Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Lancet: Editorial: Rehashing the evidence on psychosis and cannabis
< * w w w .thelancet . com /journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607611337/fulltext>
Rehashing the evidence on psychosis and cannabis
As cabinet ministers in the UK fall over themselves to tell all about
their cannabis-taking younger days, Gordon Brown's Government begins its
review of the classification of cannabis, with the probable outcome of
relabelling it a class B drug of misuse. Possession would then become an
offence likely to lead to arrest and perhaps a jail sentence. Cannabis was
downgraded to class C in 2004, which meant that the penalties for
possession, production, or supply were reduced.
The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs will examine the evidence for
harms caused by cannabis including those associated with the increasingly
available strains such as skunk. In January, 2006, after its last review,
the Advisory Council recommended that the class C status for cannabis
should remain, but that resources should be put into education about the
risks of cannabis and into further research on its effects on mental
health.
As pointed out by Merete Nordentoft and Carsten Hjorthøj in a Comment,
?published in this week's Lancet is the most comprehensive meta-analysis
to date of a possible causal relation between cannabis use and psychotic
and affective illness later in life?. In their systematic review,
Theresa Moore and colleagues found ?an increase in risk of psychosis of
about 40% in participants who had ever used cannabis?, and a clear
dose-response effect with an increased risk of 50?200% in the most
frequent users.
In 1995, we began a Lancet editorial with the since much-quoted words:
?The smoking of cannabis, even long term, is not harmful to health.?
Research published since 1995, including Moore's systematic review in this
issue, leads us now to conclude that cannabis use could increase the risk
of psychotic illness. Further research is needed on the effects of
cannabis on affective disorders. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of
Drugs will have plenty to consider. But whatever their eventual
recommendation, governments would do well to invest in sustained and
effective education campaigns on the risks to health of taking cannabis.
The Lancet
--
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
Rehashing the evidence on psychosis and cannabis
As cabinet ministers in the UK fall over themselves to tell all about
their cannabis-taking younger days, Gordon Brown's Government begins its
review of the classification of cannabis, with the probable outcome of
relabelling it a class B drug of misuse. Possession would then become an
offence likely to lead to arrest and perhaps a jail sentence. Cannabis was
downgraded to class C in 2004, which meant that the penalties for
possession, production, or supply were reduced.
The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs will examine the evidence for
harms caused by cannabis including those associated with the increasingly
available strains such as skunk. In January, 2006, after its last review,
the Advisory Council recommended that the class C status for cannabis
should remain, but that resources should be put into education about the
risks of cannabis and into further research on its effects on mental
health.
As pointed out by Merete Nordentoft and Carsten Hjorthøj in a Comment,
?published in this week's Lancet is the most comprehensive meta-analysis
to date of a possible causal relation between cannabis use and psychotic
and affective illness later in life?. In their systematic review,
Theresa Moore and colleagues found ?an increase in risk of psychosis of
about 40% in participants who had ever used cannabis?, and a clear
dose-response effect with an increased risk of 50?200% in the most
frequent users.
In 1995, we began a Lancet editorial with the since much-quoted words:
?The smoking of cannabis, even long term, is not harmful to health.?
Research published since 1995, including Moore's systematic review in this
issue, leads us now to conclude that cannabis use could increase the risk
of psychotic illness. Further research is needed on the effects of
cannabis on affective disorders. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of
Drugs will have plenty to consider. But whatever their eventual
recommendation, governments would do well to invest in sustained and
effective education campaigns on the risks to health of taking cannabis.
The Lancet
--
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
"Phil Stovell" <phil@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.07.27.07.09.26.562212@stovell.org.uk...
> < * w w w .thelancet . com /journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607611337/fulltext>
>
> Rehashing the evidence on psychosis and cannabis
>
> As cabinet ministers in the UK fall over themselves to tell all about
> their cannabis-taking younger days, Gordon Brown's Government begins its
> review of the classification of cannabis, with the probable outcome of
> relabelling it a class B drug of misuse. Possession would then become an
> offence likely to lead to arrest and perhaps a jail sentence. Cannabis was
> downgraded to class C in 2004, which meant that the penalties for
> possession, production, or supply were reduced.
>
> The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs will examine the evidence for
> harms caused by cannabis including those associated with the increasingly
> available strains such as skunk. In January, 2006, after its last review,
> the Advisory Council recommended that the class C status for cannabis
> should remain, but that resources should be put into education about the
> risks of cannabis and into further research on its effects on mental
> health.
>
> As pointed out by Merete Nordentoft and Carsten Hjorthøj in a Comment,
> "published in this week's Lancet is the most comprehensive meta-analysis
> to date of a possible causal relation between cannabis use and psychotic
> and affective illness later in life". In their systematic review,
> Theresa Moore and colleagues found "an increase in risk of psychosis of
> about 40% in participants who had ever used cannabis", and a clear
> dose-response effect with an increased risk of 50-200% in the most
> frequent users.
>
> In 1995, we began a Lancet editorial with the since much-quoted words:
> "The smoking of cannabis, even long term, is not harmful to health."
> Research published since 1995, including Moore's systematic review in this
> issue, leads us now to conclude that cannabis use could increase the risk
> of psychotic illness. Further research is needed on the effects of
> cannabis on affective disorders. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of
> Drugs will have plenty to consider. But whatever their eventual
> recommendation, governments would do well to invest in sustained and
> effective education campaigns on the risks to health of taking cannabis.
>
>
> The Lancet
I do not understand how this can be possible. How can it increase risk by
40-200% and yet no corresponding health care case occur. 946 last year.
Given how many people smoke cannabis a remarkable achievement for any
substance as widely used. Surely you can't just do a study and then not take
into account actuall numbers.
I am beginning to smell a rat with this stuff, it just doesn't seem to fit
with the rest of the evidence but it's maybe me not understanding it
correctly or some of the journals i'm reading are inaccurate to start with.
Shit science has a lot to answer for.
>
> --
> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>
"Mark Whiteley" <mark.whiteley53@ntlworld . com > wrote in message
news:e0iqi.1441$mZ5.268@newsfe6-win.ntli . net ...
>
> "Phil Stovell" <phil@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:pan.2007.07.27.07.09.26.562212@stovell.org.uk...
> >
< * w w w .thelancet . com /journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607611337/fullt
ext>
> >
> > In 1995, we began a Lancet editorial with the since much-quoted words:
> > "The smoking of cannabis, even long term, is not harmful to health."
> > Research published since 1995, including Moore's systematic review in
this
> > issue, leads us now to conclude that cannabis use could increase the
risk
> > of psychotic illness. Further research is needed on the effects of
> > cannabis on affective disorders. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of
> > Drugs will have plenty to consider. But whatever their eventual
> > recommendation, governments would do well to invest in sustained and
> > effective education campaigns on the risks to health of taking cannabis.
> >
> >
> > The Lancet
>
> I do not understand how this can be possible. How can it increase risk by
> 40-200% and yet no corresponding health care case occur. 946 last year.
> Given how many people smoke cannabis a remarkable achievement for any
> substance as widely used. Surely you can't just do a study and then not
take
> into account actuall numbers.
>
> I am beginning to smell a rat with this stuff, it just doesn't seem to fit
> with the rest of the evidence but it's maybe me not understanding it
> correctly or some of the journals i'm reading are inaccurate to start
with.
>
> Shit science has a lot to answer for.
>
I'm rubbish at maths and stats, but I feel the need to see a lot more info.
on all the other factors considered.
And apart from offering the percentages in a meaningful way, maybe a
definitive statement on whether this shows that cannabis makes you mad would
make me pay attention.
For myself, having fought my own way out of depression and anxiety/OCD (I
cannot in all honesty say whether my self-medication helped or hindered
this), I'm rather dubious when it comes to data obtained from people who
hear voices.... and BY psychiatrists ....
In article <ciiqi.5100$By5.3488@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk> "gentlegreen" <gentlegreengiantcalciumcarbonate@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>I'm rubbish at maths and stats, but I feel the need to see a lot more info.
>on all the other factors considered.
>And apart from offering the percentages in a meaningful way, maybe a
>definitive statement on whether this shows that cannabis makes you mad would
>make me pay attention.
What the numbers in the Lancet article say, assuming that there is a 2% normal
rate of psychosis in the general population, that cannabis use increases that
rite by 40% for all cannabis users, so there should be a 2.8% rate of
psychosis among cannabis users. For heavy users, the increase is in the
range of 50% to 200%, meaning that among heavy cannabis users you would expect
to see a rate of psychosis in the range of 3% to 6%.
So if 25% of the population uses cannabis, you would expect to see a rate of
psychosis in the general population of ((.028 * 25) + (.02 * 75))% or 2.2%,
as opposed to 2% if non-one used cannabis.
If 1/5th of the users are "heavy users", then in the worst case scenario, you
would expect to see a psychosis rate of ((.06 * 5) + (.028 * 20) + (.02 * 75))%
or 2.36%.
I'm not sure what the margin of error is on measuring psychosis, but if it is
less than 0.5%, then you wouldn't be able to verify whether or not the study
is true, since the expected deviation from the norm is less than the margin
of error.
-Pete Zakel
(phz@seeheader.nospam)
"Crazee Edeee, his prices are INSANE!!!"
>I'm rubbish at maths and stats, but I feel the need to see a lot more info.
>on all the other factors considered.
>And apart from offering the percentages in a meaningful way, maybe a
>definitive statement on whether this shows that cannabis makes you mad would
>make me pay attention.
What the numbers in the Lancet article say, assuming that there is a 2% normal
rate of psychosis in the general population, that cannabis use increases that
rite by 40% for all cannabis users, so there should be a 2.8% rate of
psychosis among cannabis users. For heavy users, the increase is in the
range of 50% to 200%, meaning that among heavy cannabis users you would expect
to see a rate of psychosis in the range of 3% to 6%.
So if 25% of the population uses cannabis, you would expect to see a rate of
psychosis in the general population of ((.028 * 25) + (.02 * 75))% or 2.2%,
as opposed to 2% if non-one used cannabis.
If 1/5th of the users are "heavy users", then in the worst case scenario, you
would expect to see a psychosis rate of ((.06 * 5) + (.028 * 20) + (.02 * 75))%
or 2.36%.
I'm not sure what the margin of error is on measuring psychosis, but if it is
less than 0.5%, then you wouldn't be able to verify whether or not the study
is true, since the expected deviation from the norm is less than the margin
of error.
-Pete Zakel
(phz@seeheader.nospam)
"Crazee Edeee, his prices are INSANE!!!"
"Pete nospam Zakel" <pxhxz@cadence . com > wrote in message
news:46aa46b8$1@news.cadence . com ...
> In article <ciiqi.5100$By5.3488@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk> "gentlegreen"
> <gentlegreengiantcalciumcarbonate@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>
>>I'm rubbish at maths and stats, but I feel the need to see a lot more
>>info.
>>on all the other factors considered.
>>And apart from offering the percentages in a meaningful way, maybe a
>>definitive statement on whether this shows that cannabis makes you mad
>>would
>>make me pay attention.
>
> What the numbers in the Lancet article say, assuming that there is a 2%
> normal
> rate of psychosis in the general population, that cannabis use increases
> that
> rite by 40% for all cannabis users, so there should be a 2.8% rate of
> psychosis among cannabis users. For heavy users, the increase is in the
> range of 50% to 200%, meaning that among heavy cannabis users you would
> expect
> to see a rate of psychosis in the range of 3% to 6%.
>
> So if 25% of the population uses cannabis, you would expect to see a rate
> of
> psychosis in the general population of ((.028 * 25) + (.02 * 75))% or
> 2.2%,
> as opposed to 2% if non-one used cannabis.
>
> If 1/5th of the users are "heavy users", then in the worst case scenario,
> you
> would expect to see a psychosis rate of ((.06 * 5) + (.028 * 20) + (.02 *
> 75))%
> or 2.36%.
>
> I'm not sure what the margin of error is on measuring psychosis, but if it
> is
> less than 0.5%, then you wouldn't be able to verify whether or not the
> study
> is true, since the expected deviation from the norm is less than the
> margin
> of error.
Thanks that makes it nice and simple. Big numbers little problems. 800
people 4,000,000 users at least likely more. Is this an instance where the
government should step in and reclassify, IHMO they shouldn't. All they are
doing is keeping cannabis in the media spotlight and encouraging more
people, meaning kids, to rebel. At least the number quoted in the Lancet are
somewhat proven by actual numbers. Most of the science just muddies the
water with no clear benefit. The fact that THC attacks cancer should have a
lot more funding. I think there would be a Nobel prize in it for the person
who cures cancer.
They should forget this nonsense and work out a sensible way that cannabis
can be brought into the fold, brown will surely have some way to tax it.
After all his aim is to tax the air we breath.
Education and regulation should be done to stop kids getting hold of it.
Maybe at some point some mothers will get together and campaign to help the
kids. In the USA prohibition was partly overturned for this. Of course many
other issue played a part too.
The mass screening of cannabis users for the genetic mutation is the answer
to reduce the problem further. As we move towards health insurance, medical
care is becoming too expensive for the UK government to provide, cannabis
users are going to face higher health care premiums if they have this gene
and smoke weed even without tobacco.
I hope we continue to have the NHS and I'm sure we will have for now just
can't see how it is sustainable. Currently cannabis has little impact on
cost going by these numbers.
Anyway i ended a little of the point but never mind still relevant.
Mark
>
> -Pete Zakel
> (phz@seeheader.nospam)
>
> "Crazee Edeee, his prices are INSANE!!!"
" Thanks that makes it nice and simple. Big numbers little problems.
800 people 4,000,000 users at least likely more. Is this an instance
where the government should step in and reclassify, IHMO they
shouldn't. All they are doing is keeping cannabis in the media
spotlight and encouraging more people, meaning kids, to rebel."
The best way to keep kids from using marijuana is to legalize it. The
Dutch statistics speak for themselves, when marijuana is legalized,
consumption drops, especially by kids. Furthermore, prohibition
equates it with harder drugs, and kids see that the law lies about
marijuana to keep it illegal so they think the same about real drugs,
such as meth, or coke. Drugs are too dangerous to be in the hands of
criminals is a slogan of LEAP law enforcement against prohibition.
w w w .leap.cc
DUTCH MARIJUANA POLICY HAS BEEN A GREAT SUCCESS.
While American critics of marijuana prohibition often point to Holland
as a model for an alternative policy, prohibition's supporters claim
that Holland's permissiveness has had disastrous consequences,
including escalating rates of drug use among youth.
THE FACTS
In 1976, following the recommendations of two national commissions,
the Dutch government revised many aspects of its drug policy. While
not legalizing marijuana, it adopted an "expediency principle," which
directed police and prosecutors to ignore retail sale to adults as
long as the circumstances of the sale do not constitute a public
nuisance.
This change in policy was based on several factors, including:
a principle of tolerance toward alternative lifestyles
a finding that, compared to other illegal drugs, marijuana poses
little risk to users
a desire to protect marijuana users from the marginalization that
accompanies arrest and prosecution
a belief that separating the retail markets for "soft" and "hard"
drugs decreases the likelihood that marijuana users will experiment
with cocaine or heroin
Following the policy change, marijuana sales emerged openly in coffee
shops, which were required to follow a set of regulations, including a
ban on advertising, sale of no more than 30 grams at a time, and a
minimum purchase age of 18. The sale of other drugs on the premises is
strictly prohibited, and constitutes grounds for immediate closure by
the police. Local officials were also authorized to create additional
regulations to protect the interests of the community-for example,
limiting the number of coffee shops concentrated in any one area.
Since liberalization, marijuana use has increased in the Netherlands,
although rates remain similar to those in neighboring European
countries, and are generally lower than those in the United States.
While marijuana use-rates have increased in Holland, cocaine use-rates
have not- indicating that separation of the "hard" and "soft" drug
markets has prevented a "gateway effect" from developing. In 1992,
about 1.5% of 12 to 18 year-olds had ever tried cocaine and only .3%
had used it in the past month.
Although there are some Dutch critics of Holland's liberalized
marijuana policy, the government's official position remains
steadfastly supportive of the 1976 initiative that decriminalized
possession and retail sale.
FROM THE MADRID STUDY..
"The active chemical agent in marijuana curbs the growth of three
kinds of cancer in mice and may also suppress the immunity reaction
that causes rejection of organ transplants, a Medical College of
Virginia team has discovered." The researchers "found that THC slowed
the growth of lung cancers, breast cancers and a virus-induced
leukemia in laboratory mice, and prolonged their lives by as much as
36%."
800 people 4,000,000 users at least likely more. Is this an instance
where the government should step in and reclassify, IHMO they
shouldn't. All they are doing is keeping cannabis in the media
spotlight and encouraging more people, meaning kids, to rebel."
The best way to keep kids from using marijuana is to legalize it. The
Dutch statistics speak for themselves, when marijuana is legalized,
consumption drops, especially by kids. Furthermore, prohibition
equates it with harder drugs, and kids see that the law lies about
marijuana to keep it illegal so they think the same about real drugs,
such as meth, or coke. Drugs are too dangerous to be in the hands of
criminals is a slogan of LEAP law enforcement against prohibition.
w w w .leap.cc
DUTCH MARIJUANA POLICY HAS BEEN A GREAT SUCCESS.
While American critics of marijuana prohibition often point to Holland
as a model for an alternative policy, prohibition's supporters claim
that Holland's permissiveness has had disastrous consequences,
including escalating rates of drug use among youth.
THE FACTS
In 1976, following the recommendations of two national commissions,
the Dutch government revised many aspects of its drug policy. While
not legalizing marijuana, it adopted an "expediency principle," which
directed police and prosecutors to ignore retail sale to adults as
long as the circumstances of the sale do not constitute a public
nuisance.
This change in policy was based on several factors, including:
a principle of tolerance toward alternative lifestyles
a finding that, compared to other illegal drugs, marijuana poses
little risk to users
a desire to protect marijuana users from the marginalization that
accompanies arrest and prosecution
a belief that separating the retail markets for "soft" and "hard"
drugs decreases the likelihood that marijuana users will experiment
with cocaine or heroin
Following the policy change, marijuana sales emerged openly in coffee
shops, which were required to follow a set of regulations, including a
ban on advertising, sale of no more than 30 grams at a time, and a
minimum purchase age of 18. The sale of other drugs on the premises is
strictly prohibited, and constitutes grounds for immediate closure by
the police. Local officials were also authorized to create additional
regulations to protect the interests of the community-for example,
limiting the number of coffee shops concentrated in any one area.
Since liberalization, marijuana use has increased in the Netherlands,
although rates remain similar to those in neighboring European
countries, and are generally lower than those in the United States.
While marijuana use-rates have increased in Holland, cocaine use-rates
have not- indicating that separation of the "hard" and "soft" drug
markets has prevented a "gateway effect" from developing. In 1992,
about 1.5% of 12 to 18 year-olds had ever tried cocaine and only .3%
had used it in the past month.
Although there are some Dutch critics of Holland's liberalized
marijuana policy, the government's official position remains
steadfastly supportive of the 1976 initiative that decriminalized
possession and retail sale.
FROM THE MADRID STUDY..
"The active chemical agent in marijuana curbs the growth of three
kinds of cancer in mice and may also suppress the immunity reaction
that causes rejection of organ transplants, a Medical College of
Virginia team has discovered." The researchers "found that THC slowed
the growth of lung cancers, breast cancers and a virus-induced
leukemia in laboratory mice, and prolonged their lives by as much as
36%."
On 27 jul, 09:09, Phil Stovell <p...@stovell.org.uk> wrote:
> < * w w w .thelancet . com /journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607611337...>
>
> Rehashing the evidence on psychosis and cannabis
>
> As cabinet ministers in the UK fall over themselves to tell all about
> their cannabis-taking younger days, Gordon Brown's Government begins its
> review of the classification of cannabis, with the probable outcome of
> relabelling it a class B drug of misuse. Possession would then become an
> offence likely to lead to arrest and perhaps a jail sentence. Cannabis was
> downgraded to class C in 2004, which meant that the penalties for
> possession, production, or supply were reduced.
>
> The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs will examine the evidence for
> harms caused by cannabis including those associated with the increasingly
> available strains such as skunk. In January, 2006, after its last review,
> the Advisory Council recommended that the class C status for cannabis
> should remain, but that resources should be put into education about the
> risks of cannabis and into further research on its effects on mental
> health.
>
> As pointed out by Merete Nordentoft and Carsten Hjorthøj in a Comment,
> "published in this week's Lancet is the most comprehensive meta-analysis
> to date of a possible causal relation between cannabis use and psychotic
> and affective illness later in life". In their systematic review,
> Theresa Moore and colleagues found "an increase in risk of psychosis of
> about 40% in participants who had ever used cannabis", and a clear
> dose-response effect with an increased risk of 50-200% in the most
> frequent users.
>
> In 1995, we began a Lancet editorial with the since much-quoted words:
> "The smoking of cannabis, even long term, is not harmful to health."
> Research published since 1995, including Moore's systematic review in this
> issue, leads us now to conclude that cannabis use could increase the risk
> of psychotic illness. Further research is needed on the effects of
> cannabis on affective disorders. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of
> Drugs will have plenty to consider. But whatever their eventual
> recommendation, governments would do well to invest in sustained and
> effective education campaigns on the risks to health of taking cannabis.
>
> The Lancet
>
> --
> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
Ok... well, how does it compare to other risk factors that increase
the risk of psychotic illness?
Has there ever been such a comprehensive review of the evidence for
the potential increase in the risk of psychotic illness (or affective
disorders) for alcohol use?
> < * w w w .thelancet . com /journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607611337...>
>
> Rehashing the evidence on psychosis and cannabis
>
> As cabinet ministers in the UK fall over themselves to tell all about
> their cannabis-taking younger days, Gordon Brown's Government begins its
> review of the classification of cannabis, with the probable outcome of
> relabelling it a class B drug of misuse. Possession would then become an
> offence likely to lead to arrest and perhaps a jail sentence. Cannabis was
> downgraded to class C in 2004, which meant that the penalties for
> possession, production, or supply were reduced.
>
> The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs will examine the evidence for
> harms caused by cannabis including those associated with the increasingly
> available strains such as skunk. In January, 2006, after its last review,
> the Advisory Council recommended that the class C status for cannabis
> should remain, but that resources should be put into education about the
> risks of cannabis and into further research on its effects on mental
> health.
>
> As pointed out by Merete Nordentoft and Carsten Hjorthøj in a Comment,
> "published in this week's Lancet is the most comprehensive meta-analysis
> to date of a possible causal relation between cannabis use and psychotic
> and affective illness later in life". In their systematic review,
> Theresa Moore and colleagues found "an increase in risk of psychosis of
> about 40% in participants who had ever used cannabis", and a clear
> dose-response effect with an increased risk of 50-200% in the most
> frequent users.
>
> In 1995, we began a Lancet editorial with the since much-quoted words:
> "The smoking of cannabis, even long term, is not harmful to health."
> Research published since 1995, including Moore's systematic review in this
> issue, leads us now to conclude that cannabis use could increase the risk
> of psychotic illness. Further research is needed on the effects of
> cannabis on affective disorders. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of
> Drugs will have plenty to consider. But whatever their eventual
> recommendation, governments would do well to invest in sustained and
> effective education campaigns on the risks to health of taking cannabis.
>
> The Lancet
>
> --
> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
Ok... well, how does it compare to other risk factors that increase
the risk of psychotic illness?
Has there ever been such a comprehensive review of the evidence for
the potential increase in the risk of psychotic illness (or affective
disorders) for alcohol use?
"sobriquet" <dohduhdah@yahoo . com > wrote in message
news:1185544516.880473.195500@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups . com ...
On 27 jul, 09:09, Phil Stovell <p...@stovell.org.uk> wrote:
> < * w w w .thelancet . com /journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607611337...>
>
> Rehashing the evidence on psychosis and cannabis
>
> As cabinet ministers in the UK fall over themselves to tell all about
> their cannabis-taking younger days, Gordon Brown's Government begins its
> review of the classification of cannabis, with the probable outcome of
> relabelling it a class B drug of misuse. Possession would then become an
> offence likely to lead to arrest and perhaps a jail sentence. Cannabis was
> downgraded to class C in 2004, which meant that the penalties for
> possession, production, or supply were reduced.
>
> The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs will examine the evidence for
> harms caused by cannabis including those associated with the increasingly
> available strains such as skunk. In January, 2006, after its last review,
> the Advisory Council recommended that the class C status for cannabis
> should remain, but that resources should be put into education about the
> risks of cannabis and into further research on its effects on mental
> health.
>
> As pointed out by Merete Nordentoft and Carsten Hjorthøj in a Comment,
> "published in this week's Lancet is the most comprehensive meta-analysis
> to date of a possible causal relation between cannabis use and psychotic
> and affective illness later in life". In their systematic review,
> Theresa Moore and colleagues found "an increase in risk of psychosis of
> about 40% in participants who had ever used cannabis", and a clear
> dose-response effect with an increased risk of 50-200% in the most
> frequent users.
>
> In 1995, we began a Lancet editorial with the since much-quoted words:
> "The smoking of cannabis, even long term, is not harmful to health."
> Research published since 1995, including Moore's systematic review in this
> issue, leads us now to conclude that cannabis use could increase the risk
> of psychotic illness. Further research is needed on the effects of
> cannabis on affective disorders. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of
> Drugs will have plenty to consider. But whatever their eventual
> recommendation, governments would do well to invest in sustained and
> effective education campaigns on the risks to health of taking cannabis.
>
> The Lancet
>
> --
> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>Ok... well, how does it compare to other risk factors that increase
>the risk of psychotic illness?
>Has there ever been such a comprehensive review of the evidence for
>the potential increase in the risk of psychotic illness (or affective
>disorders) for alcohol use?
Your right we could use somthing to relate this too. They suggest big
numbers which work out to a small number of people. 946 in the UK, according
to Phil thats about right as it works out to 800.
Alcohol affects the metal health of around 40,000 (memory)user a year in the
UK alone and thus remains a far more dangerous substance.
On Jul 27, 11:57 am, "Mark Whiteley" <mark.whitele...@ntlworld . com >
wrote:
> "sobriquet" <dohduh...@yahoo . com > wrote in message
>
> news:1185544516.880473.195500@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups . com ...
> On 27 jul, 09:09, Phil Stovell <p...@stovell.org.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > < * w w w .thelancet . com /journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607611337.=
..>
>
> > Rehashing the evidence on psychosis and cannabis
>
> > As cabinet ministers in the UK fall over themselves to tell all about
> > their cannabis-taking younger days, Gordon Brown's Government begins its
> > review of the classification of cannabis, with the probable outcome of
> > relabelling it a class B drug of misuse. Possession would then become an
> > offence likely to lead to arrest and perhaps a jail sentence. Cannabis =
was
> > downgraded to class C in 2004, which meant that the penalties for
> > possession, production, or supply were reduced.
>
> > The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs will examine the evidence f=
or
> > harms caused by cannabis including those associated with the increasing=
ly
> > available strains such as skunk. In January, 2006, after its last revie=
w,
> > the Advisory Council recommended that the class C status for cannabis
> > should remain, but that resources should be put into education about the
> > risks of cannabis and into further research on its effects on mental
> > health.
>
> > As pointed out by Merete Nordentoft and Carsten Hjorthøj in a Comment,
> > "published in this week's Lancet is the most comprehensive meta-analysis
> > to date of a possible causal relation between cannabis use and psychotic
> > and affective illness later in life". In their systematic review,
> > Theresa Moore and colleagues found "an increase in risk of psychosis of
> > about 40% in participants who had ever used cannabis", and a clear
> > dose-response effect with an increased risk of 50-200% in the most
> > frequent users.
>
> > In 1995, we began a Lancet editorial with the since much-quoted words:
> > "The smoking of cannabis, even long term, is not harmful to health."
> > Research published since 1995, including Moore's systematic review in t=
his
> > issue, leads us now to conclude that cannabis use could increase the ri=
sk
> > of psychotic illness. Further research is needed on the effects of
> > cannabis on affective disorders. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of
> > Drugs will have plenty to consider. But whatever their eventual
> > recommendation, governments would do well to invest in sustained and
> > effective education campaigns on the risks to health of taking cannabis.
>
> > The Lancet
>
> > --
> > Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
> >Ok... well, how does it compare to other risk factors that increase
> >the risk of psychotic illness?
> >Has there ever been such a comprehensive review of the evidence for
> >the potential increase in the risk of psychotic illness (or affective
> >disorders) for alcohol use?
>
> Your right we could use somthing to relate this too. They suggest big
> numbers which work out to a small number of people. 946 in the UK, accord=
ing
> to Phil thats about right as it works out to 800.
>
> Alcohol affects the metal health of around 40,000 (memory)user a year in =
the
> UK alone and thus remains a far more dangerous substance.- Hide quoted te=
xt -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Marijuana Psychosis Study, the new "Reefer Madness" scare.
We can very easily be willfully ignorant or willfully opposed to facts
we even know are true. This you well know has been the case with
millions of people in the history of science. For example, dismissing
testimony about a round earth because of popular opinion. An unjust
and unscientific person would have dogmatically stated that the earth
is flat when there was no way to even verify that.
One such assertion was reported as fact as the indisputable results of
a "study" that marijuana use increases the very small risk of
psychosis. The first point is when you look further into the newswire
released by rueters they say the only true statement in the article.
"The researchers said they couldn't prove that marijuana use itself
increases the risk of psychosis".
Then we find out that they did not actually do a "study" at all.
Instead the "Selectively" looked at other studies. Did they look at
the Madrid studies or the numerous studies from the U.S. government
that showed marijuana increased brain cells and fights cancer tumors?
NO, I assume not.
Furthermore, The team did not look directly at people who used
marijuana but instead conducted what is called a meta-analysis by
reviewing 35 studies in search of a potential connection between
psychotic illness and using marijuana."
In other words they did not do science, they scoured documents trying
any way they could to dig up a possible connection. Why? Because as
we find out they were not real researcher , but were paid by drug
manufacturers who are lobbying to keep marijuana illegal.
Why do drug manufacturers want marijuana illegal. Because it is a
cancer cure and Alzheimer's treatment, and has thousands of medical
uses and up to 5,000 industrial uses. Including ethanol production, 4
times more efficient than any other plant on the earth. They want
marijuana illegal because legalizing it means lost profit. PERIOD.
It is interesting that this so called "study', by "researchers" paid
by the pharmaceutical lobby, who did no research , but rather dug
through selected research in search of any possible evidence and came
up with nothing but reported it as significant was released right
before a medical marijuana amendment is up for vote in congress. Any
co-incidence?
* w w w .cyclesurfer . com /Articles/Hemp.htm#hempcancer
click to find out the study by the U.S. government that they don't
want you to know about.
IF ANYTHING THIS STUDY SUGGEST THAT ALCOHOL SHOULD BE OUTLAWED AND
MARIJUANA LEGALIZED..
wrote:
> "sobriquet" <dohduh...@yahoo . com > wrote in message
>
> news:1185544516.880473.195500@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups . com ...
> On 27 jul, 09:09, Phil Stovell <p...@stovell.org.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > < * w w w .thelancet . com /journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607611337.=
..>
>
> > Rehashing the evidence on psychosis and cannabis
>
> > As cabinet ministers in the UK fall over themselves to tell all about
> > their cannabis-taking younger days, Gordon Brown's Government begins its
> > review of the classification of cannabis, with the probable outcome of
> > relabelling it a class B drug of misuse. Possession would then become an
> > offence likely to lead to arrest and perhaps a jail sentence. Cannabis =
was
> > downgraded to class C in 2004, which meant that the penalties for
> > possession, production, or supply were reduced.
>
> > The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs will examine the evidence f=
or
> > harms caused by cannabis including those associated with the increasing=
ly
> > available strains such as skunk. In January, 2006, after its last revie=
w,
> > the Advisory Council recommended that the class C status for cannabis
> > should remain, but that resources should be put into education about the
> > risks of cannabis and into further research on its effects on mental
> > health.
>
> > As pointed out by Merete Nordentoft and Carsten Hjorthøj in a Comment,
> > "published in this week's Lancet is the most comprehensive meta-analysis
> > to date of a possible causal relation between cannabis use and psychotic
> > and affective illness later in life". In their systematic review,
> > Theresa Moore and colleagues found "an increase in risk of psychosis of
> > about 40% in participants who had ever used cannabis", and a clear
> > dose-response effect with an increased risk of 50-200% in the most
> > frequent users.
>
> > In 1995, we began a Lancet editorial with the since much-quoted words:
> > "The smoking of cannabis, even long term, is not harmful to health."
> > Research published since 1995, including Moore's systematic review in t=
his
> > issue, leads us now to conclude that cannabis use could increase the ri=
sk
> > of psychotic illness. Further research is needed on the effects of
> > cannabis on affective disorders. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of
> > Drugs will have plenty to consider. But whatever their eventual
> > recommendation, governments would do well to invest in sustained and
> > effective education campaigns on the risks to health of taking cannabis.
>
> > The Lancet
>
> > --
> > Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
> >Ok... well, how does it compare to other risk factors that increase
> >the risk of psychotic illness?
> >Has there ever been such a comprehensive review of the evidence for
> >the potential increase in the risk of psychotic illness (or affective
> >disorders) for alcohol use?
>
> Your right we could use somthing to relate this too. They suggest big
> numbers which work out to a small number of people. 946 in the UK, accord=
ing
> to Phil thats about right as it works out to 800.
>
> Alcohol affects the metal health of around 40,000 (memory)user a year in =
the
> UK alone and thus remains a far more dangerous substance.- Hide quoted te=
xt -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Marijuana Psychosis Study, the new "Reefer Madness" scare.
We can very easily be willfully ignorant or willfully opposed to facts
we even know are true. This you well know has been the case with
millions of people in the history of science. For example, dismissing
testimony about a round earth because of popular opinion. An unjust
and unscientific person would have dogmatically stated that the earth
is flat when there was no way to even verify that.
One such assertion was reported as fact as the indisputable results of
a "study" that marijuana use increases the very small risk of
psychosis. The first point is when you look further into the newswire
released by rueters they say the only true statement in the article.
"The researchers said they couldn't prove that marijuana use itself
increases the risk of psychosis".
Then we find out that they did not actually do a "study" at all.
Instead the "Selectively" looked at other studies. Did they look at
the Madrid studies or the numerous studies from the U.S. government
that showed marijuana increased brain cells and fights cancer tumors?
NO, I assume not.
Furthermore, The team did not look directly at people who used
marijuana but instead conducted what is called a meta-analysis by
reviewing 35 studies in search of a potential connection between
psychotic illness and using marijuana."
In other words they did not do science, they scoured documents trying
any way they could to dig up a possible connection. Why? Because as
we find out they were not real researcher , but were paid by drug
manufacturers who are lobbying to keep marijuana illegal.
Why do drug manufacturers want marijuana illegal. Because it is a
cancer cure and Alzheimer's treatment, and has thousands of medical
uses and up to 5,000 industrial uses. Including ethanol production, 4
times more efficient than any other plant on the earth. They want
marijuana illegal because legalizing it means lost profit. PERIOD.
It is interesting that this so called "study', by "researchers" paid
by the pharmaceutical lobby, who did no research , but rather dug
through selected research in search of any possible evidence and came
up with nothing but reported it as significant was released right
before a medical marijuana amendment is up for vote in congress. Any
co-incidence?
* w w w .cyclesurfer . com /Articles/Hemp.htm#hempcancer
click to find out the study by the U.S. government that they don't
want you to know about.
IF ANYTHING THIS STUDY SUGGEST THAT ALCOHOL SHOULD BE OUTLAWED AND
MARIJUANA LEGALIZED..
FURTHERMORE, if we take this "study" seriously, which we can't it says
that there is a 98.6% chance you won't become psychotic if you are a
heavy user of marijuana.! Or a 0.004 probablility that you would
become psychotic by being a heavy user of marijuana. This hardly
warrants the scare tactic used in the articles. What is the increased
risk in psychosis from heavy drinking of alchohol, or of prozac for
that matter?
The term medical marijuana took on dramatic new meaning in February,
2000 when researchers in Madrid announced they had destroyed
incurable brain tumors in rats by injecting them with THC, the active
ingredient in cannabis.
The Madrid study marks only the second time that THC has been ad
ministered to tumor-bearing animals; the first was a Virginia inves
tigation 26 years ago. In both studies, the THC shrank or destroyed tu
mors in a majority of the test subjects.
Most Americans know nothing about the Madrid discovery. Virtually no
major U.S. newspapers carried the story, which ran only once on the
AP and UPI news wires, on Feb. 29, 2000.
The ominous part is that this isn't the first time scientists have
discovered that THC shrinks tumors. In 1974 researchers at the
Medical College of Virginia, who had been funded by the National
Institute of Health to find evidence that marijuana damages the
immune system, found instead that THC slowed the growth of three kinds
of cancer in mice - lung and breast cancer, and a virus-induced
leukemia.
The DEA quickly shut down the Virginia study and all further canna
bis/tumor research, according to Jack Herer, who reports on the
events in his book, "The Emperor Wears No Clothes." In 1976 President
Gerald Ford put an end to all public cannabis research and granted ex
clusive research rights to major pharmaceutical companies, who set
out - unsuccessfully - to develop synthetic forms of THC that would
deliver all the medical benefits without the "high."
The Madrid researchers reported in the March issue of "Nature
Medicine" that they injected the brains of 45 rats with cancer cells,
producing tumors whose presence they confirmed through magnetic reso
nance imaging (MRI). On the 12th day they injected 15 of the rats with
THC and 15 with Win-55,212-2 a synthetic compound similar to THC.
"All the rats left untreated uniformly died 12-18 days after glioma
(brain cancer) cell inoculation ... Cannabinoid (THC)-treated rats
survived significantly longer than control rats. THC administration
was ineffective in three rats, which died by days 16-18. Nine of the
THC-treated rats surpassed the time of death of untreated rats, and
survived up to 19-35 days. Moreover, the tumor was completely
eradicated in three of the treated rats." The rats treated with
Win-55,212-2 showed similar results.
The Spanish researchers, led by Dr. Manuel Guzman of Complutense Uni
versity, also irrigated healthy rats' brains with large doses of THC
for seven days, to test for harmful biochemical or neurological
effects. They found none.
"Careful MRI analysis of all those tumor-free rats showed no sign of
damage related to necrosis, edema, infection or trauma ... We also
examined other potential side effects of cannabinoid admini
stration. In both tumor-free and tumor-bearing rats, cannabinoid
administration induced no substantial change in behavioral parame
ters such as motor coordination or physical activity. Food and water
intake as well as body weight gain were unaffected during and after
cannabinoid delivery. Likewise, the general hematological profiles
of cannabinoid-treated rats were normal. Thus, neither biochemical
parameters nor markers of tissue damage changed substantially during
the 7-day delivery period or for at least 2 months after cannabinoid
treatment ended."
Guzman's investigation is the only time since the 1974 Virginia study
that THC has been administered to live tumor-bearing animals. (The
Spanish researchers cite a 1998 study in which cannabinoids inhibited
breast cancer cell proliferation, but that was a "petri dish" ex
periment that didn't involve live subjects.)
In an email interview for this story, the Madrid researcher said he
had heard of the Virginia study, but had never been able to locate
literature on it. Hence, the Nature Medicine article characterizes
the new study as the first on tumor-laden animals and doesn't cite
the 1974 Virginia investigation.
"I am aware of the existence of that research. In fact I have
attempted many times to obtain the journal article on the original
investigation by these people, but it has proven impossible." Guzman
said.
In 1983 the Reagan/Bush Administration tried to persuade American
universities and researchers to destroy all 1966-76 cannabis re
search work, including compendiums in libraries, reports Jack Herer,
who states, "We know that large amounts of information have since
disappeared."
Guzman provided the title of the work - "Antineoplastic activity of
cannabinoids," an article in a 1975 Journal of the National Cancer
Institute - and this writer obtained a copy at the University of
California medical school library in Davis and faxed it to Madrid.
The summary of the Virginia study begins, "Lewis lung adenocarcinoma
growth was retarded by the oral administration of tetrahydro
cannabinol (THC) and cannabinol (CBN)" - two types of cannabinoids, a
family of active components in marijuana. "Mice treated for 20
consecutive days with THC and CBN had reduced primary tumor size."
The 1975 journal article doesn't mention breast cancer tumors, which
featured in the only newspaper story ever to appear about the 1974
study - in the Local section of the Washington Post on August 18,
1974. Under the headline, "Cancer Curb Is Studied," it read in part:
"The active chemical agent in marijuana curbs the growth of three
kinds of cancer in mice and may also suppress the immunity reaction
that causes rejection of organ transplants, a Medical College of
Virginia team has discovered." The researchers "found that THC slowed
the growth of lung cancers, breast cancers and a virus-induced
leukemia in laboratory mice, and prolonged their lives by as much as
36%."
Guzman, writing from Madrid, was eloquent in his response after this
writer faxed him the clipping from the Washington Post of a quarter
century ago. In translation, he wrote:
"It is extremely interesting to me, the hope that the project seemed
to awaken at that moment, and the sad evolution of events during the
years following the discovery, until now we once again Îdraw back the
veilâ over the anti-tumoral power of THC, twenty-five years later.
Unfortunately, the world bumps along between such moments of hope and
long periods of intellectual castration."
News coverage of the Madrid discovery has been virtually nonexistent
in this country. The news broke quietly on Feb. 29, 2000 with a story
that ran once on the UPI wire about the Nature Medicine article. This
writer stumbled on it through a link that appeared briefly on the
Drudge Report web page. The New York Times, Washington Post and Los
Angeles Times all ignored the story, even though its newsworthiness
is indisputable: a benign substance occurring in nature destroys
deadly brain tumors
that there is a 98.6% chance you won't become psychotic if you are a
heavy user of marijuana.! Or a 0.004 probablility that you would
become psychotic by being a heavy user of marijuana. This hardly
warrants the scare tactic used in the articles. What is the increased
risk in psychosis from heavy drinking of alchohol, or of prozac for
that matter?
The term medical marijuana took on dramatic new meaning in February,
2000 when researchers in Madrid announced they had destroyed
incurable brain tumors in rats by injecting them with THC, the active
ingredient in cannabis.
The Madrid study marks only the second time that THC has been ad
ministered to tumor-bearing animals; the first was a Virginia inves
tigation 26 years ago. In both studies, the THC shrank or destroyed tu
mors in a majority of the test subjects.
Most Americans know nothing about the Madrid discovery. Virtually no
major U.S. newspapers carried the story, which ran only once on the
AP and UPI news wires, on Feb. 29, 2000.
The ominous part is that this isn't the first time scientists have
discovered that THC shrinks tumors. In 1974 researchers at the
Medical College of Virginia, who had been funded by the National
Institute of Health to find evidence that marijuana damages the
immune system, found instead that THC slowed the growth of three kinds
of cancer in mice - lung and breast cancer, and a virus-induced
leukemia.
The DEA quickly shut down the Virginia study and all further canna
bis/tumor research, according to Jack Herer, who reports on the
events in his book, "The Emperor Wears No Clothes." In 1976 President
Gerald Ford put an end to all public cannabis research and granted ex
clusive research rights to major pharmaceutical companies, who set
out - unsuccessfully - to develop synthetic forms of THC that would
deliver all the medical benefits without the "high."
The Madrid researchers reported in the March issue of "Nature
Medicine" that they injected the brains of 45 rats with cancer cells,
producing tumors whose presence they confirmed through magnetic reso
nance imaging (MRI). On the 12th day they injected 15 of the rats with
THC and 15 with Win-55,212-2 a synthetic compound similar to THC.
"All the rats left untreated uniformly died 12-18 days after glioma
(brain cancer) cell inoculation ... Cannabinoid (THC)-treated rats
survived significantly longer than control rats. THC administration
was ineffective in three rats, which died by days 16-18. Nine of the
THC-treated rats surpassed the time of death of untreated rats, and
survived up to 19-35 days. Moreover, the tumor was completely
eradicated in three of the treated rats." The rats treated with
Win-55,212-2 showed similar results.
The Spanish researchers, led by Dr. Manuel Guzman of Complutense Uni
versity, also irrigated healthy rats' brains with large doses of THC
for seven days, to test for harmful biochemical or neurological
effects. They found none.
"Careful MRI analysis of all those tumor-free rats showed no sign of
damage related to necrosis, edema, infection or trauma ... We also
examined other potential side effects of cannabinoid admini
stration. In both tumor-free and tumor-bearing rats, cannabinoid
administration induced no substantial change in behavioral parame
ters such as motor coordination or physical activity. Food and water
intake as well as body weight gain were unaffected during and after
cannabinoid delivery. Likewise, the general hematological profiles
of cannabinoid-treated rats were normal. Thus, neither biochemical
parameters nor markers of tissue damage changed substantially during
the 7-day delivery period or for at least 2 months after cannabinoid
treatment ended."
Guzman's investigation is the only time since the 1974 Virginia study
that THC has been administered to live tumor-bearing animals. (The
Spanish researchers cite a 1998 study in which cannabinoids inhibited
breast cancer cell proliferation, but that was a "petri dish" ex
periment that didn't involve live subjects.)
In an email interview for this story, the Madrid researcher said he
had heard of the Virginia study, but had never been able to locate
literature on it. Hence, the Nature Medicine article characterizes
the new study as the first on tumor-laden animals and doesn't cite
the 1974 Virginia investigation.
"I am aware of the existence of that research. In fact I have
attempted many times to obtain the journal article on the original
investigation by these people, but it has proven impossible." Guzman
said.
In 1983 the Reagan/Bush Administration tried to persuade American
universities and researchers to destroy all 1966-76 cannabis re
search work, including compendiums in libraries, reports Jack Herer,
who states, "We know that large amounts of information have since
disappeared."
Guzman provided the title of the work - "Antineoplastic activity of
cannabinoids," an article in a 1975 Journal of the National Cancer
Institute - and this writer obtained a copy at the University of
California medical school library in Davis and faxed it to Madrid.
The summary of the Virginia study begins, "Lewis lung adenocarcinoma
growth was retarded by the oral administration of tetrahydro
cannabinol (THC) and cannabinol (CBN)" - two types of cannabinoids, a
family of active components in marijuana. "Mice treated for 20
consecutive days with THC and CBN had reduced primary tumor size."
The 1975 journal article doesn't mention breast cancer tumors, which
featured in the only newspaper story ever to appear about the 1974
study - in the Local section of the Washington Post on August 18,
1974. Under the headline, "Cancer Curb Is Studied," it read in part:
"The active chemical agent in marijuana curbs the growth of three
kinds of cancer in mice and may also suppress the immunity reaction
that causes rejection of organ transplants, a Medical College of
Virginia team has discovered." The researchers "found that THC slowed
the growth of lung cancers, breast cancers and a virus-induced
leukemia in laboratory mice, and prolonged their lives by as much as
36%."
Guzman, writing from Madrid, was eloquent in his response after this
writer faxed him the clipping from the Washington Post of a quarter
century ago. In translation, he wrote:
"It is extremely interesting to me, the hope that the project seemed
to awaken at that moment, and the sad evolution of events during the
years following the discovery, until now we once again Îdraw back the
veilâ over the anti-tumoral power of THC, twenty-five years later.
Unfortunately, the world bumps along between such moments of hope and
long periods of intellectual castration."
News coverage of the Madrid discovery has been virtually nonexistent
in this country. The news broke quietly on Feb. 29, 2000 with a story
that ran once on the UPI wire about the Nature Medicine article. This
writer stumbled on it through a link that appeared briefly on the
Drudge Report web page. The New York Times, Washington Post and Los
Angeles Times all ignored the story, even though its newsworthiness
is indisputable: a benign substance occurring in nature destroys
deadly brain tumors
"Mark Whiteley" <mark.whiteley53@ntlworld . com > wrote in message
news:Ytpqi.804$mo.115@newsfe4-win.ntli . net ...
>
> "sobriquet" <dohduhdah@yahoo . com > wrote in message
> news:1185544516.880473.195500@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups . com ...
> On 27 jul, 09:09, Phil Stovell <p...@stovell.org.uk> wrote:
> >
< * w w w .thelancet . com /journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607611337...>
> >
> > Rehashing the evidence on psychosis and cannabis
> >
> > As cabinet ministers in the UK fall over themselves to tell all about
> > their cannabis-taking younger days, Gordon Brown's Government begins its
> > review of the classification of cannabis, with the probable outcome of
> > relabelling it a class B drug of misuse. Possession would then become an
> > offence likely to lead to arrest and perhaps a jail sentence. Cannabis
was
> > downgraded to class C in 2004, which meant that the penalties for
> > possession, production, or supply were reduced.
> >
> > The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs will examine the evidence
for
> > harms caused by cannabis including those associated with the
increasingly
> > available strains such as skunk. In January, 2006, after its last
review,
> > the Advisory Council recommended that the class C status for cannabis
> > should remain, but that resources should be put into education about the
> > risks of cannabis and into further research on its effects on mental
> > health.
> >
> > As pointed out by Merete Nordentoft and Carsten Hjorthøj in a Comment,
> > "published in this week's Lancet is the most comprehensive meta-analysis
> > to date of a possible causal relation between cannabis use and psychotic
> > and affective illness later in life". In their systematic review,
> > Theresa Moore and colleagues found "an increase in risk of psychosis of
> > about 40% in participants who had ever used cannabis", and a clear
> > dose-response effect with an increased risk of 50-200% in the most
> > frequent users.
> >
> > In 1995, we began a Lancet editorial with the since much-quoted words:
> > "The smoking of cannabis, even long term, is not harmful to health."
> > Research published since 1995, including Moore's systematic review in
this
> > issue, leads us now to conclude that cannabis use could increase the
risk
> > of psychotic illness. Further research is needed on the effects of
> > cannabis on affective disorders. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of
> > Drugs will have plenty to consider. But whatever their eventual
> > recommendation, governments would do well to invest in sustained and
> > effective education campaigns on the risks to health of taking cannabis.
> >
> > The Lancet
> >
> > --
> > Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>
> >Ok... well, how does it compare to other risk factors that increase
> >the risk of psychotic illness?
> >Has there ever been such a comprehensive review of the evidence for
> >the potential increase in the risk of psychotic illness (or affective
> >disorders) for alcohol use?
Yes I read something on that a few years ago and cannabis fared worse, the
association with alcohol was very weak. Sorry but I can't provide a
reference. It may be in my archives but I'm not digging tonight. The finding
also makes sense, if alcohol consumption contributed significantly to
psychosis that would be obvious by now. I am of the opinion that the risk re
cannabis is in the teenage years and possibly early 20's. There will need to
be a number of co-factors. Even sustained stress can initiate psychosis in
the vulnerable. Hell, if you read the epidemiological studies on psychosis
you'll find that psychosis is much more prevalent than the 1% average for
schizophrenics in the general population. You also need to consider that the
diagnosis of psychosis is still very subjective. I, and many, could easily
walk into a psychiatrist's office and feign psychosis. If you want an
example of this google -"David Rosenhan" Thud-. Hilarious and tragic at the
same time, a scathing indictment of psychiatric diagnostic accuracy.
Of course the above listed qualifications will not be brought into the
discussion. It is a bugger of a problem in modern research that it tends to
become so narrowly focused that one can easily forget all the qualifications
that lie waiting about so called facts which can bring so many convincing
"scientific arguments" plunging into the abyss of ridicule.
The cannabis incidence increase is still quite small, if governments are
going to start legislating on that basis then they will be legislating to
eternity. We should immediately ban soccer because heading the ball does
cause brain damage. For that matter, most contact sports. No more cars, they
just kill so many people. Etc etc etc .... .
The response is typical and biting:
the simple fact is that most psychoactive drugs prescribed by the medical
profession, and many other so prescribed drugs, carry far greater risks than
that which is associated with cannabis.
Eg. recent study found long term use of ssris(many more regular users of
those than pot) is associated with osteoporosis. Benzo use associated with
hip fractures. ... there's more there, you just don't hear the warning bells
so loudly when they are on that side of the fence.
----
Hope this helps,
John.
> Your right we could use somthing to relate this too. They suggest big
> numbers which work out to a small number of people. 946 in the UK,
according
> to Phil thats about right as it works out to 800.
>
> Alcohol affects the metal health of around 40,000 (memory)user a year in
the
> UK alone and thus remains a far more dangerous substance.
>
>
>
>
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 22:13:54 +1000, John H. wrote:
> Yes I read something on that a few years ago and cannabis fared worse,
> the association with alcohol was very weak.
You have it the wrong way around.
Alcohol related psychosis:
< * w w w .emedicine . com /med/topic3113.htm>
Cases of alcohol related mental disorders in UK 2004-05 (126,300)
< * w w w .ias.org.uk/resources/publications/alcoholalert/alert200602/al200602_p3.html>
Cases of cannabis related mental disorders in UK 1996-2006 (946 in
2005-06)
< * w w w .theyworkforyou . com /wrans/?id=2007-06-06a.131912.h>
--
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
> Yes I read something on that a few years ago and cannabis fared worse,
> the association with alcohol was very weak.
You have it the wrong way around.
Alcohol related psychosis:
< * w w w .emedicine . com /med/topic3113.htm>
Cases of alcohol related mental disorders in UK 2004-05 (126,300)
< * w w w .ias.org.uk/resources/publications/alcoholalert/alert200602/al200602_p3.html>
Cases of cannabis related mental disorders in UK 1996-2006 (946 in
2005-06)
< * w w w .theyworkforyou . com /wrans/?id=2007-06-06a.131912.h>
--
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
sobriquet wrote:
> On 27 jul, 09:09, Phil Stovell <p...@stovell.org.uk> wrote:
>> < * w w w .thelancet . com /journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607611337...>
>>
>> Rehashing the evidence on psychosis and cannabis
>>
>> As cabinet ministers in the UK fall over themselves to tell all about
>> their cannabis-taking younger days, Gordon Brown's Government begins its
>> review of the classification of cannabis, with the probable outcome of
>> relabelling it a class B drug of misuse. Possession would then become an
>> offence likely to lead to arrest and perhaps a jail sentence. Cannabis was
>> downgraded to class C in 2004, which meant that the penalties for
>> possession, production, or supply were reduced.
>>
>> The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs will examine the evidence for
>> harms caused by cannabis including those associated with the increasingly
>> available strains such as skunk. In January, 2006, after its last review,
>> the Advisory Council recommended that the class C status for cannabis
>> should remain, but that resources should be put into education about the
>> risks of cannabis and into further research on its effects on mental
>> health.
>>
>> As pointed out by Merete Nordentoft and Carsten Hjorthøj in a Comment,
>> "published in this week's Lancet is the most comprehensive meta-analysis
>> to date of a possible causal relation between cannabis use and psychotic
>> and affective illness later in life". In their systematic review,
>> Theresa Moore and colleagues found "an increase in risk of psychosis of
>> about 40% in participants who had ever used cannabis", and a clear
>> dose-response effect with an increased risk of 50-200% in the most
>> frequent users.
>>
>> In 1995, we began a Lancet editorial with the since much-quoted words:
>> "The smoking of cannabis, even long term, is not harmful to health."
>> Research published since 1995, including Moore's systematic review in this
>> issue, leads us now to conclude that cannabis use could increase the risk
>> of psychotic illness. Further research is needed on the effects of
>> cannabis on affective disorders. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of
>> Drugs will have plenty to consider. But whatever their eventual
>> recommendation, governments would do well to invest in sustained and
>> effective education campaigns on the risks to health of taking cannabis.
>>
>> The Lancet
>
> Ok... well, how does it compare to other risk factors that increase
> the risk of psychotic illness?
> Has there ever been such a comprehensive review of the evidence for
> the potential increase in the risk of psychotic illness (or affective
> disorders) for alcohol use?
Interestingly, about the same as heavy cannabis use:
"The reported two-fold higher risk was independent of other risk factors
for psychotic symptoms including drug dependence, suggesting that
alcohol dependence per se doubles the risk of psychotic symptoms."
* w w w .medscape . com /viewarticle/528487_2
> On 27 jul, 09:09, Phil Stovell <p...@stovell.org.uk> wrote:
>> < * w w w .thelancet . com /journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607611337...>
>>
>> Rehashing the evidence on psychosis and cannabis
>>
>> As cabinet ministers in the UK fall over themselves to tell all about
>> their cannabis-taking younger days, Gordon Brown's Government begins its
>> review of the classification of cannabis, with the probable outcome of
>> relabelling it a class B drug of misuse. Possession would then become an
>> offence likely to lead to arrest and perhaps a jail sentence. Cannabis was
>> downgraded to class C in 2004, which meant that the penalties for
>> possession, production, or supply were reduced.
>>
>> The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs will examine the evidence for
>> harms caused by cannabis including those associated with the increasingly
>> available strains such as skunk. In January, 2006, after its last review,
>> the Advisory Council recommended that the class C status for cannabis
>> should remain, but that resources should be put into education about the
>> risks of cannabis and into further research on its effects on mental
>> health.
>>
>> As pointed out by Merete Nordentoft and Carsten Hjorthøj in a Comment,
>> "published in this week's Lancet is the most comprehensive meta-analysis
>> to date of a possible causal relation between cannabis use and psychotic
>> and affective illness later in life". In their systematic review,
>> Theresa Moore and colleagues found "an increase in risk of psychosis of
>> about 40% in participants who had ever used cannabis", and a clear
>> dose-response effect with an increased risk of 50-200% in the most
>> frequent users.
>>
>> In 1995, we began a Lancet editorial with the since much-quoted words:
>> "The smoking of cannabis, even long term, is not harmful to health."
>> Research published since 1995, including Moore's systematic review in this
>> issue, leads us now to conclude that cannabis use could increase the risk
>> of psychotic illness. Further research is needed on the effects of
>> cannabis on affective disorders. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of
>> Drugs will have plenty to consider. But whatever their eventual
>> recommendation, governments would do well to invest in sustained and
>> effective education campaigns on the risks to health of taking cannabis.
>>
>> The Lancet
>
> Ok... well, how does it compare to other risk factors that increase
> the risk of psychotic illness?
> Has there ever been such a comprehensive review of the evidence for
> the potential increase in the risk of psychotic illness (or affective
> disorders) for alcohol use?
Interestingly, about the same as heavy cannabis use:
"The reported two-fold higher risk was independent of other risk factors
for psychotic symptoms including drug dependence, suggesting that
alcohol dependence per se doubles the risk of psychotic symptoms."
* w w w .medscape . com /viewarticle/528487_2
Next: Real reason hemp / marijuana is illegal.
Previous: Lancet: Cannabis use and risk of psychotic or affective mental health outcomes:...
