Hello drugwarriors:

I just read an article about a study that says smoking pot increases your chances of going nuts. The research was paid for by the British Health Department and is being published in a well known medical journal, The Lancet.

Two of the authors of the study are on the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs Cannabis Review in 2005. Several others reported having been paid to attend drug company sponsored meetings related to marijuana, and one received consulting fees from companies that make antipsychotic medications.

Should I believe the study?

excon

You should probably put the same weight to it that you do from testimonial evidence to the contrary ,or from clinical tests performed for or by advocacy groups of legalization.

Don't worry about it, excon. The test showed that those who smoke marijuana had a slim majority in statistics of going psychotic later in life. Aren't you past "later in life"?? :D

That's the very reason our Stats instructor warned us to look carefully at each study as to who was polled or studied, how random was the sample, the credentials and intentions of the study's authors, etc. As soon as any of these are suspect or biased, the study's results become unreliable.

So, you're saying that science is in the eye of the beholder. I didn't know that.

Isn't that what you are implying ? I had been in the pharmaceutical business before I went natural . I think studies and results are frequently determined by the result desired.

Isn't that what you are implying ? I had been in the pharmaceutical business before I went natural . I think studies and results are frequently determined by the end result desired.

It depende on who is doing the study. In today's world, one might as well reject the results of most studies until you see what institution was in charge of it.

I do believe you have to take into account the source of the information. Not exactly unbiased, are they?

Secondly, we have had our debate about using on other threads and I concede there are those out there that are using responsibly, however, there are also those out there that become addicted psychologically. It seems to follow that those with an predisposition to become addicted to anything be it marijuana, video games or gambling, etc. would already have a mental defect. I guess what I am trying to say is that heavily addicted users may be self-medicating for a undiagnosed mental problem.

Does that make any sense?

Anyway, studies say I'm going to drop dead of a heart attack from all the Diet Pepsi's I swill - so I guess I'll never find out for sure!

I haven't read the study, so I can't answer you yet.

What is the basis for their conclusions? Do those conclusions make sense based on the evidence presented?

Are they based on hard facts and historical figures, annecdotal evidence, or models that are based on questionable assumptions?

Are the guys who did the study unbiased experts in the fields in which they did the study (ei: medical professionals with backgrounds in the effects of chemicals on the brain and body, statisticians with a backgound in studying such information, researchers who have a background in gathering this kind of information, etc.) or are they a couple of third-year med students with an anti-drug bias (or something somewhere in the middle)?

Who were the subjects of the study? Was it a couple of guys who were already suffering from schizophrenia and ADHD, or was it a large study group of subjects from a large and random population?

Has the report been peer-reviewed, and by whom? Were the peers in agreement with the methodology of the study and conclusions of the report? If they disagreed, what was the basis for the disagreement?

Does it contradict other realiable studies? How badly? What is the basis of the contradictions?

Without knowing the answers to these questions, one cannot realistically answer your question. It is certainly something that you should take into consideration and do your own research on to find the facts.

Do you have a link to the study? I'd like to look it over.

Elliot

This is easy:

Do YOU think you are nuts?

Remember, crazy people don't know they are crazy.

Hmmmm... :)

I haven't read the study, so I can't answer you yet.

What is the basis for their conclusions? Do those conclusions make sense based on the evidence presented?

Are they based on hard facts and historical figures, annecdotal evidence, or models that are based on questionable assumptions?

Are the guys who did the study unbiased experts in the fields in which they did the study (ei: medical professionals with backgrounds in the effects of chemicals on the brain and body, statisticians with a backgound in studying such information, researchers who have a background in gathering this kind of information, etc.) or are they a couple of third-year med students with an anti-drug bias (or something somewhere in the middle)?

Who were the subjects of the study? Was it a couple of guys who were already suffering from schizophrenia and ADHD, or was it a large study group of subjects from a large and random population?

Has the report been peer-reviewed, and by whom? Were the peers in agreement with the methodology of the study and conclusions of the report? If they disagreed, what was the basis for the disagreement?

Does it contradict other realiable studies? How badly? What is the basis of the contradictions?

Without knowing the answers to these questions, one cannot realistically answer your question. It is certainly something that you should take into consideration and do your own research on to find the facts.

Do you have a link to the study? I'd like to look it over.

Elliot
I found this link on Breaking News | Latest News | Current News - FOXNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com)

Hello drugwarriors:

I just read an article about a study that says smoking pot increases your chances of going nuts. The research was paid for by the British Health Department and is being published in a well known medical journal, The Lancet.

Two of the authors of the study are on the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs Cannabis Review in 2005. Several others reported having been paid to attend drug company sponsored meetings related to marijuana, and one received consulting fees from companies that make antipsychotic medications.

Should I believe the study?

excon

I can't find the actual article but :

Are Smoking Pot and Psychosis Linked? (http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20070726/pot-now-psychotic-later?page=2)

You would have to look at the methodology, randomized double blind controlled studies are less likely to be biased or skewed due to confounders compared with retrospective or meta analysis.

You have to compare apples to apples:
e.g.. Do the weed users and non weed users have the same characteristics except weed use? If the weed users had a greater proportion of mental illness in their families this would confound or bias the results.

Look at the numbers - is the sample size large enough to have significance measured as a p value.


"Put another way: In a group of 100 people, three would be expected, statistically speaking, to develop a psychotic illness such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder with psychosis. "When you factor in the marijuana study, one or two more, depending on how often they use it, will have psychotic illness,"

so in 100 non weed users 3 would be pyschotic
in 100 weed users 4-5 would be psychotic

a 1-2 % absolute differene but about a 40% increase in relative risk - depends on which term you use.


Since these guys are in part funded by pharma that makes antipsychotics it would not be in their best interest to release results that may reduce the number of their potential consumers.


The other bias in research is NOT publishing results - say they did 2 other studies that did not show any correlation between weed and psychosis.






Grace and Peace

Hello ex,

Shouldn't "excon the science mon" already know the answer? :D

Steve

I suppose that is why Clinton said he didn’t inhale…why (http://www.njweedman.com/why_marijuana_is_illegal.html)

Have you heard the latest, excon?

I heard a report on the news today that 1 marijuana cig was equivalent to 2.5 to 5 cigarettes.

Oh well, got to die fromsomething'

Have you heard the latest, excon? I heard a report on the news today that 1 marijuana cig was equivalent to 2.5 to 5 cigarettes. Hello again, Em:

Yeah... That's OLD propaganda. Bet you heard it on Fox. But, like all propaganda, it has a kernel of truth.

Marijuana, like tobacco, has tar. Today's potent pot has even more tar than the numbers you are quoting. And, I smoke the best of the best. So, I'm getting a bunch of tar...

The problem is, tar doesn't kill you. Nicotine does. Nicotine kills around 350,000 people every year in this country alone... Nobody has ever, ever died from smoking pot. If we knew that someone did, don't you think Bill O'Reilly would have told you??

Now, Em, I'm not saying it's GOOD for you, but it doesn't kill you.

excon

Actually, ex, the nicotene isn't what kills you, it's the other stuff that will. The cigarette has 4000 harmful chemicals. Cannabis, by comparison, has 420 chemicals, or one tenth the number of chemicals found in tobacco, and one of those chemicals is an antioxidant.

Science News Online (7/11/98): Marijuana chemical tapped to fight strokes (http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc98/7_11_98/fob2.htm)

See, statistics can be manipulated any way you want. I know nothing about the level of the presence of chemicals, but I guess it is less in the organically grown variety than the other.

But that's neither here nor there.

Does this mean "Reefer Madness" is true? :eek:

Hello again, Goldie:

I don't disagree. Chemicals - schmemicals! What can't be manipulated is the fact that there isn't ONE documented death due to marijuana- not one.

But, that doesn't mean there haven't been. The key word is documentation. Frankly, I'd like to know since I imbibe in the herb.

However, the government won't let it be studied. They have determined that is has no medical use, and they're not going to let anybody tell them differently. The government won't supply any from its farm to be studied, and they arrest anyone who DOES possess it, and writes a study admitting they DID. Therefore, no studies of any substance exist.

Oh, yeah, there's the one that triggered this thread. But, that's not a "study", as we've really determined. YOU don't even think it's a study. It's propaganda.

I'd really like to know if I'm tempting death. They tell me that magnets aren't good around my kids. Don't you think they should tell the 25 million pot smokers in this country what they're REALLY facing? And, I mean really – without lying.

excon

Shhhhhhh! excon, there must be a reason to outlaw it and keep cigarettes legal, right?

Have you done any research on why it is illegal? You should! Google "Henry Anslinger and William Randolph Hearst."

And no, I'm not coming over to the dark side. Just the libertarian in me peeks her head out once in a while. :cool:

Hello again, Goldie:

I am not a rookie in this fight. Of course, I know that Anslinger worked for Hearst who was afraid that hemp would destroy his paper mills, so he sent his lackey, Angslinger, to Washington to scare everybody.

He did. He told congress that white women would be raped by Mexican and black men. There was no debate. Pot was made illegal, Anslinger was given the job of top marijuana cop, and Hearst continued to make money.

Frankly, it's shameful.

But, that was then, and this is now. IF pot should be illegal, let's have it be that way based upon sound science.

excon

Actually, excon, I found this report (http://www.drugwatch.org/CEDARS/MarDeaths2002e.pdf) that shows that there were 2 cases of deaths due directly to marijuana overdose (with no other drug used) in 2002. One was in Atlanta and one was in Boston. So the argument that there has never been a documented case where someone died from marijuana use alone is incorrect.

That doesn't take away from your point that marijuana seems to be safer than any other drug, and most likely than cigarrettes as well. But when you use blanket terms like "never" or "always" you are just looking to be proven wrong.

The report also lists other marijuana-related deaths where no other drug was in use, but where marijuana was not the DIRECT cause of death, but rather a contributing factor.

Elliot

Wolverine,

Didn't DAWN retract that report? I thought they had. Maybe they didn't. :confused: The Atlanta case was not "overdose" in the general sense. The person who died had a congenital heart defect that caused the heartbeat to become too slow. It should have been deemed an "other."

Hello again, El:

Well, it might as well have been Limprod...

El, anecdotal information put out by an anti drug group, isn't data. It's propaganda.

excon

excon agrees: I will check it out. Who wrote it? Rush Limprod??

Nope. It was written by the Center for Effective Drug Abuse Research & Statistics (CEDARS). The statistical information comes from the Dug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN).