Cannabis use increases risk of psychotic illness

01:16 27 July 2007
NewScientist.com news service

Psychological medicine, Cardiff University

The Lancet

Using marijuana increases the risk of one day developing a psychotic illness such as schizophrenia, according to a study that provides some of the strongest evidence yet linking the drug to a mental disorder.

Marijuana is one the most commonly used illegal substances in many countries, with up to 20% of young people in places such as Britain reporting either some use or heavy use, British researchers said, citing government statistics.

Many consider it on par with alcohol or tobacco but the results shows marijuana poses a danger many smokers underestimate, said team member Stanley Zammit, a psychiatrist at Cardiff University and the University of Bristol in the UK.

The researchers found that marijuana users had a 41% increased chance of developing psychosis marked by symptoms of hallucinations or delusions later in life than those who never used the drug. The risk rose with heavier consumption.

"If you compare other substances like alcohol or tobacco, it may not be as harmful, but what we are saying is neither is it completely safe," Zammit said.

Other findings have highlighted the link between marijuana use and the risk of schizophrenia-like symptoms such as paranoia, hearing voices and seeing things that are not there.

But this study marks one of the most comprehensive, thorough and reliable reviews of its kind and should serve as a warning, two Danish researchers wrote in an accompanying article.

Raise warning

They said the results mean an estimated 800 cases of schizophrenia in the UK could be prevented each year by ending marijuana consumption.

"We therefore agree with the authors' conclusion that there is now sufficient evidence to warn young people that cannabis use will increase their risk of psychosis later in life," they wrote.

The team did not look directly at people who used marijuana but instead reviewed 35 studies in search of a potential connection between psychotic illness and using marijuana.

They reviewed evidence from studies ranging from one year to 27 years and only looked at research that did not include people already showing signs of psychotic illness.

The researchers also adjusted for factors – such as depression or a susceptibility to harder drugs – that could one day lead to a mental disorder to focus more directly on the links between marijuana and psychosis, Zammit said.

"We have described a consistent association between cannabis use and psychotic symptoms, including disabling psychotic disorders," the team wrote.

But both Zammit and the Danish researchers said ultimate proof to show a direct relationship would be have to come through a randomised trial of healthy young people and long-term follow-up.

Such a study, however, is unlikely given marijuana is illegal in most countries and the ethical questions given the drug's known harmful effects, they said.

Journal reference: The Lancet (vol 370, p 319)

Somebody please pass Hey Hey a joint!

Nothing new here. In fact, they did no research at all. This is a conclusion based on looking at other studies and coming up with different opinions. An "association" is not the same as cause and effect. 100% of people who breath air, die eventually. What conclusions can we draw from that? None at all.

People who have a tendency toward psychosis tend to use drugs such as alcohol and pot. I bet you if they had looked for a connection to alcohol they would have found just as strong an association. Probably would have found an association with tobacco smoking. I recall seeing a study that showed nearly 100% of serious mental patients in a study smoked tobacco.

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:2JHZ7...n&ct=clnk&cd=25

Here are some excerpts from the study:

The literature searches uncovered numerous articles related to smoking and
mental health. Common themes were the high prevalence of smoking among
people with mental illness and investigations of the relationship between
tobacco use and mental health. A number of articles looked at tobacco

Smoking prevalence is significantly higher among people with mental health
problems than among the general population (McNeill, 2001). Surveys reveal
consistently higher smoking rates among people with all categories of mental
health problems than in the general population, with highest rates found in
people with a diagnosis of psychosis (Meltzer et al, 1995). Surveys on
residents in British psychiatric institutions found that over 70% of patients
were current smokers (Meltzer et al, 1996).

I bet that if I'd posted a reference to a paper indicating that some prescription drug had an "association" with psychosis there would immediately be many posters slating the drug. Why does the association above lead to a response that suggests a blinkered approach? I have given no indication of my own views on the matter of illegal (yes marijuana is illegal in the UK and US) drug use. I merely post links to data provided by established and respected scientists from their studies using accepted and appropriate methods. Maybe some posters on BrainMeta don't understand the scientific method and prefer to post opinions only or refer to diversions regarding the associations of other lifestyle choices with psychosis, that do not in themselves negate the association in point. Rather, we should be looking at the scientific data regarding all of these imbibed substances, that will then enable us to make better judgments on whether to participate in or support their usage. Personally, I like to look at all data (note - data, not anecdotes) and then, if I have the scientific understanding, make a comment or recommendation.

As has obviously been missed by other poster(s), association does not equal cause and effect. No doubt I was being too subtle. It is not enough to show that two things are often seen together. It does not prove that one causes the other. I can give many examples of things that are often seen together which obviously do not have a cause and effect relationship. I showed a correlation of at least 70% between tobacco smoking and psychosis. Does that prove ciggies cause insanity? No, it does not. 70% is a much higher correlation than what was found in the cannabis study

Easy there, Hey Hey. Ok, I get it! No more jokes about pot! I just get this feeling from your posts that you have a personal vendetta against pot so I poke fun at it.

And you need to understand that a correlation does not equal cause and effect. You obviously received your science qualifications from from www.quack.ac.mars. Go and learn some science then come back and discuss this topic (and others) with some credibility.

Joke all you like. I think your jokes are great. We need more jokes . My vendetta, as you put it, is against believers in fairy stories (more specifically belief in gods), supporters of pseudoscience (more specifically belief in anything that it not supported by clinical trials or empirical evidence, or belief simply because it's herbal) and particularly those who purport to understand something when they clearly do not (you know the type, I'm expert in everything, and to get all of this knowledge I had no time to go to college). We have a few cranks arrive, and sometimes stay, on BrainMeta. I believe that one of my moderating roles is to put them straight (a sort of educational role). Please notice, that as a moderator, I have done no more here than post an article from respected scientists and then encourage the discussion to proceed.

Here are a few questions regarding cannabis:

Why do people use it? Do the reasons overlap with those for drinking alcohol or taking hard drugs or misusing prescription drugs? And I don't solicit the simple responses such as "for relaxation" as one can achieve this by, say, meditation that has no side-effects bar falling asleep.

Do users believe that there are no side-effects? If not, what side-effects do they know about? Do they understand the side-effects in a true pharmacological sense, or through anecdotal information? Do they know that cannabis components remain in the body for many days after imbibing?

If people are prepared to break the law regarding cannabis use (forget whether the law is righty or wrong - it is there), does this say something about their regard for the law more generally?

Do users understand that cannabis inebriates (e.g. that there are effects on reaction times; that the response types differ under the influence)? Do they understand that this can impact on the ability to drive (autos, trains, planes etc), to have safe sex, to look after children, and to make other important (maybe life or death) decisions? Thus do they understand how their actions might impact upon the lives (includes literally) of others. Please don't answer with the simple "hardy annual" diversions about the impacts of alcohol or cigarette smoking; stick to cannabis.

Fun, altered sense of reality, comfort, social, to get high....

Mostly, yes.

Yes, but meditation takes effort, when you take drugs you can let the drug do it for you. You can ask the same thing of anti-hypertensive medications and other sorts of medicines, but its easier to pop the pill than to go for a run, do meditation or make yourself a proper meal. Its innate human laziness.

No, they usually know about and accept side effects. I accept that I get a little paranoid and incredibly introspective when on THC, I try to allow for it. I think any non-acceptance of some side effects comes about because of drug war propaganda over inflating risk, which users then don't experience so they start to under-estimate their own personal risk.

Some people know pharmacology and are interested in it, others don't and information comes from other people, media, and internet. A lot of them don't care as long it gets them high. People usually do know that it stays in their body for sometime, you can thank the efforts on drug detection in sports and the workplace on that.

I look at it the other way and think that it starts people thinking about what is right and what is wrong based on a moralistic perspectives and so start to give less credence to law initiatives.

Yes to all of those.

This is why I consider you a troll. You do not discuss the issues you call names and make personal attacks. I will not discuss anything with you again.

You can't fault someone for doing the best they know how and taking a position as long as you don't try to defend yours.

I doubt that HH really lives his life totally from scientific documentation. Tho he may hide behind it to validate his beliefs and his conversations I think there is more to him than he wants to admit is real.

Anyone can past an article and argue the similarities in corresponding documents to an affect but historically speaking these premises are continually changing and have changed because of the emotional influence that takes place in scientific approach.
It's difficult to totally be objective when you resist disagreements.

And damm good at it you are. The best. BM would not be the same at all without your contribution. Thank you for that. As for the answers to your questions, I cannot comment on scientific data, because I simply don't have it. But at the personal level my answers go along Orbz's. Although I really hardly mess with the stuff but maybe once a year (Santa Klaus high), I really enjoy doing it when I do it. Socially speaking I do belief that it's been overly demonized by the powers to be. I think it most likely has to do with, like everything in this world, money and monetary interest. If you look at the statistics, illegal drugs are an easy way to put blood money by the hundreds of billions a year back into circulation at the very low interest the drug lords are willing to give it up for. At the press of a keypad button, all these billions get recylcled into the legal market and to the highest bidder at the regular exchange rate. This expells double gain for the hypocrites in power: They fatten their pockets on the one hand, while at the same time they can have someone to point their finger at for everyone to see who the bad guy is (anyone but them, right?): The drug dealer, the pot smoker, ect.

And damm good at it you are. The best. BM would not be the same at all without your contribution. Thank you for that. As for the answers to your questions, I cannot comment on scientific data, because I simply don't have it. But at the personal level my answers go along Orbz's. Although I really hardly mess with the stuff but maybe once a year (Santa Klaus high), I really enjoy doing it when I do it. Socially speaking I do belief that it's been overly demonized by the powers to be. I think it most likely has to do with, like everything in this world, money and monetary interest. If you look at the statistics, illegal drugs are an easy way to put blood money by the hundreds of billions a year back into circulation at the very low interest the drug lords are willing to give it up for. At the press of a keypad button, all these billions get recylcled into the legal market and to the highest bidder at the regular exchange rate. This expells double gain for the hypocrites in power: They fatten their pockets on the one hand, while at the same time they can have someone to point their finger at for everyone to see who the bad guy is (anyone but them, right?): The drug dealer, the pot smoker, ect.

P.S. "Guest" from previous post was me. I just don't have moderator power in this thread.

To reiterate, I do not mind a spirited discussion on any issue. What I object to is the name calling and personal attacks. There is no excuse for any of that. HH only knows how to troll. You can not debate an issue with someone who just rants on and makes personal attacks against you. In most forums the moderator takes care of the trolls. Here, the troll is the moderator. I'm gone.

Try something original.

My subtle method worked!

So it's illegal and laws against using it are vigorously enforced and now it seems it causes (increases the risk of getting) psychosis. Yet people use it anyway! Must be something worthwhile about it.

Fair enough. Like violence and murder.

As I know some cancer survivors, I have received anecdotal evidence that cannabis improves appetite in the face of chemo-therapeutic drugs, helping the utilizer to gain strength. There is also evidence that smoked cannabis is much more effective than synthetic or extracted THC.

What crap, the rates of schizophrenia have stayed relatively the same (1%) across cultures despite increased use of cannabis in a lot of western countries.

You are misinterpreting the information. The statement is to do with risk factors in the predisposed. Maybe you do not have experience in reading scientific literature.

The following might give an idea of where the researchers are coming from:

http://www.schizophrenia.com/szfacts.htm :

Risk factors for development of schizophrenia, and prevention of schizophrenia in those people who are predisposed to the disease.

One of the most easily avoided factors linked to development of schizophrenia are brain-altering street drugs like marijuana and cannabis.

http://www.neuropsychiatryreviews.com/dec00/npr_dec00_schizo.html :

Work by Ming Tsuang, MD, PhD, DPhil, and colleagues at Massachusetts Mental Health Center is also examining the feasibility of preventing schizophrenia. Schizotaxia is a concept that may be useful in these efforts, suggested William Stone, PhD, Assistant Professor of Psychology at Massachusetts Mental Health Center, at the AACAP meeting.

Dr. Stone and his colleagues have expanded the schizotaxia concept—developed in the 1960s by Paul Meehl, MD—to refer to the "premorbid substrate" of schizophrenia, including both genetic predisposition and adverse environmental factors (such as birth complications). According to this model, schizotaxia encompasses schizophrenia but does not lead to it unless the combination of genetic factors and environmental insults are sufficiently robust.

Its called discussion. Unlike most here, I do not have a fixed point of view, and no personal evangelistic agenda regarding marijuana. When new data, or metadata, or new interpretations are presented (on many topics, but particularly those under the heading medicinal chemistry, that is one of my areas of qualification and experience) I like to discuss them objectively with both the scientific and intelligent lay members of BrainMeta. It's sort of, err, why BrainMeta is here.

And Joesus, have you changed your mind - how can I be real, for as you regularly point out, there is no such thing? However, for the non-deluded in the "real world", we want to try to understand and see a reduction in the number of (esp preventable) cases of conditions such as schizophrenia.

For those who have no personal or first hand experience of such extreme mental illness, whether through suffering the condition or being involved somehow in its prevention or treatment, perhaps it is difficult to understand how serious it is. For me, it hit home many years ago when one of my artistic heroes, Peter Green, was stripped of his musical talents by the condition. Over recent years, he has made somewhat of a reappearance, but not really a comeback. http://www.schizophrenia.com/newsletter/bu...97/197fmac.html

When I had the chance, as part of my postgraduate education, to try to understand what schizophrenia was and how it might be treated, I jumped at the chance. Maybe I was hoping to see that people like Peter Green might be able to be cured and that he specifically might reappear to tingle my spine with such superhuman, yet always understated, guitar talent. I am no expert in psychotic disorders, although as an experienced scientist I have learned the skills to interpret what is usually very complex data, often drawn from more than one speciality. My hope is to enhance these skills further by entering into discussions with the intelligentsia here on BrainMeta and elsewhere. Of course, not all BM members aid my aspirations and I have little time for the self-demonstrated uneducable.

Shall we get back on topic?

But you do have a fixed point of view and you made it quite clear. You believe anyone who believes in God is deluded, and you resist anything that is not as you said. "supported by clinical trials or empirical evidence." This demon you appear to be fighting, the idea that there can be no other than what you can wrap your mind around. It isn't real..
Personally I can't imagine confining reality to only that which is backed in writing.

Intelligence would suffer if one did not open themselves to new ideas rather than narrowing thought to a clinical system of beliefs. Err I believe that is part of life....
Besides wouldn't like to be more fluent in universal realities than cling to one single idea you think might define who you are. I guess you might be genetically predisposed to comprehend only one idea at a time?

No my mind has not changed nor has your inability to comprehend spiritual sciences and the personal attacks against ideas that do not follow your thinking. But there is always hope for you.


Practice makes perfect but making the diagnosis that all who believe in God are deluded won't make you an expert.


Are you sure your just not lonely looking for someone to talk to?


I'm thinking that in any intelligent discussion, a topic lends itself to personal opinions such as yours, personal feelings such as yours and often an emotional jab at the opposing team such as that which you have displayed...
Aren't we still on topic?

If you insist on diverting away from yet another topic I will delete you. Put topics in the correct boards from now on. You are becoming a time waster and I wish to restore some order. Keep religion in the Religion board, and maybe you should stay there too if you can't keep to the point of other boards.

And before you say it, being far from perfect I will try hard not to be diverted from topics too. Do not reply directly to this entry or I will delete it when I wake. Just do as I ask. If you don't like it you'll have to lump it.

HeyHey (Moderator)

Post (by Joesus) deleted as it was a reply to my last post that I indicated he should not do (I hadn't gone to bed yet).

Any sensible replies to the topic in hand?

I've used cannabis since my early teens, mainly because I saw so many chronic drunks around my town. I guess the mining towns history has played its part in the local peoples attitudes. I decided to ignore the governments laws and find out what the fuss was about, there are plenty clues that cannabis is a soft drug in our pop culture, so I figured it fairly safe (short term).

As I've grown up I've realised the main power of the drug is its creative, and mind altering sedative effects. This is excellent for artists of all kinds. However unless it is actual art, eg. paintbrush and eisel, then only the initial idea will be any good. Its easy to get sidetracked into dreamy thoughts and want do something else, or worse, nothing at all!

I guess this is one of the reasons people are more succeptible to psychosis, letting their minds wander erratic and free into the void. But I'd like to see a serious world wide, non-biased, study done on the usage and effects. Statistics can be easily biased because the people who take part in the studies are sometimes of a certain 'type', or some other reason can alter the results of a study.



They asked x amount of cannabis users what exactly?
How do they define 'delusions'?

Its quite easy to see how some beliefs could be taken as delusions, especially given the way cannabis allows the mind to ponder philosophy so easily. What if someone who smoked cannabis took part in the trial and gave details of how their religion is like Animism, they believe the essence of life is within everything. To some researchers that would be a valid religious belief, to others it would be a delusion.

Also, given the 41% increased chance of developing psychosis, does this mean you smoke cannabis and your risk of developing psychosis goes from 1% (from worldwide figure given above), to 1.41%?

If so, it doesn't seem too unbelievable or shocking, simply common sense.

There are four hypotheses regarding cannabis use and schizophrenia
(1) that there is a causal relationship between cannabis use and schizophrenia;
(2) that cannabis use precipitates schizophrenia in vulnerable persons;
(3) that cannabis use exacerbates schizophrenia;
(4) that persons with schizophrenia are more liable to become regular cannabis users.

(1) There's not much supporting this one, a lot against it
(2) If it precipitates schizophrenia, then shouldn't we see a decrease in age of schizophrenia diagnosis in countries with increased cannabis use at an early age?
Are the authors adequately accounting for cannabis and other drug induced psychoses?
Does the precipitated form of psychosis in cannabis users develop into schizophrenia, or does it resolve relatively quickly?
Why hasn't more attention been paid to amphetamine induced psychoses and are schizophrenic patients under reporting amphetamine and other drug use because of stigma which is not apparent with cannabis?
Amphetamine directly causes psychosis in healthy amphetamine naive people have these experiments been done with cannabis? (Its probably too late)
What exactly is a vulnerable person? Is this a family study that someone has done? Wouldn't a family study contrasting cannabis users and schizophrenia suffer the same short comings?
(3) No doubts that its a trade off between exacerbation of symptoms and whatever comfort schizophrenics get out of cannabis. There is evidence that cannabis does alleviate some markers in animal models.
(4) Lots of evidence supporting this one and all other drugs, must be a dopaminergic dysfunction thing. I'm still a fan of the dopamine hypothesis of schizophrenia.

These epidemiological studies only get us so far, they have no causative power and can only speculate as to what will happen if people stopped smoking marijuana (its fair enough as a hypothesis but not a statement of fact). Its probably time they stopped wasting money on these epidemiological studies and try and find some mechanistic links between cannabis and schizophrenia which epidemiology has possibly hinted at or figure out better ways to test the above hypotheses now that we have some epidemiological guidance. There's too many variables.
Maybe I don't trust studies that imply causes when they're design is correlational, and an epidemiological meta analysis of all things.

Don't smoke marijuana using your left hand!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6923577.stm

Gene for left-handedness is found

Left-handers' brains are set up differently

Scientists have discovered the first gene which appears to increase the odds of being left-handed.

The Oxford University-led team believe carrying the gene may also slightly raise the risk of developing psychotic mental illness such as schizophrenia.

The gene, LRRTM1, appears to play a key role in controlling which parts of the brain take control of specific functions, such as speech and emotion.

The study appears in the journal Molecular Psychiatry.

The brain is set up in an asymmetrical way.

In right-handed people the left side of the brain usually controls speech and language, and the right side controls emotions.

However, in left-handed people the opposite is often true, and the researchers believe the LRRTM1 gene is responsible for this flip.

They also believe people with the LRRTM1 gene may have a raised risk of schizophrenia, a condition often linked to unusual balances of brain function.

Further research

Lead researcher Dr Clyde Francks, from Oxford University's Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, said the next step would be to probe the impact on the development of the brain further.

He said: "We hope this study's findings will help us understand the development of asymmetry in the brain.

"Asymmetry is a fundamental feature of the human brain that is disrupted in many psychiatric conditions."

However, Dr Francks said left-handed people should not be worried by the links between handedness and schizophrenia.

He said: "There are many factors which make individuals more likely to develop schizophrenia and the vast majority of left-handers will never develop a problem.

"We don't yet know the precise role of this gene."

About 10% of people are left-handed.

Differences

There is evidence to suggest there are some significant differences between left and right-handed people.

Australian research published last year found left-handed people can think quicker when carrying out tasks such as playing computer games or playing sport.

And French researchers concluded that being left-handed could be an advantage in hand-to-hand combat.

However, being left-handed has also been linked to a greater risk of some diseases, and to having an accident.

Dr Fred Kavalier, a consultant geneticist at London's Guy's Hospital, said: "I don't think left-handed people should be alarmed.

"Undoubtedly there are many, many other factors that contribute to schizophrenia. This may be a tiny little element in the big jigsaw."

'Devastating condition'

Marjorie Wallace, of the mental health charity SANE, said scientists working in its research centre in Oxford were also looking at the link between brain asymmetry and schizophrenia.

She said: "We desperately need research into the origins of psychosis to better understand why some people are more vulnerable than others.

"Then the treatment could be more targeted and carry the potential to prevent this devastating condition which affects one in 100 people worldwide."

Jane Harris, of the mental health charity Rethink, said: "No-one really understands what causes schizophrenia yet.

"It is probably a combination of factors, including genetics, problems in childbirth, viral infections, drug use, poverty and urbanisation."

Well, I'm a lefty all the way from head to toes and not a bit afraid of it. I've grown to not only accept but embrace it. I've come to the realization over the years that, this has made me a better man, than if I hadn't been left-handed. But this is purely a personal, biased analysis drawn from my life experience. Hopefully this post will not distract us too much from the subject in the thread, which has turned very interesting thanks to the last previous posts by HH, TL and Orbz. If it does, I'll gladly delete it if requested so. Or if moderators find it necessary to move it out, be my guess. I would also like to take the opportunity to welcome both of you guys (Orbz and TL) to the the BM family (late is better than never, right?). Your perspectives, as you may be aware of by now, are much welcome and appretiated.

Its funny how these in depth studies are required to understand the effects of cannabis use. Since the percentages of perceived problems are so low, maybe we should divert our attention elsewhere. Cannabis makes you lazy and dreamy, if this is destabilizing your mind, stop it!

Since we have to dig so deep to find possible correlations and problems with cannabis use, its clearly not a dangerous drug. Take heroin for instance, everyone who knows anything about heroin knows it will destroy the person. It will create a theiving zombie shell of the person you once knew. We don't need a study done to tell us this, so shouldn't we take the opposite as true?

No direct evidence for cannabis causing psychosis; evidence that cannabis may destabilise a troubled mind if that person is already predisposed (would love to know what classifies a person as having a predisposition to schizophrenia).

What really really annoys me, is this god damn media beast that keeps encouraging huge opinion shifts in people. Some lad in the UK who was addicted to horror films, collected knives and was generally weird, slashed up two of his friends. He smoked "super skunk" and that is all the media in the UK went on about. Complete BS, and I hate every middleclass moronic sheep that eats this kind of news up.

"Its a class B, no C, no wait B, ah shucks C". Complete political tool, nothing to do with truth and justice. Yes super skunk has much higer THC levels than cannabis did 20-30 years ago, thats what selective breeding does for us, but it doesn't create psycho slashers! If anything it'll leave you paranoid and lazy.

Now lets look at Alcohol as a comparison. If you went and drank lager every night, you probably wouldnt be doing it alone. Millions of people in the UK will drink every night without others really batting an eyelid. Now change their lager for vodka, and suddenly the problem is visible to all. This change will destroy the person, yet its all very legal and socially acceptable. What is the difference between that and alcohol?

Weed = Lager, Skunk = Vodka. Let me make my own choices thanks Mr. Government. I dont need you or Mrs. GoodyTwoShoes telling me whats right and wrong.

Its pretty easy to see who supports the legalisation of cannabis and who doesn't, but I'd like to know what people actually think about the issue, rather than what study they've found and posted.

Personally I think cannabis should be legal, because quite frankly its enslavement of a persons mind to not allow a person to do what he or she wants when no harm comes to others. We live in the free world...how?

I also think smoking it should be discouraged. Smoking adds a dangerous factor that just wouldn't be present in a cooked product. Our society should change to incorporate this into our lives, and we shouldn't fear telling our children exactly what cannabis is and does. At the moment its a bit of a joke drug in our culture, an attitude that is worse than the drug itself.

The types of responses here are saying something? My intention was to flag a possible relationship between cannabis use and schizophrenia due to my interest in causes of schizophrenia. Users seem to be paranoid (pun) about being criticized for use!

But, to you point "would love to know what classifies a person as having a predisposition to schizophrenia". This is obviously sort of .. rhetorical? I think everyone who has looked up the condition will know the following:

Is Schizophrenia Inherited?

It has long been known that schizophrenia runs in families. People who have a close relative with schizophrenia are more likely to develop the disorder than are people who have no relatives with the illness. For example, a monozygotic (identical) twin of a person with schizophrenia has the highest risk – 40 to 50 percent – of developing the illness. A child whose parent has schizophrenia has about a 10 percent chance. By comparison, the risk of schizophrenia in the general population is about 1 percent. http://www.healthyplace.com/Communities/Th...nimh/causes.asp

So then, a predisposition to schizophrenia means a genetic predisposition. Not entirely proven, but look at the statement above again - what do YOU think?

Now comes the problem of knowing one's genes and looking further back than just one or two generations (so mental health characteristics of one's relatives beyond then is more difficult to establish, particularly as diagnostic methods and reliability have changed). That gives us our background 1% (1 in 100; one in every small village). I don't think there is any evidence of regular new mutations providing any part of that cohort, but at some point there must have been one of course.

There's your predisposition. Easy really. A bit like the predisposition for cardiovascular disease, certain cancers and so on. It runs in families and we commonly don't know much about our distant geneology. Adoptees have even more difficulty.

Then it can get a bit more complicated, because some people use the terminology loosely and include things like lifestyle as potential predispositions, but this should really be characterised as one of the many environmental influences that our genes have to operate within. This is related to the old "nature versus nurture" issue, that in most cases is actually "nature in association with nurture", i.e. not one or the other, but both having a role.

But ... don't let's forget how savage an illness schizophrenia can be. Just today in the UK News there have been details of a schizophrenic mother, having been released early from hospital, stopped taking her medication and subsequently killed her children (the 10 year old boy was bludgeoned with a claw hammer and the 3 year old girl suffocated with cling-film). She had thought they were exchanged at birth and were not her own. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6925390.stm

HOW DANGEROUS IS MARIJUANA
COMPARED WITH OTHER SUBSTANCES?
Number of American deaths per year that result directly or primarily from the following selected causes nationwide, according to World Almanacs, Life Insurance Actuarial (death) Rates, and the last 20 years of U.S. Surgeon Generals' reports.
TOBACCO 340,000 to 450,000
ALCOHOL (Not including 50% of all highway deaths and 65% of all murders) 150,000+
ASPIRIN (Including deliberate overdose) 180 to 1,000+
CAFFEINE (From stress, ulcers, and triggering irregular heartbeats, etc.) 1,000 to 10,000
"LEGAL" DRUG OVERDOSE (Deliberate or accidental) from legal, prescribed or patent medicines and/or mixing with alcohol - e.g. Valium/alcohol 14,000 to 27,000
ILLICIT DRUG OVERDOSE (Deliberate or accidental) from all illegal drugs. 3,800 to 5,200
MARIJUANA 0
(Marijuana users also have the same or lower incidence of murders and highway deaths and accidents than the general non-marijuana using population as a whole. Crancer Study, UCLA; U.S. Funded ($6 million), First & Second Jamaican Studies, 1968 to 1974; Costa Rican Studies, 1980 to 1982; et al. LOWEST TOXICITY 100% of the studies done at dozens of American universities and research facilities show pot toxicity does not exist. Medical history does not record anyone dying from an overdose of marijuana (UCLA, Harvard, Temple, etc.).


UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
In The Matter Of MARIJUANA RESCHEDULING PETITION
Docket No. 86-22
OPINION AND RECOMMENDED RULING, FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE FRANCIS L. YOUNG, Administrative Law Judge
DATED: SEPTEMBER 6, 1988

Section 8 of Judge Young's "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision."

Page 56 & 57 http://mojo.calyx.net/~olsen/MEDICAL/YOUNG/young

3. The most obvious concern when dealing with drug safety is the possibility of lethal effects. Can the drug cause death?

4. Nearly all medicines have toxic, potentially lethal effects. But marijuana is not such a substance. There is no record in the extensive medical literature describing a proven, documented cannabis-induced fatality.

This is a remarkable statement. First, the record on marijuana encompasses 5,000 years of human experience. Second, marijuana is now used daily by enormous numbers of people throughout the world. Estimates suggest that from twenty million to fifty million Americans routinely, albeit illegally, smoke marijuana without the benefit of direct medical supervision. Yet, despite this long history of use and the extraordinarily high numbers of social smokers, there are simply no credible medical reports to suggest that consuming marijuana has caused a single death.

6. By contrast aspirin, a commonly used, over-the-counter medicine, causes hundreds of deaths each year.

7. Drugs used in medicine are routinely given what is called an LD-50. The LD-50 rating indicates at what dosage fifty percent of test animals receiving a drug will die as a result of drug induced toxicity. A number of researchers have attempted to determine marijuana's LD-50 rating in test animals, without success. Simply stated, researchers have been unable to give animals enough marijuana to induce death.

8. At present it is estimated that marijuana's LD-50 is around 1:20,000 or 1:40,000. In layman terms this means that in order to induce death a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as much marijuana as is contained in one marijuana cigarette. NIDA-supplied marijuana cigarettes weigh approximately .9 grams. A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within about fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response.

9. In practical terms, marijuana cannot induce a lethal response as a result of drug-related toxicity.


Pediatrics, February 1994, Volume 93, Number 2, pp. 254-260
American Academy of Pediatrics

Comparing the heavily exposed and the non-exposed infants, the Brazelton clusters on day 30, showed that the offspring of heavy-marijuana using mothers had significantly higher scores on:

- the Orientation cluster

- the Autonomic Stability cluster

- reflexes

- habituation to auditory and tactile stimuli, and to animate auditory stimuli

- higher degree of alertness

- capacity for consolability

- less irritability

- had fewer startles and tremors

- better physiological stability at one month

- required less examiner facilitation to reach an organized state

- more socially responsive

- the quality of their alertness was higher

- their motor and autonomic systems were more robust

- they had better self-regulation

- they were more rewarding for caregivers than the neonates of non--using mothers at one month of age

From the Schools of Nursing, Education and Public Health, the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Received for publication Sep. 21, 1992; accepted June 30, 1993.




Jack Herer &Captain Ed (R.I.P.)
(Two of the most important people of the last century.)
In this book is documented all kinds of mind-blowing long-suppressed facts about Humanity's best
friend "The Cannabis Plant". Hemp or Cannabis as it is scientifically referred to is the fastest growing
biomass source on Earth. Biomass is a cheap and efficient source of fuel. As a matter of fact, if we
were to farm only 6% of the country's available farmland with hemp we could meet all of the
country's Industrial energy and transportation needs. Hemp is 26 times stronger than cotton and lasts
10 times longer. We can produce 4 times as much paper from Hemp as we can from trees at one
fourth the cost and 1/5 the pollution and it is 10 times stronger and lasts ten times longer. It is a fact
that Betsy Ross made our first flag "Old Glory" from Hemp fiber. Also, our Constitution and
Declaration of Independance were printed on Hemp paper. The soldiers clothes during the
revolutionary war were made from Hemp. The second most prescribed medicine in the United
States for 150 years for over 100 different medical illnesses was a Cannabis extract and it is alot
stronger when taken in concentrated form. This means that all the children in America for 150 years
were brought up as DRUG USERS from birth. Or, it just means simply, that we had a better
understanding of herbs and their medicinal usage 100 years ago than we do today. So who has
REALLY lost their mind, people who smoke pot, or the "NORMALS" ?

The drug war is nothing more than an excuse to suppress consciousness and use the ignorant in our
society to create laws for the New World Order to use to crack down on all of our rights !! According
to a Feb. 1938 article in Popular Mechanics the invention of a new machine called the decorticator,
would once again put Hemp in the dominant position in the fiber and textiles industry over cotton by
speeding up the harvesting methods in use at the time. At this same time Dupont held a patent on a
synthetic compound used to break down wood pulp to make paper. To make paper from Hemp didn't
require any chemicals. In order for Dupont to profit from these chemicals, they had to see to it that
Hemp was out-lawed. Andrew Mellon sat on the board of Dupont and Mellon's nephew was
Harry Anslinger, the head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics at the time. William Randolph Hearst
owned many big newspapers and working together they whipped up a smear campaign of "Yellow
Journalism" in America, spreading propaganda that the African-Americans and Mexicans were
smuggling in a new killer dope weed that would lure white women to fall prey to the seduction of the
"Negro", while under the influence of Jazz music. Racism and fear were used to outlaw
something that was used by every man, woman, and child in America. It wasn't until after the
marijuana tax act was passed that the American Medical Association realized that "marijuana", a
slang term for hemp was in fact "Cannabis", our second most prescribed medicine. This is when
"Reefer Madness" began.

NO ONE HAS EVER DIED FROM USING CANNABIS / MARIJUANA !!!

The many benefits of Hemp include, but are not limited, to the following : Hemp utilizes the sun more efficiently than
virtually any other plant on the planet, reaching 10-20 feet or more in a single short growing season. It can even be grown in
almost any climate or soil condition on Earth. Hemp is softer than cotton, warmer than cotton, more water absorbant than
cotton, has three times the tensile strength of cotton and many times more durable. 50% of all chemicals used in American
agriculture today are used on cotton and Hemp requires no chemicals or pesticides to grow.

Cannabis makes the very best Canvas paper for Art. For centuries, most all of the world's great art used Cannabis Paper.
The Dutch word for CANNABIS is CANVAS. Hemp seed oil makes the best oil for paints and varnishes. Up until about
1800, Hemp seed oil was the most consumed lighting oil in America and the world. Hemp is a fuel source. Hemp is the
fastest growing biomass source on Earth. Biomass can be converted to methane, methanol or gasoline at a fraction of the
cost of oil, coal or nuclear energy. Instead of using fossil fuels, which have been in the Earth for millions of years and pollute
the planet while removing it and shipping it around the world, we could be "HARVESTING OXYGEN" by growing a plant
source which produces oxygen while it is growing, then when we burn it and produce carbon dioxide, the cycle is balanced.

As a medicine, Cannabis has been used for centuries and continues to be used today for all kinds of ailments including :
stress, rheumatism, asthma, delerium tremens, migrain headaches, pms cramps, glaucoma, nausea, tumors, and anorexia.
Cannabis / Hemp / Marijuana seeds are the highest source of complete vegetable protein on the entire planet. Soybeans
contain a higher percentage of protein but the composition of the protein in Hemp allows more of it to be used by the body.
65 % of the protein in Hemp seeds is in the form of globulin edestin. The high edestin content combined with albumin,
another globular protein contained in all seeds means the readily available protein in Hemp seeds contain all the essential
amino acids in ideal proportions to assure your body has the necessary building blocks to create proteins like disease
fighting immunoglobulins--antibodies whose job is to ward off infections before the symptoms of sickness set in. Hemp
seeds are also the highest known source of Essential Fatty Acids. Essential, meaning (We Couldn't Live Without Them).
These Linoleic and Linolenic acids are responsible for the luster in your skin and hair. They also clear the arteries and
rebuild the immune system. Plastic Plumbing Pipe (PVC) can be manufactured using renewable Hemp cellulose as the
chemical feedstocks, replacing non-renewable petroleum based chemical feedstocks. The seed oil is a machine grade
quality lubricant and can be used to run engines and replace petro-oils completely.


perhaps the misinformation hiway is meant to steer the public away from certain truths. Maybe the Schizophrenia idea is a layover from the reefer madness thinking.

Totally off-topic and not relevant to the matter in hand. The topic is to do with marijuana and a possible association with schizophrenia.

Now a new study from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York has shed light on the reason for the link between marijuana and schizophrenia. With several groups of adolescents as their subjects, they used a special type of MRI called diffusion tensor imaging to compare the brains of those with and without schizophrenia, both users and non-users of marijuana. They found that heavy use of marijuana caused the type of abnormalities in certain areas of the brain as were found in the brains of the subjects with schizophrenia, and these abnormalities were the most pronounced in schizophrenic subjects who regularly smoked marijuana. The abnormalities occur in a brain pathway related to language and auditory functions which is still developing during adolescence.

Thus if a young person is genetically at risk for schizophrenia, the research suggests, the use of marijuana can cause the same kind of damage the schizophenia would cause, which could bring on the illness when it might otherwise have not have emerged, cause earlier onset, and/or worsen the condition.

My aplogies. You have suggested the information you supply is close to your personal interests.

The information you suggest is but one of many ideas about marijuana and its effects.

If in fact the media is displaying more fear based information to make marijuana more demonic in nature it will steer the public away from any beneficial facts and the controversies surrounding marijuana.
If you wish to steer this thread only toward you personal interest then I suggest you post at the beginning of the thread, that this is to be only about my interests in relative ideas that marijuana may be connected with inducing schizophrenia in those that may be genetically predisposed to schizophrenia. That way you can publicly announce that you are intolerant of anyone meeting your standards when posting a response.
I would respond accordingly.

I wrote without a 2 min research for sure, thanks for the info HH. The fact risk goes up 1.41% instead of 1% is my reason for disliking the outcome of the research.

Were you always like this - uneducable? I have asked you before to stick to the topic. If you don't like being guided by moderators on a forum, feel free to leave.

I have deleted the last post by Joesus and closed the topic, having not been able to convince him that his persistent diversions away from topics, particularly in the context of personal arguments, are a poor way of conducting discussions. Thank you to contributers who have made well considered and valuable comments.