Study clears cannabis of schizophrenia rap

[lightning]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/06/ca...sychosis_study/

Tim Worstall

"There was one vaguely respectable argument that could be put forward on the prohibitionist’s side, that of cannabis induced schizophrenia. This has been increasing even as the general incidence of schizophrenia has been stable (or even falling, depending upon who you ask). That the rise was on the order of 500 people a year means it’s not a very important point, not when compared to 3 million regular tokers, but there are still those who will buy the argument that people should be stopped from harming themselves, even if the risks are very low.

 

There is certainly a correlation, but we should still want to know about causation before we take any further action. For it is possible, and it is a view advanced by some (like myself last time), that those who are about to become schizophrenic dose themselves on cannabis as they are known to on alcohol and any other substance that comes to hand to still the voices. Or perhaps there’s a milder version, that cannabis induced psychosis isn’t in fact cannabis induced at all, but is simply coincidental: that it’s an early marker of schizophrenia rather than something brought on by cannabis itself.

 

When we try to test this we also want to be very careful indeed about our sample groups. We really don’t want to be making the mistake that the World Health Organisation has been making with HIV testing in sub-Saharan Africa. Testing pregnant women to give you the incidence of a sexually transmitted disease in the general population really ain't all that clever: you’re testing the one group of the population where you have actual proof that they’ve been partaking in unprotected sex. It might be useful to get an idea of scale, but it's just not going to be all that accurate.

 

Fortunately, all of this is just what some scientists have done (sadly, the full paper is not online for free access). We know that there is a genetic predisposition to schizophrenia (more accurately to three different conditions that we'll, for convenience sake, group together here). If we’re lucky we can also find a decent data set which we have indeed got, some 2.25 million Danes born between 1955 and 1990, and we know both their own treatments for either cannabis induced psychosis or for those varied schizophrenic type diseases. We can also track their familial relationships and see which of them did or didn’t suffer in these manners. Excellent, we can now try to test our correlation. Do people who have had cannabis induced psychotic episodes then go on to develop schizophrenia at a higher rate than their genetic predisposition (as evidenced by their familial incidence of schizophrenia) would lead us to believe they would?

 

Well, looking at the 609 who had treatment for such pot induced freakouts and those 6,476 who were treated for the full blown nastiness, well, umm, no. Formally:

 

 

In terms of estimated rate ratios, persons who develop cannabis-induced psychosis are as predisposed to schizophrenia spectrum disorder and other psychiatric disorders as those who develop schizophrenia spectrum disorder without a history of cannabis-induced psychosis.

 

So at this point we can say that, no, that bad trip on some heavy shit does not lead on to schizophrenia. There’s no difference in incidence.

 

But the paper’s authors go much further:

 

Altogether, these findings, in addition to those of previous studies, indicate that cannabis-induced psychosis may not be a valid diagnosis but an early marker of schizophrenia.

That is, that the very idea of that bad trip is itself wrong. The disease is already there, simply wrongly diagnosed as being cannabis induced. And finally we get:

 

Rather, the degree of hereditary predisposition in individuals who receive treatment of cannabis-induced psychosis closely mirrors that in those who develop schizophrenia with no history of cannabis induced psychosis. The results agree with those of other studies that show that cannabis predominantly causes psychotic symptoms in those persons who are predisposed to develop psychosis or show signs of psychosis in the absence of cannabis use.

 

This goes a great deal further than my or anyone else’s original supposition, that pot consumption might cause problems only for those who are already predisposed to mental health problems. If it were simply this then we could deal with legalised pot simply by placing warnings upon it, as we do with nuts and nut allergies (umm, 'nut' possibly isn’t le mot juste there). But this finding goes further. There seems to be no evidence that cannabis consumption increases the incidence of these mental diseases at all. Incidence is the same for those who have had the "cannabis induced" version as it is in the general population, adjusting for the risks we perceive from the incidence of such problems in their immediate families. That there’s actually nothing to do with cannabis at all, that it just so happens that some who are becoming schizophrenic, something which is often marked by short episodes before it fully takes grip, happen to have been puffing 'erb when such episodes hit.

 

Thus there really is no logical leg for the government to stand upon in its reclassification of cannabis: there's not in fact one reason against the legalisation of the damn stuff and the increase in liberty and freedom that would result.

 

So, anyone think this is going to make any difference? No, thought not myself. OK, back to basics then, could the Murdochists and the Mailites let us know who is really to blame for the idiocy which is current drugs policy?"

 

So Catalyst's claim about the last word on the issue was just like the rest of their report

Utter Bullshit

[Dragonfan]

So Catalyst's claim about the last word on the issue was just like the rest of their report

Utter Bullshit

Never a truer word was spoken!

[WantDaChronic]

that was a good read, i just hope that if the media picks it up they cant tear it to shreds

[bufo marinus]

Can we email this report to that fuckin know all Miranda Devine and advise her she has been talking out her arse?

[humphrey b flaubert]

Can we email this report to that fuckin know all Miranda Devine and advise her she has been talking out her arse?

Isn't talking out your arse one of the requirements to get a job in the Australian media? I can't think of a single journalist who doesn't

Catalyst should be force to issue a public apology for descending into the same tired scaremonging, easy target bullshit that infests the commercial media. The ABC's science show should be held to a higher standard that Today Tonight or A Current Affair.

[lightning]

Can we email this report to that fuckin know all Miranda Devine and advise her she has been talking out her arse?

 

Please do as I do not have her contact details and she obviously needs telling

[mull]

Hope Jan reads it too.. maybe the 'catalyst' that sees the end of ncpic, or at least some of their propa..

[Dragonfan]

Can we email this report to that fuckin know all Miranda Devine and advise her she has been talking out her arse?

I'll do that, might word it a tad more tastefully, but I think I'll send it to that twat Dr [of Veterinary Science] Newby at Catalyst too [Jan definately deserves a copy as well, mmm . . . while I'm at it I might lob it off to a whole bunch of Polies!!]

 

NB: This is what I just sent off to the ABC, wonder if I'll get an acknowledgement, or even better, a reply? . . .

I'm appalled that you can get away with such a load of clap trap under the guise of 'science'. Dr Newby, it's obvious you did very little research BEFORE the program, but I wonder if you've read the latest out of the UK? Let me point you toward it . . . http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/06/ca...sychosis_study/

At the very least the ABC should revisit this topic and do a REAL report . . . not the biased, unscientific, obviously skewed propaganda that you came up with. Call this journalism? Research? What a joke, you should be ashamed of yourselves.

 

And . . . this is what I sent to the Devine Miranda!

 

You might want to read this . . . and revisit your charming piece of propaganda! Don't worry, I've already sent the same link to the ABC for their edification!

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/06/ca...sychosis_study/

As I am one very concerned citizen who knows the efficacy of Cannabis as a medication, I take umbrage at your biased skew on this topic . . . this is what I sent to the ABC [above inserted for Miranda's edification] and maybe you too could revist your badly written, poorly researched piece and instead of the propaganda you spewed, try reporting the TRUTH!

 

Okay, nearly done . . . sent all of the above to 'Prof' Jan Copeland c/- of the NCPIC . . .

Just for your information, think you might promote this piece of TRUTH on your website? I didn't notice it on your Media Watch page . . .

 

+I'll get to the Pollies tomorrow . . . [my eyes are knackered now . . .]

Edited November 11, 2008 by Dragonfan