Study clears cannabis of schizophrenia rap

Toiletroll

Regular readers will recall the confused mess that is this government’s cannabis policy. There has been a drop in cannabis consumption since it was downgraded from Class B to C, but nevertheless they want to put it back up to Class B again. Yes, we know all about the argument that what you ingest is entirely your business, it being your body and all that but morals are always trumped by politics.
In the comments section to our last piece the general consensus was that the policy was driven either by a craven servility to the Murdoch press or, as a daring alternative, a bending to Daily Mail woo woo. The general consensus however was that it was Puritanism, that awful fear that someone, somewhere, might be enjoying themselves and that this situation cannot be allowed to continue. We’re arguing over whose Puritanism, not whether.
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.

URL="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/06/cannabis_psychosis_study/"]source[/URL

DarkJager

That's what anyone with a shred of sense has known for ages. The main arguement against cannabis is stone dead but of course, the politicians would rather hold on to the fabricated spook facts than do anything positive about it.

Ass

One study says no out of how many that say yes?

mp3guy

I don't know any intelligent people who smoke cannabis on a regular basis.

Riamfada

What about the social effects? What people want to do to themselves is grand but when peolple do things that effect society then it becomes societies business.And just like mp3guy I have never met an intelligent person who smokes onn a regular basis.

Toiletroll

Grimes wrote: »

What about the social effects? What people want to do to themselves is grand but when peolple do things that effect society then it becomes societies business.And just like mp3guy I have never met an intelligent person who smokes onn a regular basis.

I smoke daily... I run a massively successfull business and I am 24 years old.

Now you have met a regular smoker who can think for himself. Maybe the intelligent smokers will keep the fact to themselves and for good reason!. I have noticed discrimination from the small minds myself...

DarkJager

Grimes wrote: »

What about the social effects? What people want to do to themselves is grand but when peolple do things that effect society then it becomes societies business.And just like mp3guy I have never met an intelligent person who smokes onn a regular basis.

You're just not meeting the right people then. I have friends who smoke every day and they would probably be some of the most intelligent people I know - have the jobs & qualifications to prove it as well. So this idea that people who smoke are someway less intelligent than people that don't is just typical anti drug bull****.

And can you please expand on what you mean by social effects?

mp3guy

Toiletroll wrote: »

I smoke daily... I run a massively successfull business and I am 24 years old.

Now you have met a regular smoker who can think for himself. Maybe the intelligent smokers will keep the fact to themselves and for good reason!. I have noticed discrimination from the small minds myself...

Yeah, and I'm Barack Obama. :rolleyes:

It's the internet, you can't claim anything.

Toiletroll

mp3guy wrote: »

I don't know any intelligent people who smoke cannabis on a regular basis.

I have looked through a couple of your posts. I now conclude that you are an idiot.

What I did was label you, like you labelled others...

4zn76tysfajdxp

Toiletroll wrote: »

I smoke daily... I run a massively successfull business and I am 24 years old.

There are always exceptions, that's what make them exceptional. All I know is that since I quit smoking every day I no longer walk around feeling like my head is clouded by a perpetual fog and I can now pay attention to something for more than 15 seconds that isn't a repeat of "Friends."

mp3guy

Toiletroll wrote: »

I have looked through a couple of your posts. I now conclude that you are an idiot.

What I did was label you, like you labelled others...

I enjoy the way the last 5 letters of your username are "troll".

Toiletroll

Adrianna Kind Dinner wrote: »

There are always exceptions, that's what make them exceptional. All I know is that since I quit smoking every day I no longer walk around feeling like my head is clouded by a perpetual fog and I can now pay attention to something for more than 15 seconds that isn't a repeat of "Friends."

Different effects, different people

Toiletroll

mp3guy wrote: »

I enjoy the way the last 5 letters of your username are "troll".

haha yes you fell into that category as well.. one of the few who got excited when the figured out the pun in my UN...

DarkJager

mp3guy wrote: »

I enjoy the way the last 5 letters of your username are "troll".

How is he trolling? This is an interesting topic that is being taken off course by the anti-drug nuts and their fantastical bull**** once again...

Toiletroll

mp3guy wrote: »

Yeah, and I'm Barack Obama. :rolleyes:

It's the internet, you can't claim anything.

It will take you 5 mins to find out who i am based on the info availabe here...

Gummy Panda

Toiletroll wrote: »

I have looked through a couple of your posts. I now conclude that you are an idiot.

and for that you'll probably get a holiday from AH.

Have to agree with Mp3guy. Most people i know who smoke cannabis on a regular basis aren't the sharpest tools in the box.

Toiletroll

Gummy Panda wrote: »

and for that you'll probably get a holiday from AH.

Have to agree with Mp3guy. Most people i know who smoke cannabis on a regular basis aren't the sharpest tools in the box.

Most of the people who drink alcohol on a weekly basis have less motivation for the following week more than any other drug. This creates an overall less productive society and initiative is driven to the gutters...

Weed has the opposite effect on the people I KNOW

... you are crazy to think I would get a holiday for that!

4zn76tysfajdxp

Toiletroll wrote: »

Most of the people who drink alcohol on a weekly basis have less motivation for the following week more than any other drug. This creates an overall less productive society and initiative is driven to the gutters...

What makes you say that?

Toiletroll wrote: »

Weed has the opposite effect on the people I KNOW

What, drug dealers?

BurnsCarpenter

So it's possible that there's no link between cannabis-induced psychotic episodes and schizophrenia.

And people aren't concerned about the psychotic episode itself, no?

Toiletroll

Adrianna Kind Dinner wrote: »

What makes you say that?

What, drug dealers?

yep if you say so....

If you're a graduate student, chances are you came into the lab yesterday hungover from St Patrick's day and that your productivity was impaired. So how does drinking beer impact your science? The February issue of Oikos, an ecology journal, features a paper by Tomas Grim from the Czech Republic entitled "A possible role of social activity to explain differences in publication output among ecologists".

We at the bayblab take beer drinking and science very seriously, and these new findings are cause for concern. The study is mostly a correlation between beer consumption and citation counts. As per the abstract:

"One of the most frequent social activities in the world is drinking alcohol. In Europe, most alcohol is consumed as beer and, based on well known negative effects of alcohol consumption on cognitive performance, I predicted negative correlations between beer consumption and several measures of scientific performance. Using a survey from the Czech Republic, that has the highest per capita beer consumption rate in the world, I show that increasing per capita beer consumption is associated with lower numbers of papers, total citations, and citations per paper (a surrogate measure of paper quality)."

Unfortunately I do not have access to the paper in question to peruse the figures but here are some great quotes about the results from the NY Times:

“It’s rather devastating to be told we should drink less beer in order to increase our scientific performance,” Dr. Symonds said."
"Though the public may tend to think of scientists as exceedingly sober, scientific schmoozing is often beer-tinged, famous for producing spectacular breakthroughs and productive collaborations, countless papers having begun as scrawls on cocktail napkins."
"Yet the new study shows no indication that some level of moderate social beer drinking increases scientific productivity. "

"More important, as Dr. Grim pointed out, the study documents a correlation between beer drinking and scientific performance without explaining any correlation. That leaves open the possibility that it is not beer drinking that causes poor scientific performance, but just the opposite"
I think this needs to be investigated to find the optimal number of beers to produce good science. We'll get into this matter as soon as we've figured out the optimal number of beers for bowling... So what is your citation count and beer consumption?

Over consumption of anything = bad... Look at irish consumption and put 2 + 2 together

Weed will make you more lazy physically but stimulates most minds...

DarkJager

BurnsCarpenter wrote: »

So it's possible that there's no link between cannabis-induced psychotic episodes and schizophrenia.

And people aren't concerned about the psychotic episode itself, no?

I've smoked it religously for the last 12 years and not once have I had one of these episodes- not once in 12 years. I could also happily debunk a thousand other myths about it if you like but I'd be all day.

ejmaztec

Toiletroll wrote: »

yep if you say so....

If you're a graduate student, chances are you came into the lab yesterday hungover from St Patrick's day and that your productivity was impaired. So how does drinking beer impact your science? The February issue of Oikos, an ecology journal, features a paper by Tomas Grim from the Czech Republic entitled "A possible role of social activity to explain differences in publication output among ecologists".

We at the bayblab take beer drinking and science very seriously, and these new findings are cause for concern. The study is mostly a correlation between beer consumption and citation counts. As per the abstract:

"One of the most frequent social activities in the world is drinking alcohol. In Europe, most alcohol is consumed as beer and, based on well known negative effects of alcohol consumption on cognitive performance, I predicted negative correlations between beer consumption and several measures of scientific performance. Using a survey from the Czech Republic, that has the highest per capita beer consumption rate in the world, I show that increasing per capita beer consumption is associated with lower numbers of papers, total citations, and citations per paper (a surrogate measure of paper quality)."

Unfortunately I do not have access to the paper in question to peruse the figures but here are some great quotes about the results from the NY Times:

“It’s rather devastating to be told we should drink less beer in order to increase our scientific performance,” Dr. Symonds said."
"Though the public may tend to think of scientists as exceedingly sober, scientific schmoozing is often beer-tinged, famous for producing spectacular breakthroughs and productive collaborations, countless papers having begun as scrawls on cocktail napkins."
"Yet the new study shows no indication that some level of moderate social beer drinking increases scientific productivity. "

"More important, as Dr. Grim pointed out, the study documents a correlation between beer drinking and scientific performance without explaining any correlation. That leaves open the possibility that it is not beer drinking that causes poor scientific performance, but just the opposite"
I think this needs to be investigated to find the optimal number of beers to produce good science. We'll get into this matter as soon as we've figured out the optimal number of beers for bowling... So what is your citation count and beer consumption?

Over consumption of anything = bad

Weed will make you more lazy physically but stimulates most minds...

Have they moved St Patrick's Day?

Toiletroll

Adrianna Kind Dinner wrote: »

What makes you say that?



What, drug dealers?

Academic Effects of Alcohol Consumption


http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/awolaver/alcohol/academic.doc

4zn76tysfajdxp

Toiletroll wrote: »

A very long post

So that claims that beer drinking makes you less intelligent, if I read it right?

So what does that have to do with:

Toiletroll wrote: »

Most of the people who drink alcohol on a weekly basis have less motivation for the following week more than any other drug.

I ask because I'm pretty sure motivation and intelligence aren't the same thing.

Plus if you were to enter the lab hungover the morning after a session, you're productivity would be shot. However if you were locked saturday you should be fine by sunday, unless you suffered from alcohol poisoning.

Toiletroll

Adrianna Kind Dinner wrote: »

So that claims that beer drinking makes you less intelligent, if I read it right?

So what does that have to do with:



I ask because I'm pretty sure motivation and intelligence aren't the same thing.

Plus if you were to enter the lab hungover the morning after a session, you're productivity would be shot. However if you were locked saturday you should be fine by sunday, unless you suffered from alcohol poisoning.

Motivation - > Productive

The study is how scientists are less productive with alcohol consumption. Or did you only see "long post" and figured it would be too long to read?

BurnsCarpenter

DarkJager wrote: »

I've smoked it religously for the last 12 years and not once have I had one of these episodes- not once in 12 years. I could also happily debunk a thousand other myths about it if you like but I'd be all day.

Do you deny that they happen? They main article seems to take for granted that they're a reality.

It seems like the OP posted the article as more evidence that smoking is harmless but managed to overlook the old psychotic episodes as being a bad thing in themselves.

I used to smoke regularly as a youngster but I can't anymore - It makes me seriously paranoid these days. I miss the warm and fuzzy feeling.

Toiletroll

BurnsCarpenter wrote: »

Do you deny that they happen? They main article seems to take for granted that they're a reality.

It seems like the OP posted the article as more evidence that smoking is harmless but managed to overlook the old psychotic episodes as being a bad thing in themselves.

I used to smoke regularly as a youngster but I can't anymore - It makes me seriously paranoid these days. I miss the warm and fuzzy feeling.

There is a very small proportion of people who are pre-disposed to psychotic episodes. The weed may make them prevail sooner rather than later...

4zn76tysfajdxp

Toiletroll wrote: »

Motivation - > Productive

The study is how scientists are less productive with alcohol consumption. Or did you only see "long post" and figured it would be too long to read?

I wasn't going to quote the whole thing in my reply, I really didn't think anybody needed to read it twice what with it's lack of structure etc. It really helps when you put quote tags around anything you didn't write yourself.

Toiletroll

Gummy Panda wrote: »

and for that you'll probably get a holiday from AH.

That comment actually tells me that you want to be spoon fed I'm afriad.

V for Vendetta - check it out

Might be your dream universe :P

BurnsCarpenter

Toiletroll wrote: »

There is a very small proportion of people who are pre-disposed to psychotic episodes. The weed may make them prevail sooner rather than later...

I don't think the proportion is as small as you think. And it's not the case that those affected are guaranteed to have a psychotic episode with or without weed.

I'm still in favour of decriminalisation but it's plainly untrue to say that it's harmless.

Toiletroll

BurnsCarpenter wrote: »

I don't think the proportion is as small as you think. And it's not the case that those affected are guaranteed to have a psychotic episode with or without weed.

I'm still in favour of decriminalisation but it's plainly untrue to say that it's harmless.

I dont agree that its harmless. I do not drink and its far more hamfull.

I want to be able to CHOOSE the lesser of two evils.

I hope this can make logical sense to some of the other people above...

Gummy Panda

Toiletroll wrote: »

That comment actually tells me that you want to be spoon fed I'm afriad.

V for Vendetta - check it out

Might be your dream universe :P

eh? Is this turning into a FIGHT TEH POWAH!!

Maybe you should stop posting links to support your pro-drugs views and read the charter first.

You attacked a poster and not his post.

ejmaztec

Toiletroll wrote: »

I dont agree that its harmless. I do not drink and its far more hamfull.

I want to be able to CHOOSE the lesser of two evils.

I hope this can make logical sense to some of the other people above...

If you're so massively successful, why don't you use your vast wealth to go public. Do a Ganley and start your own pro-drug political party. You could call it The Social Delusionist Party.

Toiletroll

I am so surprised that any time I post a thread on here about this subject the plethora of personal attacks that come my way is rediculous.

I may be successful but that takes 100% of my day. In the future I may just go public! Who knows?

But if I had loads of time on my hands, then that would be a complaint in itself.

Generally the people who respond to my posts start off with a personal attack for good measure. That tells me enough in itself, so I keep posting to find out who is who... Interesting times

Now everyone - Back OT :P

4zn76tysfajdxp

Toiletroll wrote: »

I am so surprised that any time I post a thread on here about this subject the plethora of personal attacks that come my way is rediculous.

Toiletroll wrote: »

I have looked through a couple of your posts. I now conclude that you are an idiot.

The only one throwing personal attacks around here is you.

ejmaztec

Toiletroll wrote: »

I am so surprised that any time I post a thread on here about this subject the plethora of personal attacks that come my way is rediculous.

I may be successful but that takes 100% of my day. In the future I may just go public! Who knows?

But if I had loads of time on my hands, then that would be a complaint in itself.

Generally the people who respond to my posts start off with a personal attack for good measure. That tells me enough in itself, so I keep posting to find out who is who... Interesting times

Now everyone - Back OT :P

Persecution complex? :eek: Advising someone to put their money where their mouth is is not a personal attack.

TPD

Adrianna Kind Dinner wrote: »

There are always exceptions, that's what make them exceptional. All I know is that since I quit smoking every day I no longer walk around feeling like my head is clouded by a perpetual fog and I can now pay attention to something for more than 15 seconds that isn't a repeat of "Friends."

Most people who smoke cannabis don't smoke every day. Of course you'll have a foggy head and lack concentration WHILE YOU'RE STONED. The intelligent smokers will go out and do a days work, come home, and perhaps have a joint after dinner / while watching a movie the odd night.

Toiletroll

ejmaztec wrote: »

Persecution complex? :eek: Advising someone to put their money where their mouth is is not a personal attack.

No that post is fine and I responded that I may do it in the future. Why go to the bother of doing something unless you know that you can commit enough time for that "something" to succeed... I cant believe how you can take that from what I posted. Shocking

marcsignal

"Study clears cannabis of schizophrenia rap"


I'm 'both' of us are glad to hear it

Toiletroll

marcsignal wrote: »

"Study clears cannabis of schizophrenia rap"


I'm 'both' of us are glad to hear it

Lol. Did Lucy 'come' round for dinner again?

ejmaztec

Toiletroll wrote: »

No that post is fine and I responded that I may do it in the future. Why go to the bother of doing something unless you know that you can commit enough time for that "something" to succeed... I cant believe how you can take that from what I posted. Shocking

If you're shocked by what I said, your perception levels must have all gone to pot. :P

Zillah

As someone who can count the amount of joints he's ever smoked on two hands, I am astounded by the sheer amount of petulant aggression directed at someone who claims to be both a smoker and successful.

Such bitterness, it's bizarre.

wordcount

What do the studies say about it turning you into a paranoid, self obsessed, boring, dope head?

wordcount

TPD wrote: »

Most people who smoke cannabis don't smoke every day. Of course you'll have a foggy head and lack concentration WHILE YOU'RE STONED. The intelligent smokers will go out and do a days work, come home, and perhaps have a joint after dinner / while watching a movie the odd night.

Do you know how increadably sad that sounds. I really pity the person who comes home after work has his dinner and smolkes a joint. How very sad. Probably a couple of kids in bed too.

Kold

The OP was good but a shower of idiots have made this an unpleasant thread. GG.

Toiletroll

Kold wrote: »

The OP was good but a shower of idiots have made this an unpleasant thread. GG.

So true...

ejmaztec

Zillah wrote: »

As someone who can count the amount of joints he's ever smoked on two hands, I am astounded by the sheer amount of petulant aggression directed at someone who claims to be both a smoker and successful.

Such bitterness, it's bizarre.

There won't be any aggression in thirty years time, just a planet entirely populated with chilled out cabbage-like beings who won't give a flying fig about anything. Spacers - the final frontier.

Toiletroll

ejmaztec wrote: »

There won't be any aggression in thirty years time, just a planet entirely populated with chilled out cabbage-like beings who won't give a flying fig about anything. Spacers - the final frontier.

Yes a society without agression. What a great idea.

Perhaps we can use the extra time to expand our knowledge.

Whereas most people today just live to pay... They live within their own confined realm and small minded views on certain issues.

Zillah

wordcount wrote: »

Do you know how increadably sad that sounds. I really pity the person who comes home after work has his dinner and smolkes a joint. How very sad. Probably a couple of kids in bed too.

How is that any different from having a glass of wine, a whiskey or brandy?

Also, your whole "probably a couple of kids in bed too" thing reeks of biased hysteria. Step three is eating the children because of munchies, right?

Toiletroll

Zillah wrote: »

How is that any different from having a glass of wine, a whiskey or brandy?

Also, your whole "probably a couple of kids in bed too" thing reeks of biased hysteria. Step three is eating the children because of munchies, right?

haha so true. I feel sorry for a majority of members that I have come across on boards. I can understand the narrowmindedness of the few but to have such an overwhelmingly large amount of such people scares the hell out of me! I fear for the future... Well if the recession / depression hits worse in the coming years at least the bul****ters will be "weeded" out and the true innovators get their chance to shine... Oh how the world works... love it / hate it... I love it

Kold

Zillah wrote: »

How is that any different from having a glass of wine, a whiskey or brandy?

Also, your whole "probably a couple of kids in bed too" thing reeks of biased hysteria. Step three is eating the children because of munchies, right?

Or the nightly crywank.