Schizophrenia link to cannabis denied
A STUDY by North Staffordshire academics has rejected a link between smoking cannabis and an increase in mental illness.
The research found there were no rises in cases of schizophrenia or psychoses diagnosed in the UK over nine years, during which the use of the drug had grown substantially.
-
A cannabis plant
Pro-cannabis campaigners seized on the results as supporting the legalising of cannabis, and claimed the report had been suppressed.
But the leading expert behind the study said it could be too low-key to re-ignite the debate on whether restrictions should be removed from soft drugs.
From their base at the Harplands Psychiatric Hospital in Hartshill, the four experts reviewed the notes of hundreds of thousands of patients at 183 GP practices throughout the country to look for any changing rate in cases of schizophrenia.
The work had been set up to see if earlier forecasts from other experts had been borne out, that the mental disorder would soar through the growing popularity of cannabis.
Published in the Schizophrenia Research journal, a paper on the study said: "A recent review concluded that cannabis use increases the risk of psychotic outcomes.
"Furthermore an accepted model of the association between cannabis and schizophrenia indicated its incidence would increase from 1990 onwards.
"We examined trends in the annual psychosis incidence and prevalence as measured by diagnosed cases from 1996 to 2005 and found it to be either stable or declining.
"The casual models linking cannabis with schizophrenia and other psychoses are therefore not supported by our study."
The research was conducted by Drs Martin Frisher and Orsolina Martino, from the department of medicines management at Keele University; psychiatrist Professor Ilana Crome, from the Harplands academic unit, who specialises in addiction; and diseases expert Professor Peter Croft, pictured below, from the university's primary care research centre.
Its findings come shortly after the Government reclassified cannabis from Class C to Class B, which invokes heavier penalties.
Yet Dr Frisher revealed last night that the study had been partly commissioned by the Government's advisory committee on the misuse of drugs.
He said: "We concentrated on looking into the incidence of schizophrenia during those years and not specifically at cannabis use.
"It was relatively low-key research so I don't believe it will re-ignite the debate on whether the drug should be legalised."
Hartshill-based Dilys Wood, national co-ordinator of the Legalise Cannabis Alliance, said that so far the report had been published in medical journals and would have a far-reaching reaction if it surfaced more widely.
She added: "I believe that if it had found a causal link between cannabis and schizophrenia it would have been all over the press.
"The public needs to know the truth about drugs; not more Government-led propaganda."
And Alliance press officer Don Barnard said: "It is hard to believe the then Home Secretary Jacqui Smith did not know of this very important research when deciding to upgrade cannabis to Class B."
The team said a number of alternative explanations for the stabilising of schizophrenia had been considered and while they could not be wholly discounted, they did not appear to be plausible.
Related content:
26 Comments
View all
by Simp, Earth
Thursday, December 02 2010, 2:57PM
“@Paul, So Cal ... I totally agree with you!
I want to see contra-marijuana studies based on vaporizing! I want to see real contra-marijuana studies based on scientific studies, and not just Gibberish!
I, myself was contra-mj (even used to forbid my GF to use in front of me) .... until i started reading! Only than I tried.
Vaping almost everyday now. I started even a second job! I have a long relationship and guess what... My GF said that I have change so much. And for the better! Befor I confided in noone. I had bad communication skills. Falling in to the void every day! NowI started talking with her...discussing things and god knows what else!
Please people, stop judging based on human talks.
Yes there are a lot of side effects like:
*Hungry
*Sleepy
*Happy
*Relaxed and pleasantly oblivious
Pardon me, but if it is something that you need I can not understand why they forbid it!
No cases of death!
No proved cases of mental illness! Only assumptions!
Why it is illegal?
well... one word... Substitutes!
Wood products, Oil! , Medicines (most of which by the way are "life threatening" and yet doctors are prescribing them like a sweet candies on halloween) and so on! These multi-million companies are investing good worth of money to keep it illegal!
But hey don't trust me, a pothead with two jobs, happy girlfriend, and nice life... do your research on google... i can't believe that people these days are letting them to be told what is good and what is not!
If for some people marijuana is harmful than he/she should choose not to use it... after all it is a mood changer (for some happy for some not so much) .... but don't forbid it for others!
With regards,
A simple pothead”
by Darren, Newcastle
Sunday, November 22 2009, 12:08PM
“Look to the Netherlands where cannabis has been decriminalised and regulated for years. With no devastating consequenses. Prohibition does not work. It merely puts the huge profits into the pockets of criminals, who then use them to finance other criminal activities. Cannabis has many, largely unexplored medical benefits, some which may have anti-cancer properties. Meanwhile, tobacco, a known carcinogenic drug with NO medical benefits, which causes 100 thousand deaths per year is freely and legally available. the whole situation makes little sense to me.”
by Wayne Phillips, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Saturday, November 21 2009, 5:36AM
“While 'Schizophrenia link to cannabis denied' does bring the question of the reclassification of cannabis from Class C to Class B (which invokes heavier penalties) front and center -- because the casual models linking cannabis with schizophrenia and other psychoses were not supported by the study -- it (the article) does not go far enough because it did not require accountability from prohibition as an appropriate drug (policy) strategy.
Suppose for a moment the link between cannabis and schizophrenia or psychosis did pose a significant risk to young people, particularly in relation to driving, let's say. How appropriate (or moral), then, is it to send ¿messages¿ via a prohibition that does not safeguard those with existing psychotic disorders or, youth, in general? How appropriate (or moral) is it to place the well being of the aforementioned at risk in order to forward an idealism that is neither shared or effective.
When stakeholders (and concerned others) would rather send ¿messages¿ about being drug free (via a prohibition that is ineffective) than support policy aimed at effective safeguards then just how serious is either the threat (from cannabis) or the intent (to safeguard from it) to begin with?”
by Paul, So Cal
Wednesday, September 02 2009, 7:01PM
“Cannabis causes mental illness?
Only sheeple that react to scare tactics over scientific studies would believe that rubbish.
There isn¿t even a need for debate here! Cannabis has been used for medicine and recreation with no lasting adverse reaction for thousands of years. Do prohibitionists really think their misguided moralistic objections are going to change that? Come on! It¿s time to let go of ideology for the sake of scientific progress thus stopping the slayings of thousands and decrease family separation which are promoted solely by prohibition policies.
Look, if an adult vaporizes or consumes cannabis in food there will be absolutely no lasting negative physiological occurrence. No killing of brain cells, no cancer, no psychosis, nothing. If any of these things were caused by cannabis consumption the people effected or the dead would be paraded in front of the world by prohibitionists. As it stands (for thousands of years) they don¿t have one case of the above to show for their misinformation and half-truths.
Another point of truth: The reason cannabis is not for children is because it can distort time, space and perception (or in other words it gets you high) which can be a problem for inexperienced minds. That is the only concerning reason to promote abstinence for children and it is a good one. So let¿s regulate to gain control over cannabis distribution which under prohibition is fully in the hands of drug cartels and their dealers that don¿t ask for ID and try to up-sale our youth to meth and cocaine for lasting patronage.
If a child has a medical problem that can be helped by the use of cannabis according his Dr and approved by his parents then abstinence should be waved. Eaten in small amounts would be the advised administration in this case according to all the information I have read on the matter. I know I would rather see my kids use cannabis as a medicine if needed then pharmaceuticals that have terrible side effects or may even cause death. I'm not promoting cannabis for recreational use among children when I say the following but I would prefer mine use it rather then alcohol or tobacco; substances that can totally incapacitate or kill.
Google the key-words below for a few studies on cannabis:
1) Marijuana may slow Alzheimer¿s ¿ CBS News
2) Fox News Marijuana Does Not Raise Lung Cancer Risk
3) PubMed Effects of cannabis on lung function: a population-based cohort study.
4) Marijuana's Active Ingredient Targets Deadly Brain Cancer
5) ncbi A Population-Based Case-Control Study of Marijuana Use and Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma
6) WebMD Heavy Marijuana Use Doesn't Damage Brain
7) ScienceDirect Assessing the impact of cannabis use on trends in diagnosed schizophrenia in the United Kingdom from 1996 to 2005
8) Marijuana Research: Debunking the amotivational syndrome
9) Cannabidiol: from an inactive cannabinoid to a drug with wide spectrum of action
10) WebMD Chemicals in marijuana may fight MRSA
11) ncbi The endocannabinoid system and multiple sclerosis
Dangerous drug? Sience says no!
So why do prohibitionists promote the black market and all its woes over regulation and taxation? It is because they feed on the fear or the profits that come with prohibition policies PERIOD!
Watch the best marijuana documentary ever: Google -> The Union Google Video”
by Douglass, USA
Saturday, August 29 2009, 9:12PM
“In the US we have an annual study called the National Household Survey on Drug Use and Health. They survey many tens of thousands of people every year on a variety of issues including drug use and mental health. If you look at the serious mental illness numbers in the ten states with the highest levels of marijuana use and the ten with the lowest, what you see is that there are lower than average instances of serious mental illness in states with the highest per capita marijuana use rates and higher than average instances of serious mental illness in states with the lowest per capita marijuana use. I don't think marijuana use reduces mental illness, but the numbers certainly do not bear out the claim that new stronger pot is making so many people crazy.
Look at these studies that have found a link between marijuana use and schizophrenia. Every one of them is a study where they have followed people over a number of years and found higher instances of schizophrenia in those who used marijuana. You cannot conclude from a study like that that marijuana caused the schizophrenia, because the simple fact of the matter is that people with mental illness will often gravitate toward alcohol and drugs as a way of self medicating. It's no fun to be mentally ill. Life is difficult for these people, so many will turn to intoxicants to feel better if only for a while.
These studies show a connection, a correlation, but not causation. And there is nothing to support the contention that "skunk" is making even more people crazy. This is pure propaganda, something the UK appears to be overrun with in recent years when it comes to marijuana.
What is going on with all the "reefer madness" in the media in the UK in recent years? I was a little surprised to see cannabis reclassified after use had actually declined after it was downgraded. But I wasn't that surprised given the number of misleading scare tactic hit pieces coming out from UK media sources. Was this the result of a government effort or did the media do this on their own?”