'Skunk-like cannabis' increases risk of psychosis, study suggests(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
'Skunk-like cannabis' increases risk of psychosis, study suggests
http://bbc.co.uk/news/health-31480234
12 comments
Every type cannabis has been banned since its existence became known to the general public; a decision that took all of five minutes to debate in parliament. What those caring commentators are really suggesting is that cannabis users suffering from psychosis would also benefit from a little prison time. Just talking about cannabis, it seems, is enough to induce mental illness.
Sorry, but that's simply not true.
British drug laws were relatively liberal until the 1971 misuse of drugs act.
It's also widely known that Queen Victoria used Cannabis as a medicine for her menstrual cramps.
British drug laws were relatively liberal until the 1971 misuse of drugs act.
It's also widely known that Queen Victoria used Cannabis as a medicine for her menstrual cramps.
For me this article, as biased as it is in not noting any of the benefits of cannabis, still points towards legalisation and education as the solutions to this problem. I way prefer to smoke milder forms of pot but these are simply unavailable to me. The market is loaded with 'super skunk' and I have no idea what process I am supporting when I purchase it. If only I could walk to the store and buy a nice organic ethically produced mild weed I would be a very happy chap.
It's very frustrating that someone buying cannabis that has been farmed by unpaid forced traffic labour where the proceeds go to a criminal gang is treated more leniently than someone who grows their own plant for personal use.
"hash, a milder form of the drug" - I thought hash was the resin, which could be made from any plant variety, including Skunk and Skunk-like types? I was also under the impression that hash, in the form of cannabis resin, was stronger, not weaker.
EDIT: Found a 'source' for my vague thoughts, even if it's just Wiki. Took a little while to overcome Google's inclination to serve me information about hashing functions and hash maps but I imagine, say, a journalist could have googled hash and found this with little effort: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashish
EDIT: Found a 'source' for my vague thoughts, even if it's just Wiki. Took a little while to overcome Google's inclination to serve me information about hashing functions and hash maps but I imagine, say, a journalist could have googled hash and found this with little effort: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashish
Yes. The article, like most of them on the topic in the UK press today, is nonsense.
Hash is, per gram, assuming you've made your hash from the same plant as you're measuring against, much, much stronger - as you're getting rid of the useless leaves, stalks, and vegetal matter, and just retaining the resin from the trichomes.
Hash is, per gram, assuming you've made your hash from the same plant as you're measuring against, much, much stronger - as you're getting rid of the useless leaves, stalks, and vegetal matter, and just retaining the resin from the trichomes.
They try to explain again:
"Unlike skunk, hashish - cannabis resin - contains substantial quantities of another chemical called cannabidiol or CBD and research suggests this can act as an antidote to the THC, counteracting psychotic side effects."
Which is still nonsense, because hash will have exactly the same cannabinoid profile as the plant it was made from.
And are they seriously using "skunk" as some kind of meaningful distinguisher? Even if that's just their term for all deliberately cultivated, non-landrace cannabis, there's still a huge variety of stuff out there.
"Unlike skunk, hashish - cannabis resin - contains substantial quantities of another chemical called cannabidiol or CBD and research suggests this can act as an antidote to the THC, counteracting psychotic side effects."
Which is still nonsense, because hash will have exactly the same cannabinoid profile as the plant it was made from.
And are they seriously using "skunk" as some kind of meaningful distinguisher? Even if that's just their term for all deliberately cultivated, non-landrace cannabis, there's still a huge variety of stuff out there.
This same "research" was on the cover of the Sun, Mail, etc. about 20 years ago.
Then as now, it's simple propaganda.
Then as now, it's simple propaganda.
If the research procedure really looked like the one described in the article, the results may be as well interpreted in opposite direction: young people with predisposition for psychosis use skunk more often then healthy ones. I'm always shocked how unscient
ific the medical research is.
Can you explain what exactly is unscientific about it, for those of us who haven't read the full study yet?
From what I gather, this is about the age of onset of psychosis in people genetically predisposed towards psychosis, ie. it's already accepted that the participants have a predisposition for psychosis.
I suppose http://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Maccabe/publicatio... is the article; a quick search for the main author also shows e.g. http://www.sci-news.com/genetics/article00725.html regarding the genetics.
Meta-reviews https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=meta%20study%20psychosi... seem to support it as well.
-----
EDIT: reading the comments here, I feel I have to mention that yes, alcohol is also bad and possibly worse (definitely worse if you look at absolute numbers) and no, cannabis is not worse than heroin and no, we shouldn't ban everything that can do you harm. That still doesn't mean we should pretend cannabis can never do harm.
From what I gather, this is about the age of onset of psychosis in people genetically predisposed towards psychosis, ie. it's already accepted that the participants have a predisposition for psychosis.
I suppose http://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Maccabe/publicatio... is the article; a quick search for the main author also shows e.g. http://www.sci-news.com/genetics/article00725.html regarding the genetics.
Meta-reviews https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=meta%20study%20psychosi... seem to support it as well.
-----
EDIT: reading the comments here, I feel I have to mention that yes, alcohol is also bad and possibly worse (definitely worse if you look at absolute numbers) and no, cannabis is not worse than heroin and no, we shouldn't ban everything that can do you harm. That still doesn't mean we should pretend cannabis can never do harm.
Most drug research tends to treat causality with contempt - my interpretation would likewise be that people with psychotic tendencies are more likely to try cannabis.
As to "hash skunk cannabis" which is "as bad as heroin" according to the telegraph... don't make me laugh - or are they seriously suggesting I start shooting up because it's no worse than smoking a joint after work?
As to "hash skunk cannabis" which is "as bad as heroin" according to the telegraph... don't make me laugh - or are they seriously suggesting I start shooting up because it's no worse than smoking a joint after work?
Exactly. Did they carefully check for family history of psychosis?
Most of these studies do not look carefully at family history and the ones that do find that heavy cannabis users have more family members with psychosis, fully explaining any link between cannabis and psychosis.
Similarly, people who study math have a greatly increased rate of psychosis, but nobody warns kids against studying math because the math-psychosis link is fully explained by family history/genetics.
Before people become overtly psychotic there is a long "prodomal" period where they are just a bit weird, in this prodomal period period pre-psychotic people can have an interest in math and cannabis.
Most of these studies do not look carefully at family history and the ones that do find that heavy cannabis users have more family members with psychosis, fully explaining any link between cannabis and psychosis.
Similarly, people who study math have a greatly increased rate of psychosis, but nobody warns kids against studying math because the math-psychosis link is fully explained by family history/genetics.
Before people become overtly psychotic there is a long "prodomal" period where they are just a bit weird, in this prodomal period period pre-psychotic people can have an interest in math and cannabis.
I can recommend this book: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22245552-chasing-the-scr...
And here's an excerpt: --- Gabor began to read about a group of American scientists who had carried out something called the Adverse Childhood Experiences Study. It is the most detailed research ever conducted into the long-term effects of early childhood trauma. It looked at ten different terrible things that can happen to a kid, from physical abuse to sexual abuse to the death of a parent, to track how it shapes that child over their lifetime.
These scientists discovered that for each traumatic event that happened to a child, they were two to four times more likely to grow up to be an addicted adult. Nearly two-thirds of injection drug use, they found, is the product of childhood trauma. This is a correlation so strong the scientists said it is “of an order of magnitude17 rarely seen in epidemiology or public health.” It means that child abuse is as likely to cause drug addiction as obesity is to cause heart disease.18
Another long-term study, published in American Psychologist,19 followed kids from the age of five until they were eighteen, to figure out how much the quality of your parenting while a child affects your drug use as you get older. When the children were still small, the scientists gave them a task to carry out with their parents—like piling up building blocks—and then they watched how well the parents helped and encouraged them through a one-way mirror. They wrote down which kids had parents who were loving and supportive, and which had parents who were disengaged or nasty to them. It turned out the kids whose parents had been either indifferent or cruel were dramatically more likely to heavily use drugs than the others. They had grown up, they found, less able to form loving relationships, and so they felt more angry and distressed and impulsive a lot of the time.
If we can figure out at the age of five which kids are going to be addicts and which ones aren’t, that tells us something fundamental about drug addiction. “Their relative maladjustment,” the study found, “precedes the initiation of drug use.” Indeed, “Problem drug use is a symptom, not a cause,20 of personal and social maladjustment.” ---
And here's an excerpt: --- Gabor began to read about a group of American scientists who had carried out something called the Adverse Childhood Experiences Study. It is the most detailed research ever conducted into the long-term effects of early childhood trauma. It looked at ten different terrible things that can happen to a kid, from physical abuse to sexual abuse to the death of a parent, to track how it shapes that child over their lifetime.
These scientists discovered that for each traumatic event that happened to a child, they were two to four times more likely to grow up to be an addicted adult. Nearly two-thirds of injection drug use, they found, is the product of childhood trauma. This is a correlation so strong the scientists said it is “of an order of magnitude17 rarely seen in epidemiology or public health.” It means that child abuse is as likely to cause drug addiction as obesity is to cause heart disease.18
Another long-term study, published in American Psychologist,19 followed kids from the age of five until they were eighteen, to figure out how much the quality of your parenting while a child affects your drug use as you get older. When the children were still small, the scientists gave them a task to carry out with their parents—like piling up building blocks—and then they watched how well the parents helped and encouraged them through a one-way mirror. They wrote down which kids had parents who were loving and supportive, and which had parents who were disengaged or nasty to them. It turned out the kids whose parents had been either indifferent or cruel were dramatically more likely to heavily use drugs than the others. They had grown up, they found, less able to form loving relationships, and so they felt more angry and distressed and impulsive a lot of the time.
If we can figure out at the age of five which kids are going to be addicts and which ones aren’t, that tells us something fundamental about drug addiction. “Their relative maladjustment,” the study found, “precedes the initiation of drug use.” Indeed, “Problem drug use is a symptom, not a cause,20 of personal and social maladjustment.” ---
>>Nearly two-thirds of injection drug use, they found, is the product of childhood trauma.
You're aware you don't inject marijuana, right? I mean, the news media in the UK today seems to think you do, but you don't.
Either way - your post reminds me generally of Rat Park, which was posted about here a few days back. Addiction as a product of environment and conditioning rather than idiopathic.
Oh, and you can't be physiologically addicted to cannabis. Psychologically, sure, but you can be psychologically addicted to American Idol, and I know which I'd rather poison my mind with.
You're aware you don't inject marijuana, right? I mean, the news media in the UK today seems to think you do, but you don't.
Either way - your post reminds me generally of Rat Park, which was posted about here a few days back. Addiction as a product of environment and conditioning rather than idiopathic.
Oh, and you can't be physiologically addicted to cannabis. Psychologically, sure, but you can be psychologically addicted to American Idol, and I know which I'd rather poison my mind with.
Actually a small percentage of people (the government says 9%) can become physiologically addicted to cannabis. Withdrawal is pretty mild, though, compared to other drugs.
I'd be very hesitant to call it physiological addiction - I find I sleep badly for a few days when I go from daily to nothing, but it's nothing compared to, say, nicotine - which is also actually pretty mild in the grand scheme of things.
I think it's a bit worse for some people, but yeah, I doubt it rises to the level of nicotine for anyone but the very edge cases.
Are you part of the 9%?
Apparently so, given that I do go through mild withdrawal after a long period of heavy use - but as I said, it's so mild I hesitate to ascribe it to withdrawal - more just a shift in what's normal.
This report does have benefits.
It seems that only people smoking strong cannabis strains, [edit strike]and smoking daily, [/strike] were at risk.
UK gov has again said this is a reason against legalisaton but to me it moves us a bit closer.
It seems that only people smoking strong cannabis strains, [edit strike]and smoking daily, [/strike] were at risk.
UK gov has again said this is a reason against legalisaton but to me it moves us a bit closer.
> It seems that only people smoking strong cannabis strains, and smoking daily, were at risk.
This is simply not true.
> “Compared with those who never used cannabis, individuals who mostly used skunk-like cannabis were nearly twice as likely to be diagnosed with a psychotic disorder if they used it less than once per week, almost three times as likely if they used it at weekends, and more than five times as likely if they were daily users,” the paper notes.
Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11414605/Super-s...
This is simply not true.
> “Compared with those who never used cannabis, individuals who mostly used skunk-like cannabis were nearly twice as likely to be diagnosed with a psychotic disorder if they used it less than once per week, almost three times as likely if they used it at weekends, and more than five times as likely if they were daily users,” the paper notes.
Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11414605/Super-s...
Bah, another example of bad science reporting. Here's the Guardian version of this:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/sifting-the-evidence/2015...
> The Mail on Sunday has shouted that ‘cannabis TRIPLES psychosis risk’ and that skunk is to blame for ‘1 in 4 of all new serious mental disorders’. Is this what the study they cite shows? Well, no, but it’s really interesting research which could advance our understanding of the relationship between cannabis and psychosis.
> However, the authors clearly point out that they cannot be sure the association seen in their study is causal.
Edit: Hilariously, here's a later Guardian article:
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/feb/16/skunk-cannabi...
> Sir Robin Murray, professor of psychiatric research at King’s College London, said there was now clear evidence for a causal link between smoking strong cannabis and the risk of mental illness.
Great to see some consistent messages here. Wtf @ Guardian.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/sifting-the-evidence/2015...
> The Mail on Sunday has shouted that ‘cannabis TRIPLES psychosis risk’ and that skunk is to blame for ‘1 in 4 of all new serious mental disorders’. Is this what the study they cite shows? Well, no, but it’s really interesting research which could advance our understanding of the relationship between cannabis and psychosis.
> However, the authors clearly point out that they cannot be sure the association seen in their study is causal.
Edit: Hilariously, here's a later Guardian article:
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/feb/16/skunk-cannabi...
> Sir Robin Murray, professor of psychiatric research at King’s College London, said there was now clear evidence for a causal link between smoking strong cannabis and the risk of mental illness.
Great to see some consistent messages here. Wtf @ Guardian.
By "psychotic illness" they mean people who were ill enough to get an in-patient admission at a mental health hospital. At least, this is what the researcher said in a radio interview. The BBC web report is less clear.
The researcher said that cannabis clearly has some benefits (mentioning MS and epilepsy) and has said that milder cannabis does not see the increased risk of psychosis.
Frustratingly the actual research hasn't been published yet and the BBC doesn't link to it.
The researcher said that cannabis clearly has some benefits (mentioning MS and epilepsy) and has said that milder cannabis does not see the increased risk of psychosis.
Frustratingly the actual research hasn't been published yet and the BBC doesn't link to it.
What do you get when you mix a) the last vestiges of a well-meaning but stubborn rear-guard action to keep pot criminalized (NIHR), b) a psychology department in need of grant money (King's Cross College), and c) a media property in need of clicks (BBC)? You get a study[1] that makes weak claims ("people who take powerful drugs every day are more likely to experience psychosis") which gets sensationalized and used as link bait.
I'd write to the author but the piece doesn't have a byline. Whenever you get to use the word "psychosis" in the title of a piece, you should get some sort of prize.
[1] http://www.thelancet.com/pb/assets/raw/Lancet/pdfs/14TLP0454...
I'd write to the author but the piece doesn't have a byline. Whenever you get to use the word "psychosis" in the title of a piece, you should get some sort of prize.
[1] http://www.thelancet.com/pb/assets/raw/Lancet/pdfs/14TLP0454...
Beware the "new drug menace moment"...!!! You think you know weed? I bet you thought that "skunk" weed was just a slang term! Hah! Thank god the BBC has our backs and keeps watch for dangerous stuff like this.
What on earth is skunk-like cannabis?
Do they have cannabis that resemble other musteloids?
Do they have cannabis that resemble other musteloids?
Apparently the study does not measure how many people got psychosis after the use of cannabis. So now I am wondering how does one measure the "risk of psychosis"?
It is surprising how defensive people get when risks related to cannabis use is brought up.
Regardless of any factual errors in the article. Anyone who has been around smokers for a long time will know that paranoia of various degrees of severity is very common side effect of cannabis use. For some, it is merely unsettling, for others it becomes a debilitating condition.
As I said, everyone who's been around smokers for a long time knows this (the plural of anecdote is data). I guess that leaves the hipsters and intelligentsia casual users to get upset when their cool and sophisticated drug is shown to have problems too. Well it does.
Regardless of any factual errors in the article. Anyone who has been around smokers for a long time will know that paranoia of various degrees of severity is very common side effect of cannabis use. For some, it is merely unsettling, for others it becomes a debilitating condition.
As I said, everyone who's been around smokers for a long time knows this (the plural of anecdote is data). I guess that leaves the hipsters and intelligentsia casual users to get upset when their cool and sophisticated drug is shown to have problems too. Well it does.
I look forward to seeing your data compiled and peer reviewed. Until then it really is just plural anecdote.
And yes, I too am around a lot of smokers, and not a one of them shows any sign of hightened "paranoia", whatever that means. See the problem with anecdotes?
And yes, I too am around a lot of smokers, and not a one of them shows any sign of hightened "paranoia", whatever that means. See the problem with anecdotes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance-induced_psychosis#IC...
Quoted reactions to the paper included calls to ban skunk-like cannabis because that may reduce incidence of psychosis. Why are there no calls to ban alcohol, despite the fact that we already know it causes far more cases of psychosis?
Nobody suggests banning alcohol because we've learned from history that that wouldn't work. Why then do they think banning any form of cannabis would work?