JJJ Hack Program - Do the mental health risks turn you off weed?

[The Stoned Jester]

Original Source : http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/hack/stories/s3133456.htm

 

Marijuana's the most widely used illegal drug in Australia: nearly one in five high school students have sparked up

 

New Australian research, reviewing the records of more than 20,000 patients, shows smoking weed can bring on mental health problems around 2.7 years earlier than people who don't smoke it.

 

hack spoke to Dr Matthew Large, the lead researcher of the study from the University of New South Wales.

 

Does this new research about the early onset of mental illness make you re-think or want to cut down your weed smoking?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Download the Audio and listen to the program!

 

DOWLOAD HERE!

Edited February 8, 2011 by The Stoned Jester

[*Ryno*]

nope, only aids the onset of users who have pre-existing mental health issues or a family history of mental health issues. If you're gonna smoke Cannabis you need to do the research first into both the plant and your own background. And IMO, if it aids the onset by 2.7 years, well then there's an extra 2.7 years to find something to help manage it, and if its going to happen anyway, whats the big deal about it coming 2.7 years in advance? I know I would prefer to manage it sooner rather than later... but that's just me. Edited February 8, 2011 by *Ryno*

[phreakah]

I don't see the big issue - if you have a family history of mental illness, don't smoke much weed.

Same as if you have a family history of alcoholism, don't drink too much alcohol.

You should know pretty early on (within a year or so) if you are getting bad symptoms, and dose accordingly.

 

If you're predisposed to something, dont do something to aggrivate it.

[Chato]

I just started a new thread linking the news article that this thread is also partly based on i think. I should have checked the boards first before posting and probably should also merge/delete my thread but cuz i'm tired and already typing i'll say this for now.

 

"How long is a piece of string?"

 

"It's 2.7m's (or years) according to the experts...."

 

Pretty amazing they can narrow it down to that time-frame, wish they were half as good at predicting when me nan's cancer would strike rather than 2.9 yrs late...

 

20,000 patients seems like a decent number but far from conclusive and not a large enough base to draw a definitive scientific conclusion i would think? I'm not trying to argue the figures or how they were determined just how peeps can make such claims.

 

peace

c

[dani]

First of all I think it's amazing they, the experts, can pinpoint the early onset of mental illness supposedly caused by Marijuana to being within 2.7 years.

Nobody can deny some people should not drink, as they may be more likely to become alcoholics. Some people are more prone to lung, asthma or chest infections. These people should not smoke cigarettes or mix their MJ. These illnesses or the predisposition toward them is genetic.

So are most mental health issues.

Anybody with a history of mental health issues in the family, probably should not smoke Marijuana as it may trigger their pre-existing genetic condition.

It's easy to see physical illnesses and take precautions against this, however mental health issues are not always so easy to spot, so if this is triggered earlier by the use of MJ, i can't see this as being anything other than an early diagnosis for a pre-existing condition.

Having grown up with a close family member who is a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic, I have seen this first hand. It was not the MJ that gave him this illness. He inherited it from a parents side with a history of mental illness. It was the trauma in his life and prescribed drugs that did more damage than the Marijuana. The use of Marijuana allowed a bit of peace in the home, as it acted more as a calming agent, than the uppers and downers he was taking. He would still have been paranoid schizophrenic whether he smoked MJ or not though, it was just diagnosed earlier.

Please stop the mass hysteria and misrepresentation of Marijuana with such Bull statistics and biased reporting and start treating and funding mental health research the way it should and needs to be.

Edited February 8, 2011 by dani

[Nooby]

Umm, what are they saying? That EVERYONE goes psycho but if you smoke weed then you go psycho 2.7 years before everyone else???

 

 

I noted the abc news last night was harping on about some study from the university of NSW that 'proves' smoking weed makes teenagers go psycho too, of course they had the usual example of the ex-stoner who wet through a kilo a day from the age of 13 onwards....

 

:wallbash:

[jimbojones5678]

"It's 2.7m's (or years) according to the experts...."

 

Pretty amazing they can narrow it down to that time-frame, wish they were half as good at predicting when me nan's cancer would strike rather than 2.9 yrs late...

 

nice call chato.

 

Jimbo

[headhigh]

i believe the 2.9 figure was come to as an average amongst all the cases.

 

While they can never predict whats going to happen to any one person with such accuracy, comment can be made on the analysed trend from the data presented.

[Chato]

For sure Headhigh but they could do what most peeps would do in a similar statistical situation (and especially in the inexact science of future medical diagnosis!) and round the figure up or down imo.

 

peace

c

[headhigh]

Personally I think one of two things is happening;

 

1. Amateur "journalists" are attempting to interpret a scientific study and quite often mis quote and take results out of context to skew the results in which ever way they deem would best provide value to their career.

 

2. Figures are displayed in such a form that the author of the "scientific" paper has already had the conclusion delivered to them before any research has begun.

 

Value can be derived from statistical analysis of the data, but when results are taken out of context and delivered to mass audiences in a way that provokes no higher thought process it can be quite damaging to the cause.