"80% of mentally ill use cannabis"

[Jess Stone]

This is a MASSIVE and perverted and erroneous assumption on the authors part,with the same data you could easily conclude that the onset of a mental disorder leads to cannabis use ,probably in an attempt to self medicate. More lies and BS from the NAZI-ANTI-CANNABIS fuckwits and there faithfull pet poodle pseudo-scientists desperate for more elite dole because they can't find a real job,I am really sick of these dirty scum pervert fuckwits and there never ending nazi fuckwitism!

[wildflower]

in the meantime..

light up some tobacco, drink some ethanol, sniff some chrome and when you save up some money do some ice or suck on an eccy...

cannabis is so uncool didnt you know?

[Jess Stone]

I can't understand the belief(faith based) that cannabis is "uncool".

I am the pre-eminece of cool !!! Aren't you as well WF?

[dev0]

i dunno, this thread was abit much for me and i kinda tuned out on that report...and the rest of the posts...i totally understand if nobody even notices this post and just skips to the next one but if you got this far we can safely say that you're all here, reading...but umm...what i wanna know is

 

1) how much weed did these guys actually have

2) history of mental illness?

3) how old were they when they started smoking

4) fuck the police

 

but yeah, i dunno, cannabis isn't for everyone...you know if you have your first cone flip out and kill someone you should maybe not smoke.

[mull]

Well said all

 

Good biased study for the Tories, funded by whom?

 

Which came first, the chicken or the caffiene laced chocolate egg?

 

How many out of 10 used nicotine prior to the onset of severe psych episode?

 

Same q again with rittalin or similar?

 

Same q again with alcohol?

 

Also, how many mentally ill people who self medicate with cannabis in the UK, will be negatively affected by this round of cannabis propaganda?

 

IF.... this study has any validity, then perhaps cannabis has a place in pharmacology, for diagnosing pschotic mental illness. More so cannabis has the ability to diagnose severe political and health funding agendas

 

 

" Emancipate yourself from mental slavery

None but ourselves can free our minds "

[loylty gets u nothing]

it doesent help wen some of the leading rehabilitation centres in aus

are advocates for dual diagnosis with drug problems

wheter it be amphetamines or mull

they are pushing this belief to the governments

both local state and nationa;l

to increase funding for there centres

we about due for another attack from the gov here in oz

peace

billo

 

and also i have noticed alot of the doctors like gps here in aus are quick to prescribe

a drug for depression...and sadly wether uare mild or manic these stats all contribute

imo its watever the docs fav sales rep is from watever company

that makes for the foundations for base meds

Edited October 20, 2006 by billopuffalot

[Guest niall]

This report is misleading, and unfortunately so is the topic of this post. Read what it says very carefully:

 

80% of mentally ill patients are heavy cannabis users

 

So first up, we're talking about mentally ill patients. Those who are currently receiving medical care. That figure won't include those with mental illness who are not currently admitted or undergoing treatment under supervision. It's only "patients". But what does "mentally ill" mean - what does this encompass?

 

Eight out of ten people who suffer the onset of serious mental illness are heavy cannabis users

 

Now we've qualified "patients" as those who suffer the onset of "serious mental illness". That's misleading - not everyone who suffers the onset of mental illness will be caught and diagnosed, not all of them will become patients and be measured in the statistics. But we're still not talking about all mentally ill people, only those who are current patients and have recently experienced "the onset of serious mental illness". But what does "serious mental illness" mean - what does this encompass?

 

The report found that the huge majority of those undergoing a first episode of psychiatric disorder, schizophrenia or similar mental breakdowns are habitual users of the drug.

 

A Psychiatric disorder, schizophrenia, or similar mental breakdowns. Similar mental breakdowns? Any form of psychiatric disorder? This seems a bit vague and all-encompassing - psychiatric disorders include a great number of things, and "mental breakdown" would include an even larger array of problems. And yet the author has already classified all of these as "serious mental illness". They don't seem to equate to this if you ask me. What does each category include? What proportion of patients are in each group? Does it include depression and stress-related breakdowns? What about emotional trauma and other factors, they've shown an association but I bet 80% of those people DRINK MILK! MILK MUST BE CAUSING IT!!!

 

So now we've gone from 8 out of 10 patients, to 8 out of 10 who experence onset, to 8 out of 10 who have experienced a *first episode* of *psychiatric disorder*, *schizophrenia* or *similar mental breakdowns*. But wait, they redefine it again:

 

Among authorities cited by the report is Professor Peter Jones of Cambridge University, who found that 80 per cent of first episode pyschiatric disorders occurred in those who were heavy users of cannabis. It quoted Professor Jones: 'Cannabis is a huge issue for psychiatric services at the moment. I work in a first-contact schizophrenia service and it might as well be a cannabis dependency unit.' Professor Jones estimated that children who start smoking cannabis at the ages of 10 or 11 may have treble the risk of developing schizophrenia of other children.

 

So how many of the aforementioned patients started smoking cannabis in their early teens? How many of the patients are still teenagers?

 

There is already growing evidence to suggest that the earlier you start, the higher your risk of depression and chronic abuse. This is nothing new. But what about adults? How many of these 8 in 10 patients started smoking as teens vs. as an adult? How many of them have a family history of mental illness, is cannabis simply triggering an existing condition or predisposition, are we simply flushing them out into the health system?

 

It listed research which identified links between cannabis and damage to the cardiovascular system; cannabis and damage to the immune system; and smoking cannabis and cancer. The report also explored scientific literature linking cannabis to depression and aggression; to driving risks; to impaired educational performance and ability to reason; and the likelihood that heavy users will become dependent on the drug. It pointed to the 'gateway effect' under which users of the most harmful and addictive drugs like heroin began their illegal drug habits smoking cannabis. Using cannabis is also associated with problems for pregnant women including lower birth weights and increased likelihood of premature birth, the report said.

 

And yet, virtually every single one of these points is also contradicted in the research - there are studies showing that cannabinoids play a regulatory role within the body, helping the immune system, preventing and killing cancer, preventing and treating depression, to improved/normal driving ability, that the gateway effect is the black market itself, that it aids in childbirth.

 

Did they simply list research that supported thier viewpoint, or did they perform an exhaustive review of the literature?

 

Mary Brett, the researcher who prepared the study

 

Ah, now it becomes a littler clearer. Mary Brett is behind this. Google her, she's a rapid prohibitionist. So, are they simply going to rely on a single report? Why not explore the topic fully?

 

 

So what it comes down to is that the current illicit market for cannabis is not able to prevent and discourage teenagers, the mentally ill and those predisposed to mental illness from purchasing and using cannabis. Our unregulated, criminal market is unable to provide consumer protection to the same level that regulated, legal markets can. WELL DUH!

[Pa-uul]

The alarm bells have to go off when they mention that 80% of persons with mental illness smoke cannabis. This number seems a bit high, first of all, and secondly, it doesn't have to mean anything other than that persons with mental illness like to smoke weed!

 

As for the 400 studies, this just means that they've payed for 400 studies; bogus ones! There is no real evidence in the form of science I guess – just statistics and anecdotes, etcetera. To me this is meant to scare the gullible population. As I've said before, I hope that they don't start to advocate a chemical drug to "help users" or "wean users off" cannabis.

Professor Robin Murray of the Institute of Psychiatry told the inquiry: "Five years ago, 95 per cent of psychiatrists would have said that cannabis does not cause psychosis. Now, I would estimate that 95 per cent say it does. It is a quiet epidemic."

That is an epidemic - among the psychiatrists. Science does make progress, yes, but that quickly? Just everyone agreeing like that? C'mon, what secret reward did they get!? These psychiatrists, these scum? I mean, what is this new technique which is so powerful compared to the previous techniques available five years ago that warrants such a dramatic change in the consensus? Boy... and, then there's me. I've been a heavy cannabis user for many years now and my mental health is fine. Wow, get out the Nobel prize, or call the police. I think I'm immune – a veritable miracle of science!

 

This whole story reminds me of that Dr Lyneen person on channel Ten news (they didn't show her name in a written caption), who had such a cold face and said there's "going to be an epidemic" of mental illness if the government doesn't "do something". Well, firstly Dr Lyneen, people have used cannabis at the present rate plenty of times elsewhere and there was no epidemic, and secondly, what do you mean by having the government "do something" - what more can they do?

 

Seeing as cannabis isn't all that addictive, really, and I think the cannabinoid receptors are in our brain for a rather wholesome and organic reason, it's ludicrous to think that there could be a chemical "cure", like methadone was for heroin, for us pot-heads. But, watch out for this sort of thing in the near future. For example, they could develop a pill you could take regularly, with no damage to the user maybe, which would "inhibit cannabis use". Then, once this practice was established, some dim-witted politician (such as John Howard ) could sum up the equation like this: "You could take this pill regularly, or take a pill once and be altered permanently". The prisons are too full to enforce cannabis prohibition the traditional way so... this could be the cheapest alternative to increasing the drug war on cannabis users. Could the population be being conditioned for acceptance of this sort of possibility? If you're going to develop a serious and permanent condition like schizophrenia anyway then permanent alteration, such as with a neuroleptic such as Thorazine would be acceptable, right?

[Guest niall]

Seeing as cannabis isn't all that addictive, really, and I think the cannabinoid receptors are in our brain for a rather wholesome and organic reason, it's ludicrous to think that there could be a chemical "cure", like methadone was for heroin, for us pot-heads. But, watch out for this sort of thing in the near future. For example, they could develop a pill you could take regularly, with no damage to the user maybe, which would "inhibit cannabis use".

 

Imagine the devastation this pill would cause - the endo-cannabinoid system is one of our most important regulatory systems - sleep, hunger, pain, mood... we're only just starting to understand how complex and central it is, and how cannabis can help people who have abnormal levels of anadamide etc. Tweaking and exploring these systems has got to be much safer than shutting the whole thing down in fear and ignorance.

 

Pharmaceutical companies are working on this exact scenario - CB1/CB2 blockers and excitors, targetted synthetics that take a brute force approach instead of learning from millenia of co-evolution between our two species. Cannabis isn't just THC, what's important is the ratio of these cannabinoids in relation to each other, and it's proven to be safe. THC alone (e.g. nabilone/marinol) is relatively worthless compared to the complex ratios that we've been using, selecting and breeding for thousands and thousands of years.

 

Unfortunately for them, if synthetic cannabinoids are safe, then that's more evidence that whole plant cannabis is safe.

[wildflower]

ok

Psychiatry/psychology etc etc - was considered quackery at one point.

Dont send your kids or yourself to one of these quacks if you value the sanity of your family or yourself.

Its amazing to think people pay these quacks money to have their heads screwed with even more.

Remember, you being sick (in the brain) makes them $$$

Now tell me about your mother. (thus begins your journey to losing your mind! and making me rich! muahaha)

QUACKS

NEXT...