. You can compare them to americans on social security - they both get just enough to live in housing of minimal quality, and to buy food of minimum quality. While that may be fair to some workers, scientists and bright engineers do not want to be poor, and they know that they can do better. Why, in your opinion, Soviet people ran to the West at the first opportunity, but the opposite was hardly ever

Re:Reefer madness?

[Uberbah]

False. Any merchant selling a valuable product can be targeted by thieves. It has nothing to do with the former illegal status

Uh, no. It's because Obama's DOJ has made it clear that legal marijuana shops cannot use banking services. Including armored cars. Meaning pot shops not only have to deal in cash, but cannot transport said cash in armored cars. Meaning pot shops and pot shop operators have a giant "rob me" sign over their heads, curtsey of the federal government.

Re:Reefer madness?

[phantomfive]

An illiterate worker at the factory was earning more than a scientist. A political worker, who made no products and wasn't even good at management, was showered with money and perks. USSR was anything but fair,

This is mainly a reflection of what YOU consider fair. Plenty of people in the Soviet Union considered those levels of compensation to be fair.

I (with you) don't consider them fair, but at some point, fairness is a matter of opinion.

Re:Reefer madness?

[bhiestand]

It's strange timing that this study is being released around the time Colorado has fully legalized pot, Washington is well on their way to doing so, and you can get "medical marijuana" in other states.

Oh the irony!

I'm related to someone who does research on this topic. There has been a lot of research over the last few years about how marijuana may make people paranoid or have an effect on various mental illnesses. The evidence so far seems to show that prolonged heavy use really does cause problems. Unfortunately, the researchers do have issues getting research subjects because heavy marijuana users tend to think the researchers are government agents running a sting operation.

I am saddened, yet amused, that you think this research is a government conspiracy to continue the war on drugs. How often do you smoke marijuana?

Re:Reefer madness?

[Reziac]

Thank you for the information. It's good to hear about it from someone who was on the inside.

Re:Reefer madness?

[BasilBrush]

Capitalism is not fair, but it is fairER. To put another way, it is the least unfair.

That's your belief.

That is why it has lasted longer than communism.

No it's not. That's simply wrong. When you say that, what you actually mean is that America won the cold war against the USSR. Which has nothing to do with the relative fairness of the two political systems. The cold war was won based on the economics of militarism. Not fairness.

Re:Reefer madness?

[BasilBrush]

It is natural. There are very few people who can play top-level pro basketball. By definition, the best are chosen for their skills on the court, their ability and willingness to work with the team and coaches, etc. Far, far more people (billions of them?) are able to carry trays of beer around. Someone setting up a business to entertain crowds of people by displaying highly skilled competitive team athletics and serving them drinks have to do what they have to do in order to attract the right people to perform those tasks. Why would an athlete spend all of that time and energy working out, practicing, risking injuries, and all the rest if your preferred system would prohibit the team from paying them more than they'd earn for doing a job that requires less effort, no commitment, and which almost anyone could do?

What you are suggesting is that pay should be decided by supply and demand. That's a feature of capitalism, it's not "natural" by any stretch of the imagination. That you think it is is simply a symptom of you having grown up in a capitalist system, and not having the imagination to see that it's only one of an infinite number of possible systems.

And it's moral. Because the alternative is someone like you dictating what each skill is worth, or dictating that everyone must earn the same no matter how good or rare their skills may be.

No, that's just 2 of the possibilities.

People like you have ruined entire societies, and murdered hundreds of millions of people

You have no idea what my politics are. And you are quite ignorant if you think capitalism HASN'T ruined entire societies and murdered (pick a large number out of your ass) people.

to hide the fact that dictating relationships between buyers and sellers always fails.

And again you have a stab at another feature that you seem to think exists in every non-capitalistic system.

Broaden your political knowledge before rejecting everything other than that which you already live in.

Re:Reefer madness?

[Nutria]

US militarism? Think again.

http://i.cfr.org/content/publications/July2013/010_national_defense_1948.png
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mo-budget.htm

In the 1980s, the peak US military spending was 8% of GDP. OTOH, the Sovs pumped 15-17% of GDP into it's military.

But, you say, the US had/has a much larger economy than the USSR (and now Russia)... sure, because capitalism generates more wealth for more people than communism.

Oh, wait. That's what "economically fairER" means!

Re:Reefer madness?

[BasilBrush]

But, you say, the US had/has a much larger economy than the USSR (and now Russia)...

Quite. The USSR had to spend a much higher proportion of it's smaller GDP to keep up with American militarism. That's what bankrupted the state, not communism.

America having a bigger GDP than Russia doesn't mean America's political system was better. Just that their GDP was bigger. You don't somehow believe that if both states were capitalist they would have equally sized GDPs? Of course not - different countries have different sized GDPs.

In a decade or three, China with it's non-democratic state capitalism will have a greater GDP than the USA. Will you then believe that non-democratic state capitalism is superior to American capitalism? And is therefore "natural"?

sure, because capitalism generates more wealth for more people than communism.
Oh, wait. That's what "economically fairER" means!

No it doesn't. Those are two different things. Larger doesn't mean fairer.

Re:Reefer madness?

[Nutria]

Just that their GDP was bigger.

But why was it bigger? I say, "Because it's fairer" and you say, "nuh unh!"

China with it's non-democratic state capitalism will have a greater GDP than the USA.

Per capita GDP will still be much lower. When Chinese state capitalism generates a per capita GDP that's as high as that of the US, then that will be an indication that such an economic system distributes wealth as well as the US system.

Larger doesn't mean fairer.

Larger implies fairer, because "fairer" generates "larger".

More empirical evidence that Western capitalism is (as corrupt as it is) fairer than other systems: people are migrating here from there. If the US didn't have a relatively fairer system, people would be migrating "there" instead.

Re:Reefer madness?

[ScentCone]

What you are suggesting is that pay should be decided by supply and demand.

No, what I'm suggesting is that if you want something I can do, that we agree on a price for my time. That you don't get to tell me what that price is and force me, through the use of government power, to work at that price. And that likewise I don't get to use government power to force you to pay me whatever I say you should.

You have no idea what my politics are.

Your contempt for a market-based relationship between people who want things and the people who provide them is all I need to hear. You don't think it's fair that someone who can produce something better or faster than the next guy is more valuable to the people who want those things. That's because your fundamental understanding of "fair" is twisted. How can I tell? Because you're carefully avoiding any description of what you actually want, in simple, clear terms. The hallmark of every statist, collectivist, would-be slave driver that ever started a conversation by saying that two people agreeing on a price is evil.

Show a little intellectual honesty, how about, instead of pussyfooting around. You don't think that markets are fair, but you're too much of a chicken to come right out and say that what you want is the only other option: a third party telling the other two parties how they must relate to each other. All in the name of fairness, of course. Think of the children and whatnot. The song of tyrants.

Re:Reefer madness?

[airdweller]

"curtsey of the federal government."
Was it a bad pun or just an error?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtsey
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/courtesy

Re:Reefer madness?

[BasilBrush]

But why was it bigger?

Why is China's GDP bigger than India? Why is Pakistan bigger than Poland? Some countries are bigger than others. It doesn't follow that they have better political systems, let alone that they are fairer.

I say, "Because it's fairer" and you say, "nuh unh!"

I say you are wrong and illogical.

[China vs US] Per capita GDP will still be much lower.

US vs USSR, you were talking about total GDP. Now that has failed when talking about the comparison of 2 other powers, you are attempting to change the measure. Because your argument fails. Conclusive evidence that your argument was pure nonsense.

Larger implies fairer, because "fairer" generates "larger".

Gibberish.

More empirical evidence that Western capitalism is (as corrupt as it is) fairer than other systems: people are migrating here from there. If the US didn't have a relatively fairer system, people would be migrating "there" instead.

It may be evidence of greater wealth. It's not evidence of being fairer.

Re:Reefer madness?

[BasilBrush]

No, what I'm suggesting is that if you want something I can do, that we agree on a price for my time.

That might be what you are suggesting now. It wasn't what was in the post I responded to, which was a supply and demand argument. So don't say "No". It was. You can suggest something different now y all means, but don't deny your original argument.

The salary is "the price agreed upon" is a bogus argument, because it's starting from a position where one person (the employer) has power through wealth) and the other person has little more than his labour. A situation that has been put there in the first place by the capitalist system. It is not therefore an argument for the capitalist system, but just a description of one of it's features.

Your contempt for a market-based relationship between people who want things and the people who provide them is all I need to hear.

I haven't expressed any contempt. I simply have broader horizons than yours, seeing capitalism as simply one of very many possible systems. You see it is the one true way.

You don't think it's fair that someone who can produce something better or faster than the next guy is more valuable to the people who want those things. That's because your fundamental understanding of "fair" is twisted. How can I tell?

It must come from your imagination, as fairness of capitalism hasn't formed any part of anything I've said. Which is why you are forced to say: "Show a little intellectual honesty, how about, instead of pussyfooting around." I'm not making the anti-capitalist argument you want to argue with and that's frustrating you.

Think of the children and whatnot.

Really building up that straw man now, aren't you. You must be desperate.

Re:Reefer madness?

[Nutria]

The urge is overwhelming to ask if you have a full-time job with a for-profit business, or work for some low-rent NGO while drinking toasts to Che Guevara at night.

Re:Reefer madness?

[BasilBrush]

That's all interesting stuff regarding the USSR and it's downfall. Though of course it doesn't mean that communism itself is an unworkable system. Any more than a failed capitalist country means that capitalism is a system that can't work.

Re:Reefer madness?

[BasilBrush]

You think being in a country with a particular political system means being in favour of it?

Re:Reefer madness?

[Nutria]

It doesn't take long to figure out that lots of people want to change the political-economic system they live in.

All you have done, though, is moaned about how unfair capitalism is without proposing a viable alternative.

Re:Reefer madness?

[BasilBrush]

All you have done, though, is moaned about how unfair capitalism

I've done no such thing. I've simply pointed out the flaws in your posts.

Re:Reefer madness?

[Nutria]

No, you haven't. You've just said that they're flawed. Not what the flaws are.

Re:Reefer madness?

[BasilBrush]

My entire posts have been pointing out the flaws in your posts. There's little point in me responding to bare faced lies. Go away child. End of conversation.

Re:Reefer madness?

[Nutria]

I'm not surprised you respond like this when the time comes to put up or shut up.

As an Urban/Suburban Paramedic

[Anonymous Coward]

I found street drug use patterns similar to those in affluent neighborhoods where people were able to legally access healthcare and meds provided by prescription.
Since normal pain and mood/mind meds are simply unavailable legally to the lower percentile of US society they are forced into the underground economy.
Simple substitution economics.
The difference is one group often got hauled away to the clink and the other got ambu-cabbed off to a comfortable hospital room.

adding up

[harvey the nerd]

Figure adding oxidant stress and hallucinogens on top of self selection, combined with a reporting bias. Honest study would give us better information to choose exposures and risks as individuals. Drug prohibition was a failure, as is a welfare state.

Re:adding up

[mcgrew]

Drug prohibition was a failure, as is a welfare state.

Indeed, but the welfare state was at the wrong time in the wrong circumstances. Already 1% of the population are farmworkers, who feed everyone. When mechanization makes 80% of the world's population unemployable, what then?

There is enough food for everyone, yet people still go hungry. The failure is from greed; the bible was right. The love of money is indeed the root of all evil.

I'd rather my taxes go to feeding people than killing them.

Source data for this study?

[SpankiMonki]

From TFA:

The researchers surveyed 410 patients between the ages of 18 and 65, two thirds of them male, all of whom had a psychotic episode and were admitted to in-patient psychiatric units.

I'm not a statisticianololgist, but passing out surveys to psychotic people in a mental hospital doesn't seem to me to be the best way to gather accurate data for a study.

Re:Source data for this study?

[MisterSquid]

From TFA:

The researchers surveyed 410 patients between the ages of 18 and 65, two thirds of them male, all of whom had a psychotic episode and were admitted to in-patient psychiatric units.

I'm not a statisticianololgist, but passing out surveys to psychotic people in a mental hospital doesn't seem to me to be the best way to gather accurate data for a study.

This study's major flaw is that the researchers needed 10 more patients to pass the threshold for statistical relevance.

Re:Source data for this study?

[FuzzNugget]

I'm not a statisticianololgist

There's actually a job where you study people who do statistics?

Re:Source data for this study?

[radarskiy]

Why are people who don't design surveys so ready to believe that people that DO design surveys have *never thought* that the respondent may be unreliable?

Re:Source data for this study?

[DaTrueDave]

No mod points, but I don't understand how you're not already at +5 Funny...

Re:Source data for this study?

[SpankiMonki]

This study's major flaw is that the researchers needed 10 more patients to pass the threshold for statistical relevance.

Wait...are you saying their sample size is too small to make any statistically significant inferences? I can't find the full study anywhere online, but the text of the paper's abstract seems to say they're using a 95% CI.

Re:Source data for this study?

[ljw1004]

I'm not a statisticianololgist, but passing out surveys to psychotic people in a mental hospital doesn't seem to me to be the best way to gather accurate data for a study.

Really? I think it's the *BEST* way to gather the information this study needs.

How would it be inaccurate? They're comparing subgroups of psychotic people so inaccuracies will cancel each other out. Unless you believe there's an inverse correlation between pot use and reported pot use?

Re:Source data for this study?

[SpankiMonki]

420! OK, that IS funny. If I had a mod point, I'd spend it.

Re:Source data for this study?

[tgv]

The number 420 apparently means something in this context. From Wikipedia: "420, 4:20, or 4/20 (pronounced four-twenty) is a code-term used primarily in North America that refers to the consumption of cannabis and by extension, as a way to identify oneself with cannabis subculture or simply cannabis itself."

Re:Source data for this study?

[SpankiMonki]

They're comparing subgroups of psychotic people so inaccuracies will cancel each other out.

Well, like I said, I'm not a mathemastician - but I believe there's an awful lot of assumptions buried in your statement above.

Unless you believe there's an inverse correlation between pot use and reported pot use?

Pretty sure I don't have to believe any such thing. What do I believe (without any evidence, mind you) is that people suffering from psychosis may not provide reliable data - especially when it come to recalling details from 5/10/20 years in their past.

Look, patient reported data - the sole basis of this study - is notoriously inaccurate. Patient reported data among a population that is recovering from a psychotic episode is less accurate still (psychotic episode being defined as "a loss of contact with reality") . These researchers are reporting these inferences with 95% confidence with a sample size of 410. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a 95% CI with a sample of 410 imply some level of accuracy in the source data?

Re:Source data for this study?

[ljw1004]

You're wrong! The point is that we start with the default assumption that all groups will provide EQUALLY inaccurate data, both psychotic people with a history of heavy pot use, and psychotic people without that history.

Here's a simplified example. Imagine if everyone, when asked their height, gave an answer with errors of up to two whole feet (i.e. terribly inaccurate), and that people in general overestimated their own heights, but both men and women have the SAME kinds of errors in their reported heights.

Now survey 410 people at random about their height. You won't get correct average heights. But you will get correct the correct DIFFERENCE in height between men and women, about 6", with a high degree of accuracy. That's because of the assumption that everyone provided equally inaccurate data, and so the inaccuracies cancel out.

Re:Source data for this study?

[mcgrew]

I'd have modded you funny, I did LOL. But I doubt they passed out questionnaires. More likely it was verbal interviews, which would give them meaningful data. I'd be interested in seeing what the actual questions were.

Re:Source data for this study?

[SpankiMonki]

OK, I understand now...thanks for the info! If I had a mod point, I'd give you an "Informative". ;-)

Re:Source data for this study?

[mcgrew]

Where are the moderators?? I laughed at "statisticianololgist" but even harder at the response to that word!

When are they going to study why I and most others like me have smoked pot for four decades, while being productive members of society all that time without succumbing to the Reefer Madness Syndrome?

What percentage of pot smokers who don't partake in other illegal drugs are mentally ill? I would guess that the difference between non-smokers would be negligible.

Re:Source data for this study?

[SpankiMonki]

Well thanks! It was actually intended to be funny, although I will admit to having some wrong thinking about the accuracy of the researcher's conclusions vs the accuracy of the source data. User ljw1004 above set me straight, though.

Cheers!

Re:Source data for this study?

[mcgrew]

Because everybody thinks he's smarter than everybody else. The realization of one's own ignorance is the beginning of wisdom.

I dealt with surveys at work maybe fifteen years ago (maybe more). Most of the folks I worked with held PhDs in various disciplines* and almost all were very intelligent (there was one woman who was a total airhead about everything else but knew statistics, her field. Think Sheldon). And yeah, believe me, they know how trustworthy these people are, it's accounted for in the math (which is over my head).

* One day I saw something unthinkable - fifteen PhDs spending an entire day stuffing envelopes (yes, I helped even though I'm not a PhD).

Re:Source data for this study?

[NicBenjamin]

Can you think of another way to research this kind of thing?

It's not like you're allowed to kidnap 5000 toddlers with mutations that give high risk of psychoses, dump them on an island, and feed exactly half of them hash brownies every day to find out which ones crack up first.

The data in this study likely no less reliable then the data in a study of when non-mental patients start smoking pot. They're under treatment, so presumably they're in touch with reality, and even when they aren't under treatment folks with mental illnesses are not that much more likely to lie then the rest of us sketchy motherfuckers.

It's pretty clear there's a link between weed a major mental issues (particularly schizophrenia). What's not clear is which way the causality goes. Are schizoes self-treating with weed, or is weed driving people schizo? This is a very cheap way to shed some light on the problem without violating any ethical standards.

It gives some weight to the weed-driving-people schizo camp because when most of these people started smoking pot they had no symptoms. It's not conclusive -- perhaps a mind that hasn't undergone a psychotic episode of some sort feels "wrong" and it's owner tries mind-altering substances to fix the problem -- but it is a very interesting data point.

Re:Source data for this study?

[airdweller]

"statisticianololgist"
"mathemastician"
I think I'm about to have my first psychotic episode...

Sounds right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Pot won't make you crazy. But it does bring the crazy to the top.
You were crazy to begin with. It just wasn't noticable.

I've seen this in some people i used to smoke with.

Re:Sounds right.

[ihtoit]

all it brings to the top in me is the urge to drink ludicrous amounts of lucozade.

Maybe I have two things... latent crazy carpentry addiction and hypoglycaemia.

Worthless and inconclusive research, I'm afraid...

[bogaboga]

And this is because this research doesn't answer the following question:

Can we be sure that even though psychosis manifested itself earlier in the subject population, it (psychosis), still maifested itself later in this particular group?

In otherwords, can we be sure that pot use in this specific group didn't delay psychosis even though on average, psychosis came earlier as compared to the other group?

I know of folks who use pot daily. They are now in their late 90s. One could argue that pot is responsible for their delayed psychosis if at all, no?

Re:Coincidentally?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

They hate how the Coloradians (-ers? -oans?) pronounce the name.

Reefer Madness

[FredGauss]

There has been evidence of this association floating around for ages. On the balance of evidence there may be reason for concern, but in particular as with anything in medicine, the right decision for any individual may come from presence of the right (or wrong) risk factors.

See e.g. : http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121114083928.htm http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2012/01/11/the-neuroscience-of-pot-researchers-explain-why-marijuana-may-bring-serenity-or-psychosis/

One factor that would seem to be relevant is the proportion of THC and cannabidiol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabidiol) present in plant strains, and change in ratios from decades past as plant breeding has changed the landscape of what effects may be expected from a particular plant.

The extreme reaction of "Reefer Madness" is almost certainly misguided, but there is reason to suggest that more science is needed towards ascertaining that the full benefits may be had, and risk factors removed (e.g. via genetic tests and controlled breeding/testing of plant strains) whether for medicinal purposes or otherwise.

Been there

[ISoldat53]

So if I've already had my psychotic episode is it ok if I smoke?

Re:Worthless and inconclusive research, I'm afraid

[JoeMerchant]

There is never certainty for causation, only coincidence in correlation - collect enough coincidences and even critics concede and concur.

Before the haters come

[atari2600a]

I'd like to point out that, while I'm definitely lazier as a pothead, my instance count of psychotic episodes on average has dropped significantly. Like, I still need a low dose Buproprion that I'm not proud of, but pot brings about a mental stability (so long as it's not abused) that's just outright unmatched for some of us not born w/ all our neural systems up & running.

It's all about the money and the politics.

[gestalt_n_pepper]

Illegal drugs make it easy for the police to plant evidence and pick up anyone at any time. The high prices that result from the illegality keep the cartels in business, which in turn, keeps congressional campaign coffers funded.

If those in the federal government didn't know how unpleasant things are likely to get in the near future, there would be no legal pot in Colorado or anywhere else. It's now more valuable as a control tool. Should the economy tank, there will soon be cheap pot everywhere.

Maybe the weed

[future assassin]

slowed down the onset of psychosis in the ones who got it and with out it they would have gotten it earlier. What if the rolling paper caused it or what if the pesticides did it?

Re:Worthless and inconclusive research, I'm afraid

[retroworks]

Not worthless, but I agree they weren't ready for peer review yet (or the long knives at /.) I agree they need to complete the comparisons with the particular groups and see if that leads to different conclusions.

When I smoked pot in high school, it was fairly intense and scary, and I never had the slightest desire to use it every day. I would wonder whether people with early signs of psychosis simply find it less strange and less frightening. Simply not as different an experience. By analogy, Eskimos don't necessarily enjoy the cold more, but might be less likely to be alarmed at experiencing cold. Kids who have been spanked tend to be less afraid of being in fights. Kids whose brains behave weirdly are less likely to fear mind altering experiences. Etc.

Mental Health and vested interests

[John Allsup]

It's well known that Mental Health is dominated in many ways by vested economic and political interests.  It would be nice for the anti-drug lobby if research showed that drugs cause MH problems, so there is funding for that.  It would be nice for Big Pharma if clinical trials show their next wonder drug works.  Thus funding appears for such trials, and the ones with the desired results get published whilst others get shelved (though they need to take care not to make this too obvious).  Then occasionally (like Western Lapland), things get done differently, with better results than the medication heavy Western approach, and do the medical science research community clamour to reproduce and investigate?  That is not to mention the occasional meta-analysis that correlates a drug trial's sponsor to the best remedy in the trial...  Pot is a bogeyman for politicians to campaign against, and isn't a moneymaker for Big Pharma, nor can it be patented, so it's in their best interest if as much anti-pot research is produced.  Basic politics and economics when you get down to it, and the 'science' bit in medical science needs to be take with a truckload of salt when it comes to Mental Health.  Health in that context also needs a similar dose of salt, since drugged-up zombies with no motivation, poor physical drive, poor quality of life and a chemically supressed emotional system that can't drive them hard enough to do something about it... are deemed to be 'well, compliant with treatment, etc.' whereas someone with better physical health, who is motivated to get on with their life, but doesn't rely heavily on strong tranquilising drugs often has this non-reliance put down as a 'risk factor'.

Re:Mental Health and vested interests

[Xest]

"Pot is a bogeyman for politicians to campaign against, and isn't a moneymaker for Big Pharma, nor can it be patented, so it's in their best interest if as much anti-pot research is produced."

I've seen this said on Slashdot a couple of times but I've never had it explained. What is special about pot over say, bottle water, that you still couldn't build a brand around it? Why are certain strains of cannabis plant not patentable in the way every other plant is? What is preventing big pharma from producing their own patented strain and marketing it with their own brand?

Sorry but "big pharma hates it because it's not profitable" seems to be a conspiracy theory and nothing more. Big pharma seeks to gain massive profits from engaging in producing their own branded version of the stuff using a perfectly patentable strain of the plant (it's well established in law that you can patent strains of plants).

I'm not arguing with the rest of your point but I've yet to see this big pharma conspiracy theory padded out and explained and it's contradictory with both what the law actually says, and how business actually works. You could use the same argument to suggest Coca Cola wants water banned because you can't patent and make money off of selling water - they do, bottled water is big businesses and complements their fizzy drinks business well.

safe levels of cannabis usage

[hism]

It is still unclear whether there are dangerous levels of use for cannabis, she added.

Fixed that for ya.

Yes and no...

[f3rret]

While I am all for legalizing it, the article does have a point.

I recall at least one British study looking at the link between cannabis and psychosis that found that strains with a high THC/other canabinoids ratio would cause tests subjects to score higher on at least one standard test questionnaire for psychosis, while subjects injected with a more 'natural' blend of THC and other canabinoids would tend to get a psychosis score not much different from them being sober.

The conclusion as I recall was that there is some evidence that strains bred specifically for a high THC content could be more likely to cause psychotic event or temporary psychosis-like states.
BBC did a documentary that filmed part of said study, here it is: http://youtu.be/ZGr0ne9FHOM

Re:Yes and no...

[steelfood]

strains with a high THC/other canabinoids ratio would cause tests subjects to score higher on at least one standard test questionnaire for psychosis

Standardized testing for psychosis? Would that be the PSAT?

Re:Yes and no...

[f3rret]

Standardized testing for psychosis? Would that be the PSAT?

No, it is as far as I can tell PANSS. Isn't the PSAT some American high school test?

Re:Yes and no...

[f3rret]

Yeah the higher potency stuff makes a user feel crazy. Some want that feeling. I've seen people freak out on the synthetic stuff particularly badly. Some of those chemicals are vastly greater in their effectiveness at blocking/modulating receptors, and not tested for safety.
The real stuff seems to wear off in a few hours and leave a person stony for a few days. Then its back to normal. "Don't panic, its organic" is what the old timers say.

  Don't let the users do things while impaired like operate machinery, shoot guns, drive cars etc. I don't care if they hurt themselves, but I hate seeing innocents pay the price for morons.

Well first off, most "synthetic weed" isn't really THC or any of the other naturally occurring cannabioids. they're usually fully synthetic chemicals that never were anywhere near an actual cannabis plant. From what I hear, their effects aren't much like a normal cannabis high.

That said, the study I mentioned never looked at the synthetic stuff, it only looked at the (possible) link between high THC content weed and psychosis to a more natural mix between THC and other cannabinoids.

My hypothesis is that the reason we're seeing these new super skunk strains with ultra high THC contents is because reagent tests that allow you assess the THC content in your plants have become more widely available, allowing for more focused breeding towards higher and higher THC contents; and this might turn out to be a bad thing, because if you watch the video in my original post a pure THC trip kinda looks like it sucks while a more natural mix produces what looks like a quite enjoyable experience.

i used to smoke a lot of weed...

[Anonymous Coward]

i was paranoid, depressed and had extreme social anxiety. i don't think weed should be illegal, but the truth is, smoking weed all the fucking time does make you pretty lame. i think if they just legalized the crap and made it about as edgy as coffee people would lose interest.

Re:Coincidentally?

[Curunir_wolf]

They hate how the Coloradians (-ers? -oans?) pronounce the name.

It's spelled Coloradans. SB (From Colorado)

Are you sure it's not just "Coloreds"?

Pot?

[koan]

Some of these guys are smoking high quality oil on titanium nails, that shit is potent (having smoked it myself) I stay away from it because it makes me useless, and then it makes my tolerance so high I can only get a buzz eating a 500mg 5150 bar.

Just wait, someone is going to get it down to a THC powder, and then...

I quit smoking not too long ago, I had sweats, irritability, and sleeplessness for ~2 weeks, this isn't 1960's pot.

Re:Pot?

[Ellis D. Tripp]

Just wait, someone is going to get it down to a THC powder, and then...

Doubtful, seeing as 100% pure THC is an oily liquid....

Re:Pot?

[koan]

First isolated in 1964, in its pure form, by Israeli scientists Raphael Mechoulam, Yechiel Gaoni and colleagues at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem,[7][8][9] it is a glassy solid when cold, and becomes viscous and sticky if warmed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THC
So yes THC has a crystal form, it can also be chemically bound to another substance for stability.
And of course there is Marinol.

But either way, liquid or powder (crystal) it's potent.
And this is an interesting read. http://www.cannabis-med.org/data/pdf/2001-03-04-7.pdf

Re:Pot?

[Ellis D. Tripp]

And of course there is Marinol.

Which is supplied as a liquid in gelatin capsules....

Re:Pot?

[koan]

But either way, liquid or powder (crystal) it's potent.

Re:Pot?

[Uberbah]

And "this isn't 1960's pot" is a giant neon sign for "I used to smoke pot but if you kids do it's baaad, mkay?" hypocrisy.

Re:Pot?

[serviscope_minor]

Not really, no. It seems that pot has been getting stronger and stronger over the years. This is probably due to the results of prohibition: you need less of stronger substances making the same amount of active ingredient easier to smugglee and hide.

Plus, agriculture has improved since the 60s and people have been using the knowledge to breed more potent varieties.

Re:Pot?

[Uberbah]

It seems that pot has been getting stronger and stronger over the years.

That's the exact sort of Boomer rationalization that I'm talking about.

Re:Pot?

[serviscope_minor]

That's the exact sort of Boomer rationalization that I'm talking about.

Seriously wtf are you talking about "rationalization". Rationalization of what? It makes no sense since I wasn't making an argument for anything based on whether pot has got stronger or not.

You seem to be so convinced that I'm arguing for some point (presumably against what you believe---I've no idea what that is because you're completely off the mark) that you're seeing things everywhere.

Re:Pot?

[strikethree]

I quit smoking not too long ago, I had sweats, irritability, and sleeplessness for ~2 weeks

There are no physical qualities concerning marijuana and/or THC which would cause that. If it did indeed happen, it was purely mental on your part. These symptoms are not frequently noted as being suffered by others who have stopped.

this isn't 1960's pot.

Nice FUD there... which calls into question the veracity of your prior testimony. So people in the 1960s had to smoke more to get the same effect as people today. So what? You do not drink the same amount of hard liquor as you do beer. Why would you smoke the same amount of current strains as you would have with prior strains?

Meh.

Re:Pot?

[3.5 stripes]

Meh, obviously people have smoked themselves into not remembering the quality of south american weed in the 60's, slow growing under tropical sunlight, sometimes in thin mountain air.. or proper thai stick, described by many as close to LSD in potency.

Re:Skewed Results

[koan]

You got a link for that? It better not be rense.com.

Re:Hey DICE how much is s story on slashdot??

[davester666]

a couple hundred bucks.

same as a story about an Osama bin Laden avatar being used in online games to recruit terrorists.

Psychosis?

[Rob Riggs]

Psychosis is a general term for a loss of reality, and is associated with several psychiatric diseases...

"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"

Re:Psychosis?

[VortexCortex]

Assuming Direct Control.

Heh, sounds like me in a nutshell.

[MindPrison]

Albeit I don't smoke pot, I can sort of relate to this. Let me see now...bipolar, slightly psychotic at times, paranoid as f**k, loss of reality? Check! Hey, maybe I really SHOULD smoke some pot once in a while, what do I got to lose?

Re:Heh, sounds like me in a nutshell.

[MindPrison]

When my neighbors smoke cannabis in their bathroom (I live in an apartment), the fumes get in through the shower vents and my mind starts to race like you wouldn't believe.

Hey, wanna switch apartments?

The science vs. epidemiology of cannabis

[The Real Dr John]

This is another in a series of basically poor quality epidemiological studies attempting to link cannabis use to various psychoses such as schizophrenia. There is no link, and this study is not a scientific investigation into any such link. This is simply an epidemiological study (attempts to correlate environmental or other factors to various disease states in a population). Psychoses such as schizophrenia are not caused by drug use, and the authors clearly know this. Schizophrenia, which is the most common cause of “psychotic episodes”, is a neurodevelopmental disorder that as far as neuroscience can tell is a disorder which people are born predisposed to both genetically and probably during very early development (long before any cannabis use occurs). Cannabis works on a brain neurotransmitter system known as the endocannabinoid system for which there is a major neurotransmitter in the brain known as anandamide. It is involved in various brain functions ranging from hunger induction to anxiety to pain sensitivity. Activation of this system results in increased hunger and decreased anxiety and pain sensitivity. So there are very clear reasons why some people use cannabis other than just to relax. The science of the endocannabinoid system is still being worked out, but clearly cannabis is one of the least harmful drugs known to mankind. Compared with the clear and present dangers associate with alcohol and tobacco use and addiction, it is a wonder that these types of studies get so much attention in the press.

Re:Alcohol

[YttriumOxide]

But that does not indicate the various product *causes* the psychosis. It only shows an underliyng problem earlier.

Psychedelics are also like that.

There was significant research performed in to whether psychedelics can directly cause psychotic episodes (as anecdotally reported on more than one occasion). It was found that in people with a known predisposition for psychiatric issues (or people with existing psychiatric issues) that a psychotic episode brought on by psychedelic use occurs in a fraction of a percent (sorry, I don't have the research in front of me to look up the exact figure). In people with no known predisposition, there was only one case (out of a very large number; again sorry, no exact number right now) where a psychotic episode occurred. This was in a person who happened to be the twin of a schizophrenic; so it is considered likely that they did in fact have a predisposition that simply wasn't noted.

Re:Coincidentally?

[pspahn]

Alternatively, "Coloradoans" in some cases as in the Fort Collins Coloradoan (a newspaper) who, ironically, officially uses the term "Coloradan" and is owned by the same company that owns the Sante Fe New Mexican paper.

You might see Coloradoan in older writings and this is what older generations might use, but when spoken it would still be pronounced Coloradan.

Re:Coincidentally?

[pspahn]

... by the way the reason is that Colorado is of Spanish origin ...

San Francisco -- San Franciscan

Mexico -- Mexican

Colorado -- Coloradan

Chicago -- Chicagoan

Ohio -- Ohioan

Idaho -- Idahoan

Re:Hey DICE how much is s story on slashdot??

[mcgrew]

If you don't want the story posted then vote against it in the firehose. If it's posted and you're not interested, just don't click the fucking link.

Sheesh. If you don't want to read about scientific research you're at the wrong site.

Re:Coincidentally?

[fibonacci8]

Which is strange since Ohio is a French interpretation of an Iroquois word, and not Spanish.

You sure?

[bussdriver]

You must not have done much. I knew pot heads; they were into it enough to know that not all Pot is the same and that a lot of Pot is NOT 100% pure. You may not have had the actual thing; it can come laced with other things. Some of these guys ended up into the other stuff later but not because Pot was the stepping stone; if anything was it was Tobacco, every single one I knew started with Tobacco. It was likely the laced stuff that got them into things they knew were dangerous (beyond Tobacco, contrary to what adults think, teens can reason beyond binary extremes... if anything it's parents who think in binary.)

Again, these problems are mostly solved by REGULATION. You don't have hard drugs laced into your Tobacco or Alcohol. Plus if somebody developed a tobacco plant that was foobar it wouldn't get into the regulated market and probably fade out of existence...

I never ever wanted to alter my brain chemistry, so I've not touched the legal (and more harmful) drugs. Plenty of opportunity and peer pressure; so I'm not some sheltered pious wimp like the non-hypocrites on the opposition.

Re:Yes ! We're getting close to an answer here

[NicBenjamin]

Cannabis skyrocketed recently?

Hate to spoil your image of your parents, but the skyrocketing in weed use happened back in their day. My Dad has this great story about the time he got drunk/high and mailed a death threat to the White House (in his defense, it was Nixon). Granpa made it go away with a meeting with the FBI in the state capital. In the middle of it he realized there was a joint in his pocket.

Since the pre-weed-avaliability days were also the everybody-thinks-lobotomies-are-good-therapy days it's really hard to figure out whether we have more psychotic episodes post-weed.

After RTFAing...

[jddeluxe]

I think the study was done with the express purpose of finding the indicated outcome, and statistically the sample size is insignificant and relies on non-empirical self-reporting; ergo I call B.S. spin...
I've been vacationing in Jamaica since 1980, and have a circle of friends in Negril that do in fact smoke pot each and every day of their lives. I know some people from the time they were kids until grown and others from early adulthood to retirement age.
Without conducting a "study", I can say after nearly 35 years of observation, the net effect of long term daily pot smoking would appear to be nil; people that are stable /unstable, crazy/pretty sane, serious/non-serious all seem to maintain their individual personality traits long term irrespective of their ganga usage.

Re:Worthless and inconclusive research, I'm afraid

[NicBenjamin]

Just because it's not 100% conclusive doesn't mean it's worthless. Very little science in any field is actually conclusive, especially studying humans, and especially especially studying human mental health. Studying humans is really difficult because you can't do experiments.

For example, if you want to know how adolescent broken legs heal you can't just bring a hammer to an 11th grade class and go crazy. You can sit around a hospital asking 16-year-olds who broke their legs about what happened to them, but none of that data will be 100% conclusive because there's a lot you can't control for.

Mental health problems are even harder because a) they're relatively rare, b) the actual cause of most of the problems is not understood (ie: we don't know what in a person's brain chemistry could cause them to hear voices), and c) mental patients aren't easy to communicate with. Some illnesses involve actual deception, and some involve mental experiences so out of the ordinary that nobody has figured out how to explain them to people who don't have the illness, and almost all involve believing an extremely distorted reality. A schizophrenic in the midst of an episode, for example, is likely to do everything possible to convince you he's not in the middle of an episode, because if you figured out the new curtains are intended to prevent the FBI's invisible cameras from sucking out his life force you'd probably rat him out to his shrink. When he gets better he will be totally unable to explain what was going on in his head in a way you can understand.

This research is actually valuable even if the causation it implies is backwards. If people who are about to experience psychotic episodes start partaking in the marajuana because they can feel that something wrong is about to happen to their minds, and the weed helps, then it is probably a good idea for doctors who know a patient has a genetic predilection to psychotic episodes to send them to a shrink when they start partaking.

Re:Pot could become more dangerous than tobacco

[ApplePy]

make sure government does not get addicted to tax revenue from pot.

Umm... good luck with that. Government has never met a tax it doesn't like.

One important point to remember

[uvajed_ekil]

The vast majority of pot smokers never develop any measurable, diagnosed psychosis.

I won't whine about the difference between a weak correlation and causation, but it must be acknowledged that there is a possibility that people who experience psychosis are more likely than the general, healthy population to use drugs and, specifically, smoke marijuana daily.

There are signs that weed may exacerbate the symptoms of psychoses in some people, but that is about the only definite conclusion we can draw that links the two. That is, unless you choose to ignore science when it does not fit your agenda (we're looking at you ONDCP, DARE, and DEA).

Re:Misleading

[uvajed_ekil]

It's like the disclaimers that vitamin and supplement sellers use to disclaim a bunch of claims they just made. If you say a bunch of stuff then claim you weren't actually saying anything, you have zero credibility in my book. "It is still unclear whether there are safe levels of use for cannabis" is a pretty curious statement coming from someone who isn't even studying whether there are safe levels for cannabis use. She's right, but that declaration in this context is misleading, at best. It would have been just as relevant to say that the first piano-playing, pink African elephant may or may not be discovered by elderly New Jersey construction workers within the next decade.

Be consistent, mate

[GPS Pilot]

it would be in everyone's best interest to keep most of the unemployed population stoned every day to reduce petty crime... plow the money you were putting into police and prisons into treatment programs for people who voluntarily want to stop.

Be consistent, mate: if it's in everyone's best interest to keep people stoned, it's definitely not in our interest to pay for treatment programs (after which, they won't be stoned anymore).

The historical record shows that automation always creates more jobs than it destroys: there are currently more humans employed than at any other time in history. Most of them are employed in fields that didn't exist before certain enabling technologies were invented. And there has been a healthy trend away from unskilled physical labor, toward skilled employment.

Fact is, if you think the economy is bad now, it will be far worse if everyone's motivation and/or ability to performed skilled work is sacked by being stoned.

High THC

[GPS Pilot]

there is some evidence that strains bred specifically for a high THC content could be more likely to cause psychotic event or temporary psychosis-like states.

It's said that strains being sold here in Colorado are far higher in THC than the stuff that was being smoked in the 1960s.

Re:High THC

[f3rret]

It's said that strains being sold here in Colorado are far higher in THC than the stuff that was being smoked in the 1960s.

Probably true, it isn't just in Colorado, you're also seeing these high THC super skunk strains popping up everywhere, most of the stuff you buy from seed banks these days have a bit of super skunk in them, and this might or might not be a good thing.

all this horseshit, gotta be a pony somewhere

[gzuckier]

"It is still unclear whether there are safe levels of use for cannabis, she added. '"
yes the epidemic of psychotic cannabis smokers is really making life difficult for the nonsmokers who are invariably sane.

Re:PROHIBITION is the cause of Ultra-Low CBD Canna

[3.5 stripes]

Low to no CBD cannabis grows naturally, in fact, it was the majority of cannabis grown in places like south america, asia and south east asia, and so on. You may have heard to it referred to as land race sativas.