Top European Research facility: Super strong cannabis caused 1/4 new psychosis cases

Further research that confirms the IoPP research from The British Medical Journal.

www.bmj.com...

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

If you notice the study says "Our findings now require replication in large population studies with detailed measures of cannabis use and schizophrenia'. So how many people or cases were involved in this limited study, and what was the control group?

You may also be in agreement with the vast majority of serious marijuana activists and advocates that young people, under the age of 21, should not smoke or ingest cannabis. That is the common ground on this issue.

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

And look at the 2004 study you posted, in the results section it actually summarizes that the study does not show what you claim it does. It says, quote "Cannabis use appears to be neither a sufficient nor a necessary cause for psychosis. It is a component cause, part of a complex constellation of factors leading to psychosis."

So, in fact, it proves nothing whatsoever, yet you use it to bolster your case.

a reply to: Astyanax

Schizophrenia just doesnt work that way.

a reply to: Aleister

I didn't make any case of my own about this, I posted the research and the titles of the research.

a reply to: Aleister

It says it is a component cause, it is part of a cause.

It also says this:

bjp.rcpsych.org...

Is cannabis a causal risk factor for psychosis?

In this review we have tried to determine whether cannabis is a cause of schizophrenia. We have shown that all the available population-based studies on the issue have found that cannabis use is associated with later schizophrenia outcomes (Table 1).

All these studies support the concept of temporal priority by showing that cannabis use most probably preceded schizophrenia.

These studies also provide evidence for direction by showing that the association between adolescent cannabis use and adult psychosis persists after controlling for many potential confounding variables such as disturbed behaviour, low IQ, place of upbringing, cigarette smoking, poor social integration, gender, age, ethnic group, level of education, unemployment, single marital status and previous psychotic symptoms. Further evidence for a causal relationship is provided by the presence of a dose-response relationship between cannabis use and schizophrenia (Andréasson et al, 1988; van Os et al, 2002; Zammit et al, 2002), specificity of exposure (Arseneault et al, 2002; van Os et al, 2002; Zammit et al, 2002; Fergusson et al, 2003) and specificity of the outcome (Arseneault et al, 2002). Overall, cannabis use appears to confer a twofold risk of later schizophrenia or schizophreniform disorder (pooled odds ratio=2.34; 95% CI 1.69-2.95).

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
a reply to: Aleister

I didn't make any case of my own about this, I posted the research and the titles of the research.

True, my apology. Just wanted to point out that the two recent summaries posted do not contain firm and irrevocable conclusions or correlations, and that is the crux of people who can see the trees and the forest. Again, I think there is agreement here among the posters that teenagers (or goddess forbid, younger children) should not use cannabis in any form.

EDIT: Just saw your post above. Many of the cites are from 2002, 2003, eons ago in internet/research years. Also, wouldn't it be logical that if a youngster in using marijuana that they probably also use alcohol, nicotine, and who knows what else (what is the correlation between heavy sugar consumption, including soda, and mental illnesses?).

originally posted by: Aleister
and who knows what else (what is the correlation between heavy sugar consumption, including soda, and mental illnesses?).

Good point. Maybe it was the munchies food that gave them psychosis.

Also, why are all the studies from the UK who at the moment is pushing hard to keep it illegal? Hmmm.....

You mean to tell me that nobody has shut down this obviously anti-legalization propaganda thread yet?

This discussion is being discussed on a number of blogs at the moment. To quote just one of the thread responders:

~ Because most marijuana is higher in THC these days and there is no evidence that it has any negative health effects. This study just shows people who use it chronically - to treat their mental disorders - tend to use stronger strains which is common sense. Anyone using marijuana every single day will either need to smoke a whole lot or need a stronger strain to keep getting the same effect. You don't get MORE high, you just maintain it with a reduced amount.

For comparison waxes and dabs are 80-90% THC and last I checked there's isn't an epidemic of schizophrenia or psychosis in any medical marijuana states.~

Additonally:

~“This paper suggests that we could prevent almost one quarter of cases of psychosis if no-one smoked high potency cannabis,” said Robin Murray, professor of psychiatric research at King’s College London and a senior researcher for the study." - For this to be true that assumes that every single person in the population smokes high-potency cannabis every single day! Obviously this is absurd. Why does nobody challenge this nonsense statement?~


Please.....

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth


Are there any ATS members that actually respect such research instead of shouting ''propaganda'' at anything that doesn't suit their own agenda?

I think it should be publicised as it is obviously something those contemplating drug use need to know and in order for a cohesive, forward focused caring society.

The funny thing is that you are completely judging a book by its cover here... even your own graphics posted are pretty contrary to your statements.

No, I do not contest the research... however, even though they claim to have corrected for age, I would bet my ass that the VAST majority of those smoking skunk are people aged 15-25.
Now since the human brain is not fully developed till you are 21, it makes pretty good sense that a higher number of people go into psychosis from skunk.
Having said that, it's still about the individual and not the substance. Those people who went into psychosis would most likely have fried their brains as well with other overly used substances, even alcohol.

BUT the funny part about your graphics..... see how it shows that people who had never done cannabis seems to be more prone to go into psychosis than those who only smoke hash on a few occasions.

Those people are the reason that WAY more research needs to be done. Because to me that shows that naturally occurring substances like cannabis and psilocybin hold potential in improving brain health more so than damaging it.
I would even go as far as saying that everyone should try '___' at least one time in their life to gain some perspective that is not programmed into us by society.


We need Imperial College to contest the research. I'm sure they would have something to say about this.

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
Further research that confirms the IoPP research from The British Medical Journal.

www.bmj.com...

Please.... a 12 year old report?!

Also, please understand that even in your original post Kings College talk about "high-potency" cannabis, which is VERY much different from regular cannabis.

Go wave your propaganda flag somewhere else.

May I please have your attention.....

Please stay of topic, and do so in a courteous manner.....You are responsible for your own posts.
Go After the Ball, Not the Player!

Please read the following:
Community Announcement re: Decorum
We expect civility and decorum within all topics.



Do NOT reply to this post!!

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: theabsolutetruth

In this thread, the OP asked for opinions about why there had been a recent increase in claims of 'gangstalking' and people claiming to be 'targeted individuals'.

Here is my first post on that thread, in full:

I put it down to the enormous popularity of coc aine as a recreational drug.

I had (silly me) forgotten the even greater popularity of high-potency cannabis.

It's no news to ATS members that conspiracy theories have been 'mainstream' for some time. Recently, I've noticed another upsurge in social media. Formerly sensible people on my Facebook page have suddenly gone all conspiracy-theorist.

They're all smokers.

I posted the BBC article in the OP on my Facebook wall this morning. I've no doubt there'll be some interesting responses. But it is even more relevant here. Social media plus high-potency cannabis may well add up to an epidemic of paranoid schizophrenia. Don't say no-one told you they saw it coming.

So you are linking cannabis use to "conspiracy theorists"? Lol
Wow. Im the only conspiracy theorist I know. I know dozens of smokers.
It doesnt have anything to do with people waking up to the lies we have been told since birth?
Nah, blame drugs, it must be the drugs.
Nevermind a hypocritical system that launches illegal wars of aggression against sovereign states and then tells us what to do. That couldnt possibly mess up a childs mind.
Or an education system that is guided towards work and financial slavery that wants to give abortions to our children without our knowledge. That wouldnt ever mess with a childs mind.
Paedophile politicians, judges, top coppers, doctors that are above the law couldnt possibly affect a childs thought processes. A system that attacks the poor while letting the extremely wealthy get away with all their tax dodging leaving the poor in a state of feeling helpless couldnt possibly mess with a persons mind.
The hypocrisy of the western world couldnt possibly do any harm to a young minds development eh?

When you have nothing, no prospects and no future, escape from that harsh reality is the only joy some people get.
And some people would even deny them that small joy. The same people that rape and murder children and make and enforce our laws and educate our kids.

Call me a paranoid conspiracy theorist, but something is very wrong with this picture.

I say if smoking weed gets people questioning the "reality" around them, then that is only a good thing IMO.

Ok, lets get to the FACTS of this report as the OP likes to bandy around the word FACTS.

The researchers did find a connection between skunk use and the likelihood of a psychotic episode, but crucially this was for those who started using the drug very young and did so very regularly.

The study specifically did not show that cannabis use triggered psychosis. In fact, it showed the opposite. Plenty of people in the control group had smoked cannabis and not had a psychotic episode. In fact, patients who had suffered psychosis were no more likely than the control group to have tried cannabis.

It makes the case for legalising cannabis much more compelling. It's by regulating the market for a drug that you can prevent harm. And in this case, there is a very clear way to do that – encourage the use of milder varieties which have been shown to be harmless.

As Danny Kushlick of Transform says:

"Skunk is a product of prohibition itself. The iron law of prohibition is that it will produce the most potent variety, just like crack in the coc aine market. It's pure economics. The economics of a deregulated market determines that the most potent, high yield, highest profit version will dominate. And that's what skunk is.

"In a legally regulated market that's not the case and you have a variety. Currently, cannabis is like a market where you go into the pub and all they've got on tap is absinthe. It's ludicrous. What you want are low-alcohol beers and wines and other things. Where people have a choice they graduate towards milder versions."

Source - What Media Reports on the New Cannabis Study Arent Telling You

Words in the study like "may", "could" and "possible" arent in any way proof of anything.
The study also "proves" that milder cannabis like hashish is totally safe to mental health.
The study only shows that cannabis can be harmful to a young developing mind, and that isnt news at all.
Its your study OP, and your facts. Maybe you should have read the study for yourself before posting it and making false claims like the MSM did.

I will say again, "skunk" is a slang name for hydroponic cannabis. Its called skunk because of the smell.
Its also called "smelly" for the same reason. I have smoked commercial strains of cannabis that are stronger than some so called "skunks", the way the media is trumpeting this study is deceptive and biased.
No surprise there on my account.

I think it is VERY safe to say that this research (whether it has truth or is completely flawed) will NOT stop the eventual legalization of MJ for medical purposes (at a minimum) nor will it stop the train of legalization for recreational purposes.

There is just too much overwhelming proof of the effectiveness of MJ to treat legitimate disorders in a way that currently available drugs cannot, to derail this train based on the research indicating some 'causal' relationship in a questionable sub-set of the population. Further, that subset, consisting of those under the age of consent, can be better served by the elimination of the black market and the controls placed on legal products preventing access to minors. And that I fully approve, and so does everyone on both sides - that minors need to be prevented from access to MJ.

Therefore this thread, and any like-minded postings of similiar research, will be disregarded by the majority. Therefore, it is best that this type of research be re-directed back to the mental health professionals that will be taking care of this sub-set of the population now, and that these same people can re-focus their efforts toward workable legislation that will empower the authorities that are responsible for controlling the distribution to ensure minors are completely SHUT OUT of the supply chain.

Frankly that begins with the elimination of the black market thru workable legalization legislation. We all know the steet corner drug dealer will sell to anyone, but a business-minded shop owner will NOT.

Further, legalization will HELP this sub-set of the population that the researchers and the OP are concerned with. Legalization removes a HUGE barrier that prevents discussion of the use of this substance, as the fear and JUSTIFIED paranoia of incarceration will no longer exist, allowing open discussion and quicker identification of the cause of the issues of psychosis with that small sub-set that are adults (while preventing access to that sub-set that are minors).

That should move this argument back to where it belongs - education of those suspectible to the uncommon side effects of otherwise safe products, and NOT to the total ban of another substance that many can use for legitimate medical issues, and many others can use recreationally in a safe and responsible manner without threat of destroying their lives thru persecution and incarceration and loss of property.

There...topical, factual, and with no aspersions of ignorance toward the OP or supporters. Hope that works to kill this thread.

Probably won't....

originally posted by: Astyanax

In my wide and deep experience of this issue, there is a definite, visible link between weed and serious, clinical wackiness.

Did you ever think that those people smoke weed in an attempt to deal with their serious, clinical wackiness?

This is a chicken and egg debate and 9 times out of 10, the supposed condition that people are trying to link to marijuana was actually the chicken.

Marijuana is a "make reality more bearable" drug. Of course people who have a hard time dealing with the world or who see the world in a stressful way will turn to marijuana to help with their stress.

I started to read the study and right away I thought the sample size was much too small. Well under 1,000 people, including the control group, over a 6 year period. Then, again very early in the study, I come across this quote: "we noted that skunk-like types of cannabis, which contain very high concentrations of Δ-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), seemed to have a greater psychotogenic effect than did hash (resin), which is known to contain much less THC."

This is completely wrong. Hash can contain up to 65% THC depending on how it's made, while even the marijuana strains with the highest THC top out around 35%. That's a pretty basic early assumption to be completely wrong on and those two things alone throw considerable doubt on this study in my opinion. Small sample size, basic facts incorrect.

I personally know more people who smoke marijuana on a daily basis than were in this study. Not one of them suffers from any sort of psychosis. Some of them have been smoking for 40+ years.

This seems more like an attempt by the psychological "sciences" trying to discredit something that they don't really understand. By the way, psychiatry is not very well understood even by the people working in the field.

Have a look at this video by a professor of psychology.



"What's the difference between the DSM and a scientific book of disease? Every disorder in the DSM is invented. Every disease listed in a pathology textbook is discovered."

a reply to: lakesidepark

Yes, I agree 100%.

What we need is common sense, not scaremongering bias.
As long as weed is illegal the damage done to children will continue. Teenagers are some of the biggest suppliers of "skunk" through the criminal supply network. Many years ago I grew some of my own and also sold it myself to support my own use, which turned out to be just a free smoke, there really wasnt much profit in it for the work required getting rid of it.
Cocaine is another issue completely, there is a lot of profit in it, its far more damaging to health, it is addictive, unlike cannabis. Which is why I dont ever get involved with the devils dandruff, although many of my old friends are doing it very regularly. Not to mention the celebrities falling out of nightclubs every weekend coked out of their faces.
Why are we constantly attacking cannabis, but not "charlie"? Whats that all about?

Im all for freedom of choice, if someone wants to go and throw themselves off a bridge thats their prerogative.
If someone wants to shoot heroin into their bloodstream, its their life. When they have to steal and harm others to pay for it, thats where the problem arises. When misguided kids from poor backgrounds seek a little peer acceptance and to be "cool" are the victims of unscrupulous criminal drug dealers, then we have a problem.
Drug use is a symptom, we need to find a cure for the disease. Which is usually poverty, single parent families and poor education. Why dont we attack that?

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
a reply to: Answer

Go back and read ATS T&C.

I'm fully aware of the T&C. If you haven't noticed, there have been no posts removed for manners violations so you're dead wrong about all of the perceived violations. Again, just because someone asks you to add some validity to the posting of a flawed study, it is not a personal attack. When you respond by dodging the request and calling people idiots, then yes, they tend to get a bit frustrated with you.

Firstly do not presume anything about me.

I don't presume. Everything I posted is a factual account of this thread's progression.

This thread is about the research so all the idiots and their irrational vitriolic attacks are just proving the research correct.

There you go again calling people idiots. You posted the research. You must now either defend that research or step away from the thread. You don't get to post the research and then call anyone who disagrees with it an idiot/irrational.

The thread isn't an 'opinion' thread it is about factual professional research. If you don't like the research, tough. If anyone doesn't agree to it then I suggest they go tell the researchers.

Except there are holes in the research and that is what people are pointing out. You should not post research if you're not prepared to discuss why you think it's valid. Instead of telling everyone they're stupid and irrational for questioning the research, you could have simply stepped away from the thread since it isn't an "opinion thread."

Either way I do not care for their opinion and won't bother replying to anything unless it is rational. So far, most comments have been nasty and spiteful, just for the fact that I posted this research, not my opinion, I didn't mention that until around page 6 of this thread, the vitriol was aimed at me for just posting research.

Actually, the thread was quite civil until you started calling people idiots and accusing everyone of personal attacks. You have a victim complex that doesn't mesh with reality. You posted the same study in another thread and several of those posters responded here because it was quite childish how you sought support by starting a new thread instead of addressing the legitimate concerns in the other thread.

I posted this thread because I can and because I choose to, it isn't for ''support'' but because it is good research that is valid and important.

Except that the research is flawed and instead of addressing those flaws, you thought "well these idiots aren't listening to my perfectly-defended facts so I'm going to see if anyone else will agree with me."

You are just another poster spouting irrational hatred at me for just making a thread that you do not like because you do not like the professional research on which is is based.

More of that victim complex. I don't know you as a person or care enough to "hate" you. I'm addressing your posts in this thread. That's what debate is... you address the opponent's point of view and you address their faulty debate methods if necessary. I haven't called you an idiot a single time but unfortunately, you can't make that claim.

If you don't like the research or the fact that I think it is truly valid and worthy then I suggest you contact IoPP and The Lancet, I am sure they will find your unprofessional objections equally as irrational and unfounded.

You say that anyone who objects to this research is "irrational" but you haven't stated why you believe that. You simply posted the research and now you defend it without saying why and without addressing anyone's claims. You say this isn't an "opinion" thread but by posting the research and defending it so rabidly, you are offering your opinion that the research is infallible. That's very hypocritical of you.

You also paint with a very broad brush when you make statements like "those who attack this research just prove that it's true." I do not use any drug but I'm a proponent of legalized marijuana.