Forum Topic

Cannabis and the bigger department more money scam.

According to a revue of data concerning cannabis and mental illness a claim is being made that the young who smoke cannabis are up to 40 times more likely develop mental illness. This appears to be the same data Lady Runciman (who headed the inquiry that led to down grading) described in yesterdays Standard as unscientific and anecdotal.

Philip Walsh ● 6520d3 Comments

From my reading of the report, none of the studies the review was based on were either unscientific or anecdotal, but clinical.Which "man" are you referring to. This study was undertaken by a team led by Theresa Moore and including Stanley Zammit, Anne Lingford-Hughes, Thomas R E Barnes, Peter B Jones, Margaret Burke, and Glyn Lewis.In none of the reports is there any reference to anyone wanting a "budget increase" for their department, far from it - the two psychologists I have seen talking about the review so far, have only referred to the need for increased education amongst young people about the potential dangers of cannabis use. Indeed, they were not even asking for the drug to be reclassified. They just want better education to prevent young people being harmed.You say your experience does not back up the findings, but as a committed user for 37 years, you can hardly be regarded as an unbiassed witness. My own experience of working with cannabis-using young people over a similar length of time, does back up these findings. In my experience, the young people who have suffered mental illness related to their cannabis usage were not "depressed or despondent",and exhibited no symptoms of mental health issues prior to their use of cannabis. They weren't seeking solace in the drug, they were enjoying it and having a great time in exactly the same way as their mates who didn't develop mental health problems. The idea that young people get into drugs because they are somehow inadequate is nonsense - they do it because it is fun, exciting and has the spice of danger.And of course some people (like yourself) will use cannabis forever and a day without ill-effects. Some people can smoke 60 fags a day for 50 years with no ill-effects. Some people can eat 2lb of butter a day without getting a heart-attack. That does not change the fact that there are measurable medical dangers attached to those behaviours. Don't get me wrong, although I'm not into any illegal drugs (and rarely even get to drink the odd pint nowadays) I would much rather see the current illegal drugs legalised and controlled, rather than continue with the current system which rewards no-one but the drug cartels. With state (rather than criminal) control of street drugs, we might at least stand a chance of reducing the damage done by all of them.

Mick Brent ● 6520d

A critical revue of 35 studies of an unscientific and anecdotal nature is still not proof of anything other than the fact they are unscientific and anecdotal. I am really not sure why this keeps cropping up, the figures are very small when compared with alcohol and brain damage, real brain damage such as sponginess of the brain as opposed to non real brain damage (Mental health)I keep wondering why if this man is so credible why wasn't he involved in the last revue of the law and how much of a budget increase does his department want.I have smoked cannabis since the age of 10 I am now 47 I have spent all of my life listening to this, yet my own experiences do not back up the finding, Young people who are depressed or despondent and those with mental illness seek solace in drugs, this is nothing new its well established.The young should be steered away from drugs legal or not they can all screw you up, but the education should be fact based and scientifically provable as opposed to statistically manipulatable and subject to vagaries and the furthering of careers. 

Philip Walsh ● 6520d

I think that the "classification" issue is a red herring. The researchers are not asking for a reclassification,they are asking for more education for young people about the dangers of the drug. For example, the proportion of people affected by nut allergies is tiny, but we do not ignore the health implications for the few and ensure that products come labelled, "This product may contain nuts."With cannabis, the "labelling" should read "cannabis may cause or exacerbate psychotic symptoms in some people."I don't know whether or not the data is the same as that referred to by Lady Runciman, but the study (or critical review) seems pretty scientific (in terms of methodology) to me, based as it is on 35 separate studies carried out on cannabis users. The findings, according to the Guardian are as follows:"The study, an analysis published in the Lancet medical journal of previous research into the effects of the drug on tens of thousands of people, provides the most persuasive evidence to date that smoking cannabis can cause mental illness years after people have stopped using it.The overall additional risk to cannabis smokers is small, but measurable. One in 100 of the general population have a chance of developing severe schizophrenia; that rises to 1.4 in 100 for people who have smoked cannabis.But the risk of developing other psychotic symptoms among people who smoke large quantities or are already prone to mental illness is significant, the researchers say.People who smoke cannabis daily have a 200% increased risk of psychosis. They estimate that 14% of 15- to 34-year-olds currently suffering schizophrenia are ill because they smoked cannabis, a figure previously thought to be between 8% and 10%. According to the current diagnosis rates about 800 people would have been spared schizophrenia if they had not smoked cannabis."The "Lancet" itself, has changed its mind about the harmlessness of cannabis on the basis of this research:"In 1995, we began a Lancet editorial with the sincemuch-quoted words: “The smoking of cannabis, evenlong term, is not harmful to health.” Research publishedsince 1995, including Moore’s systematic review in thisissue, leads us now to conclude that cannabis use couldincrease the risk of psychotic illness."Not being a cannabis enthusiast, I have no problem in accepting this view and, indeed, it accords with my observation of young cannabis users over a 30 year period (as a youth worker).Mick

Mick Brent ● 6520d