Daily Pot Use Tied To Age of First Psychotic Episode

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Daily Pot Use Tied To Age of First Psychotic Episode

Posted by Soulskill on Saturday January 11, 2014 @07:09AM from the exceeding-expectations dept.

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. '"

53 of 382 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Cause and effect may be backwards by TheRealMindChild · 2014-01-11 07:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

--

"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
1. Re:Cause and effect may be backwards by dyingtolive · 2014-01-11 07:19 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I'm afraid that doesn't fit the narrative.
  
  --
  Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
2. Re:Cause and effect may be backwards by king+neckbeard · 2014-01-11 07:33 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
3. Re:Cause and effect may be backwards by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 07:46 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  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.
4. Re:Cause and effect may be backwards by ihtoit · 2014-01-11 07:47 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  oh, yes, 1936.
  "Marihuana turns you GAY!!"
  Well, fuck me, as long as that's all it does...
  
  --
  Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
5. Re:Cause and effect may be backwards by Zakabog · 2014-01-11 07:52 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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)
6. Re:Cause and effect may be backwards by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 07:54 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  methinks your sarcasm detector is busted.
7. Re:Cause and effect may be backwards by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2014-01-11 08:01 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  > methinks your sarcasm detector is busted.
  Too much pot perhaps?
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
8. Re:Cause and effect may be backwards by MisterSquid · 2014-01-11 08:02 · Score: 2
  
  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)
  
  --
  blog
9. Re:Cause and effect may be backwards by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 08:07 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  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.
10. Re:Cause and effect may be backwards by Curtman · 2014-01-11 08:07 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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?
11. Re:Cause and effect may be backwards by Curtman · 2014-01-11 08:33 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  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.
12. Re:Cause and effect may be backwards by SpankiMonki · 2014-01-11 08:44 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  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)
13. Re:Cause and effect may be backwards by TsuruchiBrian · 2014-01-11 09:02 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
14. Re:Cause and effect may be backwards by Curtman · 2014-01-11 09:14 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  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.
15. Re:Cause and effect may be backwards by rmdingler · 2014-01-11 09:24 · Score: 2
  
  Dick.
  
  --
  Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
  Ernest Hemingway
16. Re:Cause and effect may be backwards by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2014-01-11 09:46 · Score: 2
  
  > Yes. Not the GP but the AC you responded to.
  lol In your case it sounds like not enough pot.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
17. Re:Cause and effect may be backwards by Curtman · 2014-01-11 10:01 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  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...
18. Re:Cause and effect may be backwards by mcgrew · 2014-01-11 10:02 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
19. Re:Cause and effect may be backwards by Curtman · 2014-01-11 11:30 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
20. Re:Cause and effect may be backwards by Demonoid-Penguin · 2014-01-12 02:59 · Score: 2
  
  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!
21. Re:Cause and effect may be backwards by MooseMiester · 2014-01-12 05:59 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  Murphy was an optimist
This just in... by wiredlogic · 2014-01-11 07:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

--
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
1. Re:This just in... by sg_oneill · 2014-01-11 07:35 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
2. Re:This just in... by JoeMerchant · 2014-01-11 07:56 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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?
3. Re:This just in... by mcgrew · 2014-01-11 10:20 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  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."
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
in the context of society.. by gl4ss · 2014-01-11 07:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

..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...

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
1. Re:in the context of society.. by ihtoit · 2014-01-11 08:15 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
2. Re:in the context of society.. by phantomfive · 2014-01-11 08:38 · Score: 2
  
  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).
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Reefer madness? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 07:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

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!
1. Re:Reefer madness? by fustakrakich · 2014-01-11 07:33 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
2. Re:Reefer madness? by Uberbah · 2014-01-11 07:42 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
3. Re:Reefer madness? by drinkypoo · 2014-01-11 07:50 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
4. Re:Reefer madness? by JoeMerchant · 2014-01-11 07:59 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Climate deniers aren't the only ones who cherry-pick "scientific studies" for publicity campaigns.
5. Re:Reefer madness? by ultranova · 2014-01-11 09:04 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
6. Re:Reefer madness? by cold+fjord · 2014-01-11 09:10 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
7. Re:Reefer madness? by Nutria · 2014-01-11 09:21 · Score: 2
  
  So maximum fairness is the same as maximum efficiency
  Certainly I've never thought such an idea.
  
  --
  "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
8. Re:Reefer madness? by pspahn · 2014-01-11 09:48 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
9. Re:Reefer madness? by tftp · 2014-01-11 11:09 · Score: 2
  
  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.)
10. Re:Reefer madness? by Nonesuch · 2014-01-11 12:33 · Score: 2
  
  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".
  
  --
  
  I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
adding up by harvey+the+nerd · 2014-01-11 07:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.
1. Re:adding up by mcgrew · 2014-01-11 11:04 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
Source data for this study? by SpankiMonki · 2014-01-11 07:33 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.
1. Re:Source data for this study? by MisterSquid · 2014-01-11 08:09 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  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.
  
  --
  blog
2. Re:Source data for this study? by tgv · 2014-01-11 10:13 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  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."
Worthless and inconclusive research, I'm afraid... by bogaboga · 2014-01-11 07:41 · Score: 4, Interesting

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?
Before the haters come by atari2600a · 2014-01-11 08:11 · Score: 2

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.
Yes and no... by f3rret · 2014-01-11 08:49 · Score: 4, Interesting

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

--
Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
Pot? by koan · 2014-01-11 09:04 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

--
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
1. Re:Pot? by Uberbah · 2014-01-11 17:58 · Score: 2
  
  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:Hey DICE how much is s story on slashdot?? by mcgrew · 2014-01-11 10:09 · Score: 2

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.

--
Free Martian Whores!
After RTFAing... by jddeluxe · 2014-01-11 12:07 · Score: 2

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 by NicBenjamin · 2014-01-11 13:35 · Score: 2

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.