The Forum > Article Comments > A big stick is not the only way to fight cannabis use > Comments
A big stick is not the only way to fight cannabis use : Comments
By Rob Moodie, published 12/4/2006Prevention, education and treatment: preventing cannabis-users from turning into dopes.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Page 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
-
- All
Posted by Deus_Abscondis, Sunday, 23 April 2006 3:24:29 AM
| |
Following is a summary of recent points in scientific though on cannabis and psychosis, psychosis symptoms.
There's a clearly defined schizophrenia (a hard core if you like) and a wider group of people who are susceptible to schizophreniform disorders which some researchers refer to as 'schizophrenic symptoms' which can be triggered by regular use of cannabis. Hard core schizophrenics who use cannabis get worse. When they stop they show improvement but they remain schizophrenic. Changes in the incidence of 'hard core' schizophrenia in the population is debatable but appears roughly static. People who have latent schizophreniform conditions have an increased risk of developing psychotic symptoms if they use cannabis. When they stop they improve and their symptoms diminish. It has not been established if there is a permanent functional change. Schizophreniform conditions are not as easily diagnosable as schizophrenia, less people come before health professionals. It is an under represented class. There appears to be a two way relationship for both groups: people with psychosis are attracted to cannabis and some cannabis users who have latent unmanifested conditions are attracted to cannabis (at a higher incidence than the general population) and then manifest a range of psychotic symptoms without becoming hard core schizophrenics. There's a gene called COMT and it has two forms, MET type and VAL type. Most people (approx 50%) have both MET and VAL types, approx 25% are VAL/VAL and and another 25% are MET/MET. The VAL/VAL type predisposes cannabis users to psychotic 'symptoms'. These genes regulate neuro receptors in part of the brain where cannabinoids (both the brains own cannabinoids and those imbibed) also have a function. Young people (up to about mid 20’s) are most susceptible as the part of the brain in question is still developing. It is hope a genetic test can become accessable so that parents and users can make an informed assessment of their risk. The earlier the initiation, the higher the use, the higher the risk. Light, occasional use does not appear to be a risk factor. Articles supporting this summary can be found in my previous posts Posted by Deus_Abscondis, Sunday, 23 April 2006 3:38:28 AM
| |
Deus_Abscondis
You insist on getting down and dirty in the details, while avoiding my major points. A tremendous case has also been made that marijuana smoke is cancerous. There are likely ten times as many studies supporting that than there are with the schizophrenia malarky. But in all the millions of people who have smoked cannabis over the last four decades, no one has developed a case of lung, or other, cancer from marijuana. Same with this schizophrenia hysteria. These supposedly "objective" studies shout how cannabis is a causative factor, so there must have been a tremendous increase in schizophrenia in the Western world, right? -- Wrong. http://www.cpa-apc.org/Publications/Archives/CJP/2001/Feb/Decline5.asp * There have been many studies using various methodologies that have examined the changing rates of schizophrenia over the last 40 years. Most have reported a decrease in incidence... * This is the first reported Canadian study to demonstrate a decrease in the treated prevalence rate of schizophrenia. The results support the observed decreased incidence rates in many other parts of the world. Hey, maybe cannabis reduces the amount of schizophrenia occurances. 8^) Much sound and fury signifying nothing Posted by JayTee, Sunday, 23 April 2006 5:32:34 AM
| |
In discussing drugs, or anything that especially affects young people, it is important to steer clear of ideology and focus on the truth. The statistics connecting marijuana use with mental illness are ideological and scientifically deceptive.
e.g. the intro article says "Regular cannabis use appears to increase the likelihood of psychotic symptoms occurring if the user also has a personal or family history of mental illness. ." I believe you could make similar claims about tattoos, F.J. Holdens and musical instruments. The fact that stressed out people seek escape and relief should not be surprising. I was recently at a mental health clinic and noticed that 3 out of 5 people in the waiting room were wearing rubber thongs. Can I make an educated statement about the correlation of mental illness and rubber thongs? I would love to see one of these health surveys that asked all the cannibas questions, except about McDonald's hamburgers instead. Because the burger shops are in public places where people with mental illness are likely to gather, I bet there is a stronger correlation between McDonalds and mental Illness than cannibas. If we surveyed healthy individuals and found out what percentage of them use cannibus, what would those statistics tell us, that cannibas assists mental health. subjective surveys that guess at links between different elements (e.g. pot and mental illness) do nothing to give clarity and only concretise ideological preconceptions. Surveys with some impirical integrity should be used such as the quote in the article "While there was a marked increase in cannabis use among the Australian population from the 1970s to the end of the 1990s, there has been no change in the incidence of schizophrenia among the population during that time." surveys that simply note a correlation between elements. like thongs and mental illness, are no basis for proper understandings. p.s. lots of people have died from throat cancer through smoking pot. I say tell the truth on that matter too. Posted by King Canute, Sunday, 23 April 2006 11:09:41 PM
| |
and I forgot to say,
what is the correlation of mental illness and alcohol use? If as I suspect, because it is legal, that more stressed out people drink grog than smoke pot, why don't we ban alcohol? You are even allowed to publically advertise alcohol to alcoholics in this double standard. We have more reliable statistics for how many people are killed by grog than pot, statistics tend to indicate that pot can't kill you (except throat cancer) why the obsession with the condemnation of pot?. You can die of an alcohol overdose, as many mentally ill people accidentally do. Withdrawal from grog can lead to suicidal tendencies in the vulnerable. Withdrawal from pot just puts you in a bad mood. Posted by King Canute, Sunday, 23 April 2006 11:21:16 PM
| |
--- King Canute
Pretty good post until this: --- "lots of people have died from throat cancer through smoking pot." Better try backing that up with some verifiable facts. The truth is, no one has developed cancer of any kind from smoking marijuana. I imagine you're thinking of people who ALSO smoked tobacco. Now THAT is a different matter all together. For those who are concerned with the irritating effects of smoke, they can easily consume marijuana by eating, drinking or with a vaporizer. In the future, vaporization will most likely be the most popular method. This then, is a non-issue Posted by JayTee, Monday, 24 April 2006 3:03:41 AM
|
I can make this clearer and simpler for you.
Your so called source for 'zapping' and your 'refuting' the research is just plain wrong. For example, the New Scientist reference.
If you look at the actual research paper you’ll see the NS journalist has taken the quote out of context. Check your facts!
Look at the paper in the British Medical Journal
Cannabis use in adolescence and risk for adult psychosis: longitudinal prospective study: Terrie E Moffitt et al. BMJ, Nov 2002; 325: 1212 - 1213 http://bmj.bmjjournals.com.....
Now what do you think about that?
Your arguments don't stand up to scrutiny. They're naive and simplistic. You misquote, fall back on opinion, misinterpret the best research available or evade points. For very point you've made there’s current research from peer reviewed journals that show you don't know what you are talking about. Your approach is more 'activist' or evangelical than scientific. Try reading current primary source peer reviewed journal articles.
And about a book containing a compilation of recent research Marijuana and Madness: Psychiatry and Neurobiology edited by David Castle, Robin Murray (you can view most of it at Google books) you say
JayTee: I have seen excerpts from that study before….
Then you rant on about the incidence of schizophrenia as if this isn’t a well know issue that the researchers don’t know about and haven’t addressed when in fact the debate and research has moved on. Epidemiological studies don't show causal relationships they show correlations and risk factors.
And then there's the conspiracy stuff "Try proposing research that might undermine the current laws and you'll find there isn't any money available for that"
Dear oh dear.