Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Medicine Science

Daily Pot Use Tied To Age of First Psychotic Episode 382

Posted by Soulskill
from the exceeding-expectations dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Reuters reports, 'In a study of adults who experienced psychosis for the first time, having smoked marijuana daily was linked to an earlier age of onset of the disorder.' ..."This is not a study about the association between cannabis and psychosis, but about the association between specific patterns of cannabis use ... and an earlier onset of psychotic disorders,' Dr. Marta Di Forti, who led the research at the Institute of Psychiatry at Kings College, said in an email. Among more than 400 people in South London admitted to hospitals with a diagnosed psychotic episode, the study team found the heaviest smokers of high-potency cannabis averaged about six years younger than patients who had not been smoking pot. Psychosis is a general term for a loss of reality, and is associated with several psychiatric diseases, including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. ... "The thorny question is whether they might otherwise have developed the disease or would have not had mental illness. It's a distinction we haven't figured out yet," Compton said. ... It is still unclear whether there are safe levels of use for cannabis, she added. '"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Daily Pot Use Tied To Age of First Psychotic Episode

Comments Filter:
  • by TheRealMindChild (743925) on Saturday January 11, 2014 @02:12PM (#45927335) Homepage Journal
    Perhaps these folks were smoking that much pot as a coping means ("self medicating") because of their troubles, rather than pot causing the troubles
    • by dyingtolive (1393037) <brad.arnett@NosPam.notforhire.org> on Saturday January 11, 2014 @02:19PM (#45927383)
      I'm afraid that doesn't fit the narrative.
      • by king neckbeard (1801738) on Saturday January 11, 2014 @02:33PM (#45927457)
        How do you figure that? I'm pretty sure that these conditions exist in some state prior to one's first episode. There's also the fact that this particular pattern might select itself for certain demographics more than others, and the environment they are in might contain factors that do influence this.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
          methinks your sarcasm detector is busted.
      • by Curtman (556920) * on Saturday January 11, 2014 @03:07PM (#45927697)
        Marijuana use has increased drastically since the 1920's, from thousands to millions. There is no corresponding increase in psychosis. Does that fit your narrative?
        • by Nutria (679911)

          There is no corresponding increase in psychosis.

          And you know this exactly how?

          • by Curtman (556920) * on Saturday January 11, 2014 @03:33PM (#45927831)
            It's been documented in may places.

            Decline in the Incidence of Schizophrenia in Finnish Cohorts Born From 1954 to 1965 [jamanetwork.com]

            If there was a causal link between marijuana use and schizophrenia for example, there would be an increase that could be shown in historical data. The evidence instead suggests that maybe some people have been successful at self-medicating.
            • by TsuruchiBrian (2731979) on Saturday January 11, 2014 @04:02PM (#45928041)
              Not necessarily. It could be that marijuana increase schizophrenia, and some other factor decreases schizophrenia fore than marijuana increases it. I'm not saying this is the case, but you can't just look at a period where schizophrenia decreased and say that everything that increased in that time period can't be increasing schizophrenia.
              • by Curtman (556920) * on Saturday January 11, 2014 @04:14PM (#45928103)
                If the incidence of schizophrenia decreases during the same period as marijuana usage increases, it becomes very difficult to show a causal link. That's the situation this discussion leads to. Incidence of schizophrenia should follow the increase in marijuana use when plotted against time, it doesnt. It's inverse.
            • by Luckyo (1726890)

              Finns use alcohol heavily, but marijuana usage in the country is fairly low and stable afaik. If anything, that would suggest that alcohol isn't inducing schizophrenia. Which is pretty unlikely to be true.

              Study itself makes it clear that they assume that certain factors causing the mental illness have declined. Perhaps it's the brutality of life, and not needing to worry about tomorrow? We do have quite a bit better social security network around here than before WW2 for example.

              • by Curtman (556920) * on Saturday January 11, 2014 @05:01PM (#45928343)

                Is schizophrenia on the decline in Canada? [nih.gov]
                The preliminary comparison showed a 42% decrease in the number of first-admission schizophrenia cases over 20 years. In the main study, the annual inpatient prevalence rates decreased significantly (52%) from 1986 to 1996 with no corresponding change in outpatient rates, regardless of sex. Although total major affective disorders increased, this was due to an increase in major depression, not bipolar disorder.
                This is the first Canadian case-register study to support the widely reported falling rates of schizophrenia in other parts of the world over the last 40 years. Since this is a geographically limited prevalence study based on only 10 years of data, further research over longer periods of time in other regions of the country is required to support or refute these findings.

                Canadian teens lead developed world in cannabis use: Unicef report [theglobeandmail.com]
                This is the second time in a row that the WHO study has ranked Canadian teenagers as the highest cannabis users, though the percentage of teens itself has dropped. In 2002, the same survey showed that 37.5 per cent of 15-year-olds in Canada had used cannabis in the past year.

                Etc...

        • Let's be fair here. In the 1920s up through the 1950s/1960s, it was fairly common for a man to have a bitchy wife be committed to a mental hospital, and in the 1940s/1950s they were even labotomized for "anxiety and agitation".

          There may have, in fact, been lower rates of psychosis in the 1920s onwards until the 1960s/1970s, but given the diagnoses at the time, it'd hard to ever be sure or be able to draw a direct comparison.
        • I never said it was MY narrative.
    • by Zakabog (603757) <john.jmaug@com> on Saturday January 11, 2014 @02:52PM (#45927601)

      From the article -

      But the evidence has been unclear. For example, one recent study from the Netherlands found it's equally possible that people prone to psychosis may be more likely to smoke pot, possibly as a way of "self-medicating" (see Reuters Health article of December 25, 2012, here: http://reut.rs/1d7aIvU [reut.rs])

    • Perhaps they became paranoid because "the man" was really out to get them.

    • by Baloroth (2370816)

      Perhaps these folks were smoking that much pot as a coping means ("self medicating") because of their troubles, rather than pot causing the troubles

      Possibly, but that doesn't fully explain why people who smoked pot at an earlier age (under 15) were more likely to have psychotic episodes at an earlier age, nor why those who smoked stronger pot in larger quantities were also more likely to experience such episodes. The study found both effects [oxfordjournals.org]. And since the study focused on people who had psychotic episodes in the first place (i.e. people who likely had mental issues to start with), it's unlikely self-medication is the explanation. Possible, of course,

      • by mcgrew (92797) *

        If group A's symptoms start earlier than group B and both self-medicate, group A will self-medicate first.

        And there may be no causality at all. A third factor may trigger both schitzophrenia and marijuana use in some group of people.

        Obviously, more study is needed.

      • by denzacar (181829)

        Obviously, we'd need a study that has people smoke pot with a control group that doesn't smoke pot to be sure, but that might never happen due to legal and ethical concerns.

        That's easy.
        Just check the records of all psychotics who haven't smoked pot prior to their first episode - then compare their ages.

        Actually, that's EXACTLY what the did in this study.

        The earliest onset was seen among those who used high-potency cannabis daily - on average their first psychosis was 6 years earlier than for non-users.

        And since the study focused on people who had psychotic episodes in the first place (i.e. people who likely had mental issues to start with), it's unlikely self-medication is the explanation. Possible, of course, but unlikely.

        Why would it be unlikely?
        Under the assumption that the psychotic episode has an underlying cause other than just smoking pot, they could have been treating that underlying cause by self-medicating with pot.

        As for the study we'd need (har-har), it would have to include many thousands of children who would be separated into seve

    • Perhaps these folks were smoking that much pot as a coping means ("self medicating") because of their troubles, rather than pot causing the troubles

      Already mentioned in TFA:

      But the evidence has been unclear. For example, one recent study from the Netherlands found it's equally possible that people prone to psychosis may be more likely to smoke pot, possibly as a way of "self-medicating" (see Reuters Health article of December 25, 2012, here: http://reut.rs/1d7aIvU [reut.rs])

      • Yes. Unsurprising.

        I suspect there is another, much more insidious link, and it's along the lines of the withdrawal (period of increased likelihood of suicide) associated with the cold turkey withdrawal from multiple other prescription mood amplifiers.

        Likely because it's supply is principally illegal, there are times when the days medication is unavailable.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by mcgrew (92797) *

          I suspect there is another, much more insidious link, and it's along the lines of the withdrawal (period of increased likelihood of suicide) associated with the cold turkey withdrawal from multiple other prescription mood amplifiers.

          Dude, we're talking about POT, not heroin or cocaine or alcohol or tobacco. Pot is not addictive. One can of course be habituated; if I'm used to having a glass of orange juice every morning for five years and then there's none, I'm going to miss it. If I'm clinically depressed

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I used to smoke pot a lot in my mid teens (in the 80's). One time I had a very scary panic attack while in school after smoking some at the bus stop. I didn't know it was a panic attack at the time because I never had one and did not know what the hell was going on. I was able to play it off as I was just sick but it scared the shit out of me and they sent me home. Where I lived people were more accepting of pot use so the school nurse probably suspected drugs but just let it ride. My mom knew I smoked

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by SpankiMonki (3493987)

        This just in:

        Heavy adolescent pot use (particularly the high-potency "purple erkle thunderskunk" variety) can cause the premature loss of the ability to form paragraphs.

        (sorry, but I couldn't resist)

  • This just in... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wiredlogic (135348) on Saturday January 11, 2014 @02:13PM (#45927351)

    People with addictive personalities more prone to mental problems. Who'd have thunk?

    • Re:This just in... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sg_oneill (159032) on Saturday January 11, 2014 @02:35PM (#45927467)

      People with addictive personalities more prone to mental problems. Who'd have thunk?

      Or , ya know, you could actually read the article. Its not about how prone someone is, its when the symptoms start. Schizophrenia shows early symptoms in childhood, and if you've got it, you will succumb to psychosis eventually. Whats happening here is the pot smokers are succumbing earlier. This wont affect most people, but those who are succeptible, perhaps pots a bad idea. The trick scientifically is identifying those in danger.

      • Re:This just in... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by JoeMerchant (803320) on Saturday January 11, 2014 @02:56PM (#45927633)

        But, is it the THC, or the lack of social support and constant surreptitious activity required to obtain and use pot that leads to earlier onset?

        Put another way, would the same thing have been found in a study of alcohol use during prohibition? Or, will the same study replicated today in Colorado, have different findings?

         

        • by pspahn (1175617)

          Simple, do the study here in Denver where people smoke openly and have no worries about "constant surreptitious activity".

        • by mcgrew (92797) *

          I would think it's likely a combination.

      • Or , ya know, you could actually read the article. Its not about how prone someone is, its when the symptoms start. Schizophrenia shows early symptoms in childhood, and if you've got it, you will succumb to psychosis eventually.

        Hhhm, I didn't see that in the article.

      • Parent post as well as several others are missing an obvious key piece of information:

        This is not about typical pot smokers. This is about persons who get stoned every day (and some are probably somewhat stoned every waking minute).

        Being stoned most all the time is of itself aberrant behavior, so its association with other aberrant behaviors that cause a diagnosis of psychosis should not be a surprise. A useful conjecture is that there may be a single underlying cause that can lead to chronic marijuana ab

        • Re:This just in... (Score:4, Interesting)

          by mcgrew (92797) * on Saturday January 11, 2014 @05:20PM (#45928465) Homepage Journal

          I've seen no studies, but I know a lot of pot smokers and it's all over the board. Some smoke rarely, some grab the bong before they're out of bed. I'd say there are a lot of daily smokers, though, most working-class (construction, factory) folks I know are sober all day, come home, eat dinner, then smoke a few hitters and drink a few beers while watching the tube.

          As Oscar Wilde said, "Work is the curse of the drinking class."

      • by quantaman (517394)

        People with addictive personalities more prone to mental problems. Who'd have thunk?

        Or , ya know, you could actually read the article. Its not about how prone someone is, its when the symptoms start. Schizophrenia shows early symptoms in childhood, and if you've got it, you will succumb to psychosis eventually. Whats happening here is the pot smokers are succumbing earlier. This wont affect most people, but those who are succeptible, perhaps pots a bad idea. The trick scientifically is identifying those in danger.

        I'm not sure the OP is wrong, or that this shows the pot is harmful.

        As you said the pot isn't causing the schizophrenia because the schizophrenia is there already, it's just correlated with an earlier onset of psychosis. So this is consistent with people who have a more severe form of the disorder self-medicating to cope, it's also consistent with people having other emotional issues that make them more prone to both pot use and psychosis.

        The 6 years is a big number so assuming their numbers are good a caus

  • by gl4ss (559668) on Saturday January 11, 2014 @02:15PM (#45927359) Homepage Journal

    ..there probably isn't a "safe use level".

    however, and here is the big thing, the thing to test against should be daily alcohol use of comparable amount - or if possible, test against whichever it is the people choose if they have both options available.

    though, I'd reckon that if you're likely to have psychosis of some sort you're already more likely to be choosing to be a fucking _daily_ pot smoker for 20 years - if you get little crazy from being high 20 years that's not even news - but that is not the point, you go pretty fucked just from drinking 8 beers a day for 20 years too...

    • There certainly wasn't a "safe use level" of LSD - just ask the Dead Heads serving mandatory minimum sentences.

      • by ihtoit (3393327)

        I think I'd rather ask Dr. Leary or Dr. Hofmann.

        Who both and independently not only worked out the threshold dose through self-experimentation, using the same methods they also discovered what are even now considered the Holy Bible of lethal dose and one of the few successful chemical interventions to treat alcoholism.

        • by mcgrew (92797) *

          Holy Bible of lethal dose

          Now I'm intrigued, I thought there was no lethal dose of LSD; at least, that's what I've read. Do you have a link?

          Speaking of LSD which is only kinda on topic, let me bring it squarely on-topic: how many of these folks that were studied for pot were indulging in other drugs as well? LSD can cause psychotic episodes in otherwise mentally healthy people, it's doom for someone prone to schitzophrenia. It's been my experience that crazy people usually don't stick to a single drug. One t

      • There certainly wasn't a "safe use level" of LSD

        Being a successful professional, a great husband and father, making inroads to becoming a moderately successful author (see sig), and having used LSD extensively for the past 16 years, I must respectfully disagree vehemently with that statement...

    • by mcgrew (92797) *

      ..there probably isn't a "safe use level".

      What's the "safe use level" of peanuts? My daughter is allergic to them, they can kill her.

      If there's heart disease in your family, you might want to exercise a little and watch what you eat. If there's cancer in your family you might want to avoid gasoline, tobacco, nail polish, hair dye, and other carcinogens.

      If there's mental illness in your family, you might want to avoid substances and situations that affect the brain. What's so hard to understand?

  • Reefer madness? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 11, 2014 @02:23PM (#45927403)

    It's strange timing that this study is being released around the time Colorado has fully legalized pot, Washington is well on their way to doing so, and you can get "medical marijuana" in other states.

    I'm not sure what the motivation is. Personally, I don't see a very good future for the middle class (automation of pretty much every job is coming,) so it would seem that it would be in everyone's best interest to keep most of the unemployed population stoned every day to reduce petty crime. I guess I'm just a pessimist though.

    The whole war on drugs thing just needs to be dropped. Let everyone have whatever they want and plow the money you were putting into police and prisons into treatment programs for people who voluntarily want to stop.

    CAPTCHA: syringe. Holy coincidence!

    • Re:Reefer madness? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by fustakrakich (1673220) on Saturday January 11, 2014 @02:33PM (#45927449) Journal

      The whole war on drugs thing just needs to be dropped.

      Why do you want to kill a golden goose? Join the dark side of prohibition and make billions.

      • by mcgrew (92797) *

        There's got to be a "slip through your fingers" joke there somewhere but I'm too stoned to think one up.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Uberbah (647458)

      Personally, I don't see a very good future for the middle class (automation of pretty much every job is coming,)

      Not so much automation as executive greed. The superrich have created a system where not only do they not have to worry about the state of the society in which they live, but where they profit in times of booms and busts. Reap the windfall of the housing boom, get bailed out when it tanks, and then snap up real estate to resell or rent.

      • by drinkypoo (153816)

        The superrich have created a system where not only do they not have to worry about the state of the society in which they live, but where they profit in times of booms and busts.

        That's one of the ways in which capitalism is inherently unfair anyway. The more money you have, the more money you can make, leading to a runaway condition.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Nutria (679911)

          capitalism is inherently unfair

          Yes, capitalism is unfair. Sadly, all other economic systems -- when implemented in large scale, and in the real world -- are even less fair. Otherwise, the Soviet Union would have survived while the US collapsed.

          • Re:Reefer madness? (Score:4, Insightful)

            by ultranova (717540) on Saturday January 11, 2014 @04:04PM (#45928051)

            Yes, capitalism is unfair. Sadly, all other economic systems -- when implemented in large scale, and in the real world -- are even less fair. Otherwise, the Soviet Union would have survived while the US collapsed.

            So maximum fairness is the same as maximum efficiency, the only difference between SU and US was the economic system, and there are only two possible economic systems?

            Nice logic.

            • by Nutria (679911)

              So maximum fairness is the same as maximum efficiency

              Certainly I've never thought such an idea.

            • by tgv (254536)

              It's called utilitarianism, and it's the best way to guarantee a miserable life for the vast majority. People who advocate it, should be sent back to the 19th century and forced to live in an orphanage. Or they could read Dickens, and see the errors of their ways.

            • by tftp (111690)

              Note that USSR was not known for any fairness, anywhere. Every worker within a class (with few exceptions) was paid the same regardless of his skills, talent and output. An illiterate worker at the factory was earning more than a scientist. A political worker, who made no products and wasn't even good at management, was showered with money and perks. USSR was anything but fair, and that's why people ran away from it whenever they could; and that's why when USSR fell nobody shed a tear for the venerable Com

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by JoeMerchant (803320)

      Climate deniers aren't the only ones who cherry-pick "scientific studies" for publicity campaigns.

      • by ihtoit (3393327)

        I'm sorry, but I'm not going to start using the latest study on the feeding habits of the lesser spotted hippokangorocibull to debunk that which has already been debunked just to satisfy your preposterous appetite for the absurd.

    • Two things:

      1) There have always been marijuana studies (see here for a sampling [procon.org]). You must not have noticed them before.
      2) You will see more studies in the future, because with it legalized, it is easier to study.
    • It's strange timing that this study is being released around the time Colorado has fully legalized pot, Washington is well on their way to doing so, and you can get "medical marijuana" in other states.

      I'm not sure what the motivation is.

      The motivation appears to be for British scientists to conduct research into important medical issues, such as mental illness, and how what are known to be psychoactive drugs interact or influence it. Sometimes science finds a potential problem with habits, foods, or substances you enjoy. Sometimes it provides substitutes, sometimes it can cut the harm, sometimes it recommends avoiding it.

    • Re:Reefer madness? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by pspahn (1175617) on Saturday January 11, 2014 @04:48PM (#45928293)

      Speaking of side effects of the War on Drugs, there was an interesting story the other night on the news in Denver.

      A lot of pot shops are employing military grade security personnel to protect them these days. Granted, one of the most likely reasons is that this is a cash based business (the only non-cash transactions are based on creative use of ATMs), so there is motivation from others to rip them off on their way to deposit their monies. However, it is clear that the need for such specially trained security is due to the fact that pot was illegal for so long and run by the black market. Now you have those same thugs trying to rip off these businesses trying to get their hands on the product so they can take it back to the black market.

      Had there not been a War on Drugs in the first place, there really wouldn't be this need for such high security at these shops.

      Of course, on the other hand, it has helped to improve our local economy. I would say that I have approximately 20 friends that I see on a regular basis. Out of those 20, nearly half of them are employed directly by pot facilities, and several more are employed indirectly by businesses that have pot shops as clients.

      There are many effects the War on Drugs has had on our society, and most of those effects are not going to be known until the War on Drugs ceases to exist.

  • adding up (Score:2, Insightful)

    Figure adding oxidant stress and hallucinogens on top of self selection, combined with a reporting bias. Honest study would give us better information to choose exposures and risks as individuals. Drug prohibition was a failure, as is a welfare state.
    • by mcgrew (92797) *

      Drug prohibition was a failure, as is a welfare state.

      Indeed, but the welfare state was at the wrong time in the wrong circumstances. Already 1% of the population are farmworkers, who feed everyone. When mechanization makes 80% of the world's population unemployable, what then?

      There is enough food for everyone, yet people still go hungry. The failure is from greed; the bible was right. The love of money is indeed the root of all evil.

      I'd rather my taxes go to feeding people than killing them.

  • by SpankiMonki (3493987) on Saturday January 11, 2014 @02:33PM (#45927453)

    From TFA: [yahoo.com]

    The researchers surveyed 410 patients between the ages of 18 and 65, two thirds of them male, all of whom had a psychotic episode and were admitted to in-patient psychiatric units.

    I'm not a statisticianololgist, but passing out surveys to psychotic people in a mental hospital doesn't seem to me to be the best way to gather accurate data for a study.

    • by MisterSquid (231834) on Saturday January 11, 2014 @03:09PM (#45927701)

      From TFA: [yahoo.com]

      The researchers surveyed 410 patients between the ages of 18 and 65, two thirds of them male, all of whom had a psychotic episode and were admitted to in-patient psychiatric units.

      I'm not a statisticianololgist, but passing out surveys to psychotic people in a mental hospital doesn't seem to me to be the best way to gather accurate data for a study.

      This study's major flaw is that the researchers needed 10 more patients to pass the threshold for statistical relevance.

    • I'm not a statisticianololgist

      There's actually a job where you study people who do statistics?

    • Why are people who don't design surveys so ready to believe that people that DO design surveys have *never thought* that the respondent may be unreliable?

    • by ljw1004 (764174)

      I'm not a statisticianololgist, but passing out surveys to psychotic people in a mental hospital doesn't seem to me to be the best way to gather accurate data for a study.

      Really? I think it's the *BEST* way to gather the information this study needs.

      How would it be inaccurate? They're comparing subgroups of psychotic people so inaccuracies will cancel each other out. Unless you believe there's an inverse correlation between pot use and reported pot use?

  • by bogaboga (793279) on Saturday January 11, 2014 @02:41PM (#45927501)

    And this is because this research doesn't answer the following question:

    Can we be sure that even though psychosis manifested itself earlier in the subject population, it (psychosis), still maifested itself later in this particular group?

    In otherwords, can we be sure that pot use in this specific group didn't delay psychosis even though on average, psychosis came earlier as compared to the other group?

    I know of folks who use pot daily. They are now in their late 90s. One could argue that pot is responsible for their delayed psychosis if at all, no?

    • There is never certainty for causation, only coincidence in correlation - collect enough coincidences and even critics concede and concur.

    • Not worthless, but I agree they weren't ready for peer review yet (or the long knives at /.) I agree they need to complete the comparisons with the particular groups and see if that leads to different conclusions.

      When I smoked pot in high school, it was fairly intense and scary, and I never had the slightest desire to use it every day. I would wonder whether people with early signs of psychosis simply find it less strange and less frightening. Simply not as different an experience. By analogy, Eskimos

      • You must not have done much. I knew pot heads; they were into it enough to know that not all Pot is the same and that a lot of Pot is NOT 100% pure. You may not have had the actual thing; it can come laced with other things. Some of these guys ended up into the other stuff later but not because Pot was the stepping stone; if anything was it was Tobacco, every single one I knew started with Tobacco. It was likely the laced stuff that got them into things they knew were dangerous (beyond Tobacco, contrary

    • Just because it's not 100% conclusive doesn't mean it's worthless. Very little science in any field is actually conclusive, especially studying humans, and especially especially studying human mental health. Studying humans is really difficult because you can't do experiments.

      For example, if you want to know how adolescent broken legs heal you can't just bring a hammer to an 11th grade class and go crazy. You can sit around a hospital asking 16-year-olds who broke their legs about what happened to them, but

  • So if I've already had my psychotic episode is it ok if I smoke?
  • I'd like to point out that, while I'm definitely lazier as a pothead, my instance count of psychotic episodes on average has dropped significantly. Like, I still need a low dose Buproprion that I'm not proud of, but pot brings about a mental stability (so long as it's not abused) that's just outright unmatched for some of us not born w/ all our neural systems up & running.
  • Illegal drugs make it easy for the police to plant evidence and pick up anyone at any time. The high prices that result from the illegality keep the cartels in business, which in turn, keeps congressional campaign coffers funded.

    If those in the federal government didn't know how unpleasant things are likely to get in the near future, there would be no legal pot in Colorado or anywhere else. It's now more valuable as a control tool. Should the economy tank, there will soon be cheap pot everywhere.

  • slowed down the onset of psychosis in the ones who got it and with out it they would have gotten it earlier. What if the rolling paper caused it or what if the pesticides did it?

  • It's well known that Mental Health is dominated in many ways by vested economic and political interests. It would be nice for the anti-drug lobby if research showed that drugs cause MH problems, so there is funding for that. It would be nice for Big Pharma if clinical trials show their next wonder drug works. Thus funding appears for such trials, and the ones with the desired results get published whilst others get shelved (though they need to take care not to make this too obvious).
  • Yes and no... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by f3rret (1776822) on Saturday January 11, 2014 @03:49PM (#45927965)

    While I am all for legalizing it, the article does have a point.

    I recall at least one British study looking at the link between cannabis and psychosis that found that strains with a high THC/other canabinoids ratio would cause tests subjects to score higher on at least one standard test questionnaire for psychosis, while subjects injected with a more 'natural' blend of THC and other canabinoids would tend to get a psychosis score not much different from them being sober.

    The conclusion as I recall was that there is some evidence that strains bred specifically for a high THC content could be more likely to cause psychotic event or temporary psychosis-like states.
    BBC did a documentary that filmed part of said study, here it is: http://youtu.be/ZGr0ne9FHOM [youtu.be]

  • Pot? (Score:4, Informative)

    by koan (80826) on Saturday January 11, 2014 @04:04PM (#45928053)

    Some of these guys are smoking high quality oil on titanium nails, that shit is potent (having smoked it myself) I stay away from it because it makes me useless, and then it makes my tolerance so high I can only get a buzz eating a 500mg 5150 bar.

    Just wait, someone is going to get it down to a THC powder, and then...

    I quit smoking not too long ago, I had sweats, irritability, and sleeplessness for ~2 weeks, this isn't 1960's pot.

  • Psychosis is a general term for a loss of reality, and is associated with several psychiatric diseases...

    "I reject your reality and substitute my own!"

  • Albeit I don't smoke pot, I can sort of relate to this. Let me see now...bipolar, slightly psychotic at times, paranoid as f**k, loss of reality? Check! Hey, maybe I really SHOULD smoke some pot once in a while, what do I got to lose?
  • by jddeluxe (965655) on Saturday January 11, 2014 @07:07PM (#45928991)
    I think the study was done with the express purpose of finding the indicated outcome, and statistically the sample size is insignificant and relies on non-empirical self-reporting; ergo I call B.S. spin...
    I've been vacationing in Jamaica since 1980, and have a circle of friends in Negril that do in fact smoke pot each and every day of their lives. I know some people from the time they were kids until grown and others from early adulthood to retirement age.
    Without conducting a "study", I can say after nearly 35 years of observation, the net effect of long term daily pot smoking would appear to be nil; people that are stable /unstable, crazy/pretty sane, serious/non-serious all seem to maintain their individual personality traits long term irrespective of their ganga usage.

"If truth is beauty, how come no one has their hair done in the library?" -- Lily Tomlin

Working...