Supposed Cannabis And Schizophrenia Link “Overstated”

[skunk]

Supposed Marijuana And Schizophrenia Link “Overstated” (http://blog.norml.org/2010/02/16/supposed-marijuana-and-schizophrenia-link-%E2%80%9Coverstated%E2%80%9D/)

Related thread :)

Skunk linked to huge increase in risk of psychotic disease (http://amkon.net/skunk-linked-huge-increase-t23664.html?t=23664)

Does this mean killer skunk is not actually a killer?

We conclude that the strongest evidence of a possible causal relation between cannabis use and schizophrenia emerged more than 20 years ago and that the strength of more recent evidence may have been overstated—for a number of possible reasons.

Clinical evidence indicating that marijuana use may be casually linked to incidences of schizophrenia or other psychological harms is not compelling, according to a scientific review published online by the journal Addiction (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/123278062/abstract).

Investigators at the University of Bristol, Department of Social Medicine assessed the potential health risks of cannabis, particularly whether use of the drug may be causally linked with mental illness.

Authors wrote: “We continue to take the view that the evidence that cannabis use causes schizophrenia is neither very new, nor by normal criteria, particularly compelling. … For example, our recent modeling suggests that we would need to prevent between 3000 and 5000 cases of heavy cannabis use among young men and women to prevent one case of schizophrenia, and that four or five times more young people would need to avoid light cannabis use to prevent a single schizophrenia case. … We conclude that the strongest evidence of a possible causal relation between cannabis use and schizophrenia emerged more than 20 years ago and that the strength of more recent evidence may have been overstated.”

In 2007, an analysis in the British medical journal The Lancet (http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20070726/pot-now-psychotic-later) estimated that experimenting with marijuana could increase one’s risk of developing a psychotic illness later in life by some 40 percent. Following this report, Parliament in 2008 voted to reclassify marijuana as a Class B substance, making its possession punishable by up to five years in prison.

University of Bristol researchers also criticized Parliament’s reclassification of the drug (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/drugs/drugs-law/cannabis-reclassification/), which took effect earlier this year. They concluded: “The only important possible benefit of prohibition is prevention of cannabis use. There is little or no evidence that it effectively achieves this benefit. Patterns of cannabis use in the population appear to be independent of the policy surrounding use, and criminalizing individual cannabis users does not appear to modify their use in a healthy way.”

Overall, investigators determined that marijuana’s most significant health risk was its association and reinforcement with tobacco smoking.

[Paroxysm]

http://www.healthcentral.com/common/images/1/17236_10640_5.jpg



I think IEF may be a 'paranoid schizophrenic'....:(






..

[anarch]

Ain't you ever watched "reefer madness"? Everyone knows smoking pot leads to eating babies and bathing sandwiches.

[Snow Crash]

http://www.healthcentral.com/common/images/1/17236_10640_5.jpg


..

Why does that look like a handy list of issues lable people who ask awkward questions with?

[Paroxysm]

Can THC Help Some Schizophrenics?

http://iblowminds.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/smoking-pot.jpg
Report cites "grossly psychotic, assaultive," schizophrenic "became calm, logical, nonviolent and cooperative within days" after taking THC.



June 5, 2009 | The surprising finding that THC might help at least a small percentage of schizophrenia patients for whom conventional treatments have failed was reported in the June issue of the Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology.

This is surprising because, as the British government’s Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs reported last year, "there is clear evidence that the use of cannabis may worsen the symptoms of schizophrenia and lead to relapse." The ACMD -- a far more objective body than any U.S. government outfit remotely connected to drug policy -- did not consider marijuana to be a significant cause of psychosis in otherwise healthy people; its report reflects a broad consensus that marijuana (and specifically THC) can worsen the prognosis of schizophrenics or those with a genetic vulnerability to schizophrenia.

But doctors at the Rockland Psychiatric Center in Orangeburg, N.Y., reviewing the records of one severely ill patient -- a man who was "grossly psychotic, assaultive, disorganized" and not responding to conventional treatment -- noticed that he had a history of "calm behavior when he was using marijuana." So as an experiment, they prescribed THC capsules (dronabinol, brand name Marinol).

"Remarkably," they write, "he became calm, logical, nonviolent, and cooperative within days and was discharged within weeks."

They then tried the same thing with five other patients with a similar history -- unresponsive to conventional treatments but showing some signs of improvement when they smoked marijuana. Three of these "improved to a clinically significant extent," one showed no significant change, and one got somewhat worse. That’s a remarkable level of success in chronically ill patients for whom conventional anti-psychotic drugs had failed, "in which success with any intervention might be unlikely."

The article goes on to lay out some possible explanations, but at this point no one knows for sure why this small group of psychotic patients had an anomalous and positive reaction to THC. What is clear is that the relationship of cannabinoids to schizophrenia is more complex and variable than even many experts -- much less anti-marijuana propagandists – have acknowledged.


http://www.alternet.org/drugs/140476/can_thc_help_some_schizophrenics/

[skunk]

The study in question:

How ideology shapes the evidence and the policy: what do we know about cannabis use and what should we do? (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/123278062/HTMLSTART)

[Alessandra]

needs moar study

[Paroxysm]

The study in question:

How ideology shapes the evidence and the policy: what do we know about cannabis use and what should we do? (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/123278062/HTMLSTART)



In our view, the main reason to prevent cannabis use is to prevent young people smoking the tobacco they smoke typically with cannabis and whose continued use appears to be reinforced by their use of cannabis [39].

LOLWUT

Wouldn't it make more sense to make cigarettes illegal, and cannabis legal...then promote the use of cannabis while condemning the use of a carcinogen containing product?

[skunk]

I don't think it makes sense for either plants to be illegal.

[Paroxysm]

What about BPA?


Not exactly a plant, but possibly responsible for just as much cancer as cigarettes over the last decade.

[skunk]

Heck, why not? We should be using natural plastics anyway :).

[Cogburn]

Chorlton's not here. Thread doesn't count.

[skunk]

I hope that limey bastard is doing alright. Some good ol' killer skunk would probably relieve some of his pain...If only he wasn't such a stubborn bastard.

[Paroxysm]

Heck, why not? We should be using natural plastics anyway :).

Well I'll be damned...

Got Hope? Obama’s FDA Finally Decides to Study BPA:


Bisphenol A: Should there be laws?
January 16, 2010

The Food and Drug Administration's about-face on the chemical bisphenol A (BPA) (http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-fda-bpa16-2010jan16,0,3811446.story), which is used to harden the plastic of sippy cups and baby bottles and to seal the inside of tin cans, could spur the adoption of bills in the California Legislature and U.S. Congress to restrict the chemical.

Despite a 2008 determination under President George W. Bush that the chemical was safe, the Obama administration said Friday that it would spend $30 million to study the effects of BPA. which has been linked to early puberty, obesity, breast cancer and neurological and behavioral changes.

California bills to curb BPA use have been defeated (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bpa10-2009sep10,0,4019330.story) in recent years. Canada, Connecticut, Minnesota and Chicago have placed restrictions on use of the substance. About 30 states and municipalities have bills pending to restrict BPA.

The FDA announcement "is hopefully the start of comprehensive regulation of this dangerous chemical," said state Sen. Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills), author of Senate Bill 797, the Toxin-free Toddlers and Babies Act, which, in conjunction with the California Green Chemistry Initiative (http://articles.latimes.com/2008/dec/17/local/me-green-chemistry17), seeks to ban the use of BPA in food and beverage containers for children younger than 3 in California. Pavley said she is "battling the powerful chemical industry," which has defeated previous bills.

In a statement reacting to the FDA decision, the American Chemistry Council said it was disappointed in some of the agency's conclusions. "Extensive scientific studies have shown that BPA is quickly metabolized and excreted and does not accumulate in the body. ... Plastics made with BPA contribute safety and convenience to our daily lives because of their durability, clarity and shatter-resistance."

Consumers checking whether plastic items contain BPA should look for the number "7" at the bottom of the container, an indicator used for recycling.

-- Margot Roosevelt

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2010/01/bpa-bisphenol-baby-bottles-fda-chemicals.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+GreenspaceEnvironmentBlog+(Gree nspace)&utm_content=Google+Reader

[skunk]

I'll believe it when I see it. His justice department also claimed they wouldn't raid dispensaries (and homes) operating under state law, but that's not the case.

His DEA head is also a bush-era holdout.

Feature: Obama Nominates Drug Warrior Michele Leonhart to Head DEA -- Reformers Gird for Battle (http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/618/obama_nominates_michele_leonhart_dea_adminstrator)

Now that's change we can count on!

[Cogburn]

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

The October 19, 2009 memo stated that they were going to leave the decision to US Attorneys General to ask for DEA "assistance" with enforcement efforts.

If dispensaries are still being raided, it's at the behest of the state itself or an US AG.


October 19,2009

MEMORANDUM FOR SELECTED UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS

FROM: David W. Ogden, Deputy Attorney General

SUBJECT: Investigations and Prosecutions in States Authorizing the Medical Use of Marijuana

This memorandum provides clarification and guidance to federal prosecutors in States that have enacted laws authorizing the medical use of marijuana. These laws vary in their substantive provisions and in the extent of state regulatory oversight, both among the enacting States and among local jurisdictions within those States. Rather than developing different guidelines for every possible variant of state and local law, this memorandum provides uniform guidance to focus federal investigations and prosecutions in these States on core federal enforcement priorities.

The Department of Justice is committed to the enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act in all States. Congress has determined that marijuana is a dangerous drug, and the illegal distribution and sale of marijuana is a serious crime and provides a significant source of revenue to large-scale criminal enterprises, gangs, and cartels. One timely example underscores the importance of our efforts to prosecute significant marijuana traffickers: marijuana distribution in the United States remains the single largest source of revenue for the Mexican cartels.

The Department is also committed to making efficient and rational use of its limited investigative and prosecutorial resources. In general, United States Attorneys are vested with “plenary authority with regard to federal criminal matters” within their districts. USAM 9-2.001. In exercising this authority, United States Attorneys are “invested by statute and delegation from the Attorney General with the broadest discretion in the exercise of such authority.” Id. This authority should, of course, be exercised consistent with Department priorities and guidance.

The prosecution of significant traffickers of illegal drugs, including marijuana, and the disruption of illegal drug manufacturing and trafficking networks continues to be a core priority in the Department’s efforts against narcotics and dangerous drugs, and the Department’s investigative and prosecutorial resources should be directed towards these objectives. As a general matter, pursuit of these priorities should not focus federal resources in your States on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana. For example, prosecution of individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law, or those caregivers in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law who provide such individuals with marijuana, is unlikely to be an efficient use of limited federal resources. On the other hand, prosecution of commercial enterprises that unlawfully market and sell marijuana for profit continues to be an enforcement priority of the Department. To be sure, claims of compliance with state or local law may mask operations inconsistent with the terms, conditions, or purposes of those laws, and federal law enforcement should not be deterred by such assertions when otherwise pursuing the Department’s core enforcement priorities.

Typically, when any of the following characteristics is present, the conduct will not be in clear and unambiguous compliance with applicable state law and may indicate illegal drug trafficking activity of potential federal interest:

unlawful possession or unlawful use of firearms;
violence;
sales to minors;
financial and marketing activities inconsistent with the terms, conditions, or purposes of state law, including evidence of money laundering activity and/or financial gains or excessive amounts of cash inconsistent with purported compliance with state or local law;
amounts of marijuana inconsistent with purported compliance with state or local law;
illegal possession or sale of other controlled substances; or
ties to other criminal enterprises.
Of course, no State can authorize violations of federal law, and the list of factors above is not intended to describe exhaustively when a federal prosecution may be warranted. Accordingly, in prosecutions under the Controlled Substances Act, federal prosecutors are not expected to charge, prove, or otherwise establish any state law violations. Indeed, this memorandum does not alter in any way the Department’s authority to enforce federal law, including laws prohibiting the manufacture, production, distribution, possession, or use of marijuana on federal property. This guidance regarding resource allocation does not “legalize” marijuana or provide a legal defense to a violation of federal law, nor is it intended to create any privileges, benefits, or rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any individual, party or witness in any administrative, civil, or criminal matter. Nor does clear and unambiguous compliance with state law or the absence of one or all of the above factors create a legal defense to a violation of the Controlled Substances Act. Rather, this memorandum is intended solely as a guide to the exercise of investigative and prosecutorial discretion.

Finally, nothing herein precludes investigation or prosecution where there is a reasonable basis to believe that compliance with state law is being invoked as a pretext for the production or distribution of marijuana for purposes not authorized by state law. Nor does this guidance preclude investigation or prosecution, even when there is clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law, in particular circumstances where investigation or prosecution otherwise serves important federal interests.

Your offices should continue to review marijuana cases for prosecution on a case-by-case basis, consistent with the guidance on resource allocation and federal priorities set forth herein, the consideration of requests for federal assistance from state and local law enforcement authorities, and the Principles of Federal Prosecution.

cc: All United States Attorneys

Lanny A. Breuer
Assistant Attorney General Criminal Division

B. Todd Jones
United States Attorney
District of Minnesota
Chair, Attorney General’s Advisory Committee

Michele M. Leonhart
Acting Administrator
Drug Enforcement Administration

H. Marshall Jarrett
Director
Executive Office for United States Attorneys

Kevin L. Perkins
Assistant Director
Criminal Investigative Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation

[skunk]

Whatever happened to that 10th amendment case?

[WhispersInTheDark]

More THC provides more potential for people with a chemical predisposition to schizophrenia to manifest it in a strong way... "individual results may vary".

However in many years of clinical observation (me observing others more than me observing self, or others observing me or themselves or others, follow that please) two things I would conform:

1. Human motivation (to do anything requiring planning and effort) is reduced.
2. The human cognitive function of short term memory is fucked.

Nothing new under the sun, better go hydroponic eh.

[skunk]

More THC provides more potential for people with a chemical predisposition to schizophrenia to manifest it in a strong way... "individual results may vary".

I can buy that, but to say cannabis causes schizophrenia is a huge stretch.

[Paroxysm]

http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2009/2/17/633704346844516710-marijuana.jpg

[Alessandra]

I'd go there.

[Paroxysm]

Why don't you slip into something more comfortable, and meet me around back...


http://forum.grasscity.com/photopost/data/500/14242weed_bikini.jpg

[lala]

Something came up about this when there study was complete . . . The goverment decided NOT to take the advice of there prominent British scientists . . . . They fired the head scientist, and went again everything him and his team advised . . . cos they can!!!!
So its based on lies . . . . :D

U.K. Drug Adviser Fired After Marijuana comments
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114335303

[RubyRocket]

believe what you will..but my ex, smoked up since he was 16, and he was fine for many years.
now at 43..he's schizo..big time.
one more fuck up, and he'll be locked away for a good long time.
could be coincidence..

[skunk]

He would have been schizophrenic with or without the pot.

[GeneralStriker]

believe what you will..but my ex, smoked up since he was 16, and he was fine for many years.
now at 43..he's schizo..big time.
one more fuck up, and he'll be locked away for a good long time.
could be coincidence..Ultimately dope will fuck up your mind.

[Paroxysm]

So what caused your schizophrenia General?

Did you smoke too much Cannabis? Maybe too much crack? Maybe too much LSD with Ram Dass back @ Berkley?

[GeneralStriker]

Well- I definitely smoked a lot of grass and dropped lots of acid back in the day. Haven't tried crack yet and probably never will. Maybe you can enlighten us as to the effects of that stuff. But exactly what it is that causes you to think I'm schizophrenic?

[Paroxysm]

Just a snide reference to your use of numerous socks here @ AmKon.


Why the need for so many?

Oh...that's right...you might have a need to cover your 5 feet.

What is the benefit of having 5 feet? How fast can you run?

[GeneralStriker]

I guess I just like socks. Maybe it's a fetish. I'll take it up with EIF and get back to ya.

[lala]

believe what you will..but my ex, smoked up since he was 16, and he was fine for many years.
now at 43..he's schizo..big time.
one more fuck up, and he'll be locked away for a good long time.
could be coincidence..


Thats sad, but did he just use just dope or did he use any alcohol or class A drugs !!!
I have a lot of friends that have use pot for more than 20yrs why aren't they all "schizo"?
Out of all the drugs pot is one of the few drugs that will not kill brain cells, god just look at what long term use of alcohol does to the brain, now that is nasty. Let alone meth, or class A . . .
Most people that have years of drug abuse, are never on just one drug, they mixing anything they can get there hands on . . . .

[skunk]

Ultimately dope will fuck up your mind.

Now where have I heard that before?

Oh right, the same bullshit drug warriors have been pushing for the past 70 years, and is equally untrue today as it was back then.

http://www.building-block.org/reefer-madness-poster.jpg

[Cogburn]

But exactly what it is that causes you to think I'm schizophrenic?

Oh, I dunno.... (http://amkon.net/search.php?do=finduser&u=1044)

[skunk]

A sock for every mood (personality) perhaps?

[skunk]

Bump for chorlton. Killer skunk is back.

[GeneralStriker]

fuck it. he gave it up for chocolate.

[Chorlton]

Bump for chorlton. Killer skunk is back.

As I stated before you perpetrated that lie.
I never EVER stated it was 'Killer Skunk' that was your invention not mine, and well you know it.

I stated that there is (was)a strain available in the UK that is (was) far stronger than the normal Skunk thats floating around, and IS dangerous. However, over the last 5 months pretty much all of the growers in the UK have been busted and shut down. Thanks to a lot of work from users and others.
Thats one of the reasons that Pot may, once again be reclassified back down to Class C from Class B in the UK. There's an awfull lot that goes on behind the scenes that people dont know about.
Simply because it may not exist in the all-powerfull US of A doesnt mean it doesnt exist. USA isnt the be all and end all of everything, no matter how much some of you may hope and wish it was. Sometimes, things go on elsewhere that dont involve you.

[boycotteverything]

it's a stoopid argument and the kid is baiting you again. excellent response and that ought to be the end of the issue.

[Lexion]

Agreed, BE.

This was pure bait.

[pack3tg0st]

Agreed, BE.

This was pure bait.

hahaha what around here isn't these days?

[Lexion]

Quite a lot, actually.

[boycotteverything]

i agree

[skunk]

I don't particularly feel like getting into the circular argument again chorlton, I was in an sooper dooper rambunctious mood last night, saw a bot surfing this thread, and figured I'd bump it.

[Yex]

I was tryıng to lınk to the relevant Bill hicks youtube vıd that would settle thıs once and for all only to fınd youtube ıs blocked ın thıs motherfuckıng country

[Chorlton]

I was tryıng to lınk to the relevant Bill hicks youtube vıd that would settle thıs once and for all only to fınd youtube ıs blocked ın thıs motherfuckıng country

It wouldnt settle my dispute with Skunk.

[skunk]

Haha what dispute is that exactly?

We're on opposite sides of this particular issue, and its quite clear neither one of us are going to change our minds.

[MrPenny]

hahaha what around here isn't these days?

Pam's avatar......turns out, it isn't a fishing lure.

[Chorlton]

You dispute there is a stronger strain of Skunk for sale in the UK.
I maintain there was. There isnt now, or there is so little it doesnt matter.
A lot of people put in a lot of time to get the scum growing that stuff busted and put away.
Because of that, Pot may be declassified back down to Class C.
Its called slowlee slowlee catchee monkey, and in this case, it worked.

[skunk]

Of course there are stronger and weaker strains chorlton. Your argument was that it was dangerous, which I patently denied.

[Chorlton]

But, as I stated,you had not, and still dont have any knowledge of the stronger strain that was being palmed off here. THATS the crux of the problem.
You maintain you know whats going on here when I maintain you havent a clue.
Suffice it to say that skunk is still available here, its crap, it gives you headaches, it make you paranoid, but its still available. The harder stuff isnt, and those responsible for it have either been deported back to Vietnam or are in prison.
If it was still around there would have been no way that reclassification would have been permitted, the Government simply wouldnt allow it. As it now stand there is a chance that reclassification may once again be on the cards.