BF2S Forums The war on drugs

Macbeth wrote:

LittleBitchy wrote:

It can help with mental disorders.

There is research out there that has proven that pot worsens and hastens the onset of schizophrenia.

And what about alcohols link to schizophrenia?

From that article: "Oddly enough, some evidence suggests that a second marijuana component called cannabidiol actually has antipsychotic effects. D'Souza said he and other researchers are testing whether administering cannabidiol by itself can alleviate psychotic symptoms."

This reminds of that video someone posted of the dad who gave cannabidiol to his son and it stopped his seizures.

Tbh modern medicine does not know how to properly deal with schizophrenia. People who have a severe case are usually drugged to brim for their entire lives and as a result are barely lucid in waking life.

A lot of the war on drugs just simply comes down to the desire that some have for bothering others in their personal lives.

Macbeth wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

There is research out there that has proven that pot worsens and hastens the onset of schizophrenia.

And what about alcohols link to schizophrenia?

There is none AFAIK

I haven't heard anything either.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

No but there is alcohol-induced psychosis. As far as I know, pot does not induce psychosis, only possibly exacerbates pre-existing psychotic conditions.

That's the gist of the "link" to schizophrenia. If you've already exhibited the precursors for the condition, marijuana may exacerbate things...I'm guessing a similar link exists with pretty much any mind-altering substance.

And the link between schizophrenia and alcohol (schizos are like 0.3% of the population, not sure how this got so focused on it...) is this: alcohol abuse is the single most common co-occuring "disorder" associated with schizophrenia. Drug use in general is much more prevalent amongst schizos, but alcohol - being cheap and easy to get - tops the list. It's by no means proof of causation, but depressants are typically prescribed for the disorder, so it sort of makes sense that people might self medicate with a depressant like alcohol.

I guess you can make of it what you will, just like the link to weed.

Last edited by -CARNIFEX-[LOC] (2012-02-01 16:52:52)

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

No but there is alcohol-induced psychosis. As far as I know, pot does not induce psychosis, only possibly exacerbates pre-existing psychotic conditions.

The jury is still out on both, you can't say alcohol causes psychosis and marijuana only brings out pre-existing psychosis - no-one can say for sure.
Either way, people who did not previously have an overt psychosis end up with one, whether it was underlying or not.

Dilbert_X wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

No but there is alcohol-induced psychosis. As far as I know, pot does not induce psychosis, only possibly exacerbates pre-existing psychotic conditions.

The jury is still out on both, you can't say alcohol causes psychosis and marijuana only brings out pre-existing psychosis - no-one can say for sure.
Either way, people who did not previously have an overt psychosis end up with one, whether it was underlying or not.

no, alcohol causes psychosis. could be temporary, but there's plenty of evidence and examples.

I'm comfortable with saying causes. Triggers would imply its a pre-existing condition. From what I've read (not a lot), alcohol is the cause of the psychosis/dementia.

Any class of substance may cause psychosis. Overall, susceptibility to a substance-induced psychosis appears to be largely an individual issue and to depend upon how innately vulnerable a person is. There are no reliable ways to predict if a person will have a substance-induced psychosis for the first time. People who have a mental illness with delusions or hallucinations are, however, particularly vulnerable to having psychotic symptoms while using substances.

Which doesn't really single out alcohol.

Anecdotally potheads seem to have a weaker grasp on reality than potheads drinkers, whether thats because schizophrenics tend to seek out cannabis or what I'm not sure.

Edit: Fixed. /posting while drunk.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-02-03 14:48:28)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Any class of substance may cause psychosis. Overall, susceptibility to a substance-induced psychosis appears to be largely an individual issue and to depend upon how innately vulnerable a person is. There are no reliable ways to predict if a person will have a substance-induced psychosis for the first time. People who have a mental illness with delusions or hallucinations are, however, particularly vulnerable to having psychotic symptoms while using substances.

Which doesn't really single out alcohol.

Anecdotally potheads seem to have a weaker grasp on reality than potheads, whether thats because schizophrenics tend to seek out cannabis or what I'm not sure.

I'm assuming the second "potheads" should be "alcoholics."

Turquoise wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Any class of substance may cause psychosis. Overall, susceptibility to a substance-induced psychosis appears to be largely an individual issue and to depend upon how innately vulnerable a person is. There are no reliable ways to predict if a person will have a substance-induced psychosis for the first time. People who have a mental illness with delusions or hallucinations are, however, particularly vulnerable to having psychotic symptoms while using substances.

Which doesn't really single out alcohol.

Anecdotally potheads seem to have a weaker grasp on reality than potheads, whether thats because schizophrenics tend to seek out cannabis or what I'm not sure.

I'm assuming the second "potheads" should be "alcoholics."

Probably high when he wrote that

FEOS wrote:

LittleBitchy wrote:

There was no connection to cancer and marijuana if someone wasn't smoking cigarettes (lung cancer) but cigarettes were.

Hmmm.

Turns out, recent studies have found linkages between marijuana smoking and different types of cancer:

Does Smoking Marijuana Cause Lung Cancer?

By Lynne Eldridge MD, About.com Guide

Updated January 19, 2011

About.com Health's Disease and Condition content is reviewed by the Medical Review Board
See More About:

    maijuana
    lung cancer causes


Question: Does Smoking Marijuana Cause Lung Cancer?
Answer:

The link between smoking tobacco and lung cancer is undeniable, but does smoking marijuana cause lung cancer, too? The short answer -- probably.

In 2006, many of us in medicine were shocked when a review of research to date did not show an increase in lung cancer related to marijuana use. There was even a suggestion that marijuana had a protective effect against lung cancer. Recent studies, in contrast, do appear to link smoking marijuana with lung cancer.

One study demonstrated a doubling in lung cancer for male marijuana smokers who also used tobacco. Another study found that long-term use of marijuana increased the risk of lung cancer in young adults (55 and under), with the risk increasing in proportion to the amount of marijuana smoked.

Why the controversy?

Since marijuana is illegal, it is hard to do the controlled studies that have been done with tobacco. Because of this, it helps to look at what we do know about marijuana:

    Many of the carcinogens and co-carcinogens present in tobacco smoke are also present in smoke from marijuana.

    Marijuana smoking does cause inflammation and cell damage, and it has been associated with pre-cancerous changes in lung tissue.

    Marijuana has been shown to cause immune system dysfunction, possibly predisposing individuals to cancer.

Bottom line: Though marijuana most likely pales in cancer risk when compared to cigarette smoking, it's better to play it safe. There are reasons in addition to lung cancer risk (and the fact that it is illegal) to avoid marijuana. Marijuana likely increases the risk of testicular cancer, prostate cancer, cervical cancer, a type of brain tumor, and the risk of leukemia in the offspring of women who use it during pregnancy.

Inhaling smoke regularly (of any sort) is bad, m'kay?

Which studies are those? Who conducted them? What were the sample group sizes?

There have been loads of studies, but a huge number of these have been either dismissed as statistically irrelevant (due to tiny sample groups) or found to have been conducted in a flawed manner. There are a number of conflicting results from studies, but the overwhelming trend (amongst credible studies - sample groups greater than 1000, conforming to well established case study controls) is that cannabis use has a very minor impact on lung function.

There is a lot of misinformation floating around on this topic.

Here is one of the latest, large scale, credible studies on what cannabis does to users lungs (from a proper source):
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/307/2/173.short

Conclusion Occasional and low cumulative marijuana use was not associated with adverse effects on pulmonary function.

http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/content/155/1/141

Although men showed a significant effect of tobacco on FEV1 decline (p < 0.05), in neither men nor women was marijuana smoking associated with greater declines in FEV1 than was nonsmoking, nor was an additive effect of marijuana and tobacco noted, or a significant relationship found between the number of marijuana cigarettes smoked per day and the rate of decline in FEV1. We conclude that regular tobacco, but not marijuana, smoking is associated with greater annual rates of decline in lung function than is nonsmoking. These findings do not support an association between regular marijuana smoking and chronic COPD but do not exclude the possibility of other adverse respiratory effects.

*FEV1 = age-related change in lung function

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NE … 8162890702

These findings indicate that both smoked marijuana and oral Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol cause definite dilatation of the airways lasting as long as 60 minutes and six hours, respectively.

(helps you breathe more easily - hence the applications in asthma treatment)

There are studies that contrast the ones above - but in most instances statistically significant data regarding cannabis use cannot be extracted as they have focused on differences between tobacco and non-tobacco cigarettes and have nothing to differentiate between cannabis and other non-tobacco cigarettes.

Studies on cannabis causing lung cancer:
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/15/10/1829.short

Conclusions: Our results may have been affected by selection bias or error in measuring lifetime exposure and confounder histories; but they suggest that the association of these cancers with marijuana, even long-term or heavy use, is not strong and may be below practically detectable limits.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/l221477720240752/ - biggest study to date, but young sample group (15-49)

We conclude that, in this relatively young study cohort, marijuana use and cancer were not associated in overall analyses, but that associations in nonsmokers of tobacco cigarettes suggested that marijuana use might affect certain site-specific cancer risks.

It probably is bad for you in many ways - but there have been so many studies conducted that have struggled to find that it is bad for you, it is highly unlikely that the effects are severe.

If you take an overview of all the studies on cancer, cannabis stacks up as being about as carcinogenic as bacon.

Looking at the lung studies (not the estimates of what it may do theoretically, based on the chemicals contained in the smoke) then it is not very bad for the lungs.

Bertster7 wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

IMHO smoking marijuana daily (whatever the amount) will always be healthier (mentally, physically, emotionally) than drinking liquor on a daily basis.  I challenge anyone in the world to argue the opposite.

I argue the opposite, how about you prove your argument first?

Alcohol is well understood, there is barely any data available for marijuana.

This is completely untrue.

Which part is not understood?
We have centuries of data on millions of subjects, and probably tens of thousands of detailed medical studies.

Pot is barely into the experimental phase.