There was a relationship between the amount of cannabis smoked and the likelihood that the user would develop psychotic symptoms. The more someone smoked the greater the likelihood of psychotic symptoms. These symptoms are not always so serious as to be described as a psychotic breakdown, but even lesser symptoms can affect the ability of a young person to do their job properly or to make good social relationships.

The research published in the BMJ was carried out by psychiatrists in Maastricht in the Netherlands. They took great trouble to adjust the findings for any confounding factors, such as concurrent use of alcohol, cigarettes, or other drugs, which might have given a bias to results.

The survey not only clearly demonstrated that exposure to cannabis during adolescence and young adulthood increased the risk of psychotic symptoms later in life but also confirmed other elements of the anecdotal evidence related by GPs. It showed, for instance, that as has always been suspected the association between smoking cannabis and the development of psychosis is much stronger if the smoker already has the type of personality that is associated with a predisposition to psychotic disease. This predisposition was assessed after a psychological study of the patient’s personality. Many doctors, who haven’t the skill and experience to do this, have noticed that a family history of a predisposition to psychotic diseases also increases the risk for cannabis smokers.

It has been my habit to tell young people in families where this tendency is obvious that smoking cannabis may be, and in fact is, undesirable for most students but it can be disastrous for those who carry these genes. The results of the Dutch study confirms anecdotal evidence and three earlier studies that cannabis may precipitate a serious psychotic breakdown and can lead to the emergence of less severe symptoms. These changes in personality can undermine someone ’s domestic life and career and lead to a lifetime of troubles.

Studies published five years ago also showed that the more cannabis smoked the more likely a patient would be to develop cancer. Regular light marijuana smoking more than doubled the likelihood of developing cancer of the head and neck (this includes the tongue and mouth). Daily users of cannabis who smoke more than one spliff a day increase the chances of developing one of these tumours by five times. If they both smoked cigarettes regularly and took cannabis the chances increased 36 times.

Marijuana appears as a stronger carcinogen than cigarettes, according to Professor Li Mao, from the M D Anderson Cancer Centre in Houston, Texas. Although cannabis may not be as detrimental to the heart and cardiovascular system as cocaine, researchers at Harvard found that the heart attack rate is five times higher for someone in the first hour after smoking a joint than it is at other times.

Source: Times Online (UK)
Author: Dr Thomas Stuttaford
Published: January 07, 2005
Copyright: 2005 Times Newspapers Ltd.
Contact: debate@thetimes.co.uk
Website: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/

Related Articles & Web Site:

Chronic Cannabis Use
http://www.freedomtoexhale.com/ccu.pdf

Cannabis Raises Risk of Psychosis
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19939.shtml

Unlocking a Cure for Cancer – With Pot
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19348.shtml

(Photo Caption: "Cannabis use can affect people predisposed to mental illness.")

{Rethink wants the Commons Health Select Committee to launch an investigation "to help establish the facts about the link between cannabis and psychosis".

{It comes a year after cannabis was reclassified from a Class B to a Class C drug - a move the charity claims sent a "confusing message" to young people.

{A Department of Health spokesman said they were commissioning a review.

{'Far worse'

{"We have no objection to the health select committee looking into this," he said.

{"However we are in the process of commissioning an expert review of all the academic and clinical evidence of the link between cannabis use and mental health, particularly schizophrenia.

{"There is medical clinical evidence now that there is an important causal factor between cannabis use and schizophrenia - not the only factor, but an important causal factor. That is the common consensus among the medical fraternity."

{Cannabis was reclassified so that police could target hard drugs.

{Rethink said there had been a 60% increase in people who smoked drugs and had mental health problems in the last five years.

(Sidebar: "We have known for years that using cannabis makes the symptoms of schizophrenia far worse" --Cliff Prior, Mental health charity Rethink)

{Most medical experts agree that smoking cannabis in itself does not cause mental illness, but that people who are predisposed to psychosis are much more likely to develop symptoms if they use the drug regularly.

{"Cannabis is not risk free," Rethink chief executive Cliff Prior said.

{"We have known for years that using cannabis makes the symptoms of schizophrenia far worse in people who already have the illness."

{Calling for further research, Mr Prior said the government should "concentrate on the real and specific mental health dangers, not general warnings that no-one takes seriously".

(Photo Caption: "It is Russian roulette. For some people it can ease pain, but for others it can be an absolute disaster") --Terry Hammond

{Home Office figures released on Friday showed that arrests for possession of cannabis fell by a third in the first year of its reclassification.

{Based on the feedback from the 26 police forces, there were an estimated 43,750 arrests in the last 12 months compared with 68,625 in the previous year.

{In response to the figures, drug education charity DrugScope called for more debate on drug education and prevention, particularly in schools.

{"We need to move on from the debate on cannabis reclassification to concentrating on practical responses to drug use and harm," said chief executive Martin Barnes.

{Campaigner Terry Hammond says his son, Steve, developed schizophrenia after taking cannabis resin.

{"I have got absolutely no doubt at all, and neither has Steve - Steve is absolutely clear about it - that it was the cannabis that triggered it.

{"It may not have been the absolute cause of it, but it was the trigger.

{"It is Russian roulette," he said. "For some people it can ease pain, but for others it can be an absolute disaster."

{But Steve Barker, of the Campaign to Legalise Cannabis Association, said that by prohibiting cannabis it was preventing information about its use being readily available, while cannabis could in fact aid those with medical problems.

{"There is a larger proportion of people with mental health problems who claim cannabis reduces their symptoms than those for whom it is a problem," he said.

{"To criminalise people and to put them though the criminal justice system rather than give them the medical support they need is completely wrong."}

How exactly does putting schizophrenic patients using cannabis into cages help them? How exactly does putting mental patients with symptoms helped by medical cannabis into cages help them? How exactly does putting MS and cancer patients, using medical cannabis to relieve their symptoms, into cages help mental patients who use cannabis? How exactly does putting social cannabis consumers who use cannabis to relax from the stresses of life into cages help mental patients who use cannabis?

"Professor John Henry believes that the Government, in its decision to relax the laws on cannabis, has overlooked the burden that greater use puts on health services" --Cannabis 'Link To Schizophrenia Rise' Posted by CN Staff on April 05, 2003 at 17:56:17 PT By Jo Revill, Health Editor Source: Observer UK http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/15/thread15887.shtml

{...perhaps they had read The Science of Marijuana, by Dr Leslie Iversen of Oxford University's department of pharmacology. As the Independent reported in 2000, Iverson found “many ‘myths’ surrounding marijuana use, such as extreme addictiveness, or links with mental illness or infertility are not supported by science. ...

{According to a study by the Canadian Centre for Addiction and Mental Health: in 1992, of Ontario health systems costs related to all “drugs” only .05% were related to cannabis. And 2% were related to all of the other illicit drugs. However, alcohol accounted for 28.4%, and tobacco accounted for a whopping 69%!!

{I am confident that Health Canada has found ways to increase their expenditures on cannabis since 1992, but cannabis was hardly new, and expenses on tobacco continue to grow.

Wonder how important that is. Anyone know?

{It seems that Canadian teens perceive cannabis as being less harmful than cigarettes! Of course, this was viewed with alarm, and, so “Federal Report Finds Lack Of Information On The Health Consequences” was the inevitable sub-header.

{Oh really?

Mon 17 Jan 2005

The increased availability of high-strength cannabis is harming the physical and mental health of young people in the UK, an expert warned today.

Dr Clare Gerada, head of the Royal College of General Practitioners’ Drugs Misuse unit, said: “With cannabis now more popular among young people than cigarettes and higher potencies more widely available than ever before, it is time we looked again at the health risks.

“There is evidence that high levels of use, especially among teenagers who are physically and mentally still developing, carries with it the increased risk of psychosis and respiratory conditions such as asthma.

“While we are finally winning the battle against smoking and alcohol we are in danger of ignoring cannabis. Genetically modified forms of the drug are now the norm rather than the exception – in fact in many cases it is difficult for users to buy anything else.”

Dr Gerada was speaking ahead of a conference on cannabis being held by the Royal College in London tomorrow (Tuesday).

The meeting aims to broaden GPs knowledge about the drug and help them deal with conditions arising from its use, as well as understand the evidence for possible medical benefits.

Speakers will include Professor John Henry from St Mary’s Hospital, London, Kate Hoey MP, the Labour member for Vauxhall, and Jeff Ditchfield from Bud Buddies – a group campaigning for a change in the law to allow medicinal cannabis use.

Traditionally GPs have shied away from questioning patients about drugs, due to a lack of knowledge and concerns about confidentiality.

Almost a third of young men aged 16 to 24 took cannabis in 2003, according to the Department of Health.

In November last year, figures from the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction showed that two in five British 15-year-olds had tried cannabis – the highest rate in Europe.

Copyright: 2005 Scotsman.com

This is only being done to write off the UN and the Drug War for pursuing people for having smoked cannabis; it is an excuse to keep cannabis in the "banned" column. Where is the outrage about alcohol's impact upon the liver? (Oh, it's documented, so we can ignore it and keep it legal). How about smoking tobacco, and the labored breaths of young kids in the "Truth" commercials, loudly protesting? (But that's not important; keep it legal).

Just a bunch of BULLSH@#T! They just don't want to admit that their policies are injustice, that's all. The UN readily defends itself by saying that "we already have tobacco and alcohol legal, and that's enough" WHY is it enough? Why can't we ban them and legalize cannabis? Nothing saves this report from the obviously political demagoguery that can't admit that they fucked up years ago.

What are the names of the studies this 'doctor' relies upon? Not given. Who conducted them? He doesn't say. Were the results contested in peer review? Deafening (and telling) silence.

Well, 'doctor'?

The reason antis always try to pull this stunt is because they know the average attention span of the public is quite short; given the inundation of input the public receives, 'sound bites' are a sad necessity, but a poor means of deriving decisions from. But it is a very handy method of 'framing' the issue in such a way as to shape public opinion. Reformers can quote paragraph, section, line and verse, while antis nebulously flout questionable studies buried long ago for good reason.

As Mayan said, so say I: To paraphrase the famous line from the movie "Jerry Maguire": "Show me the bodies!" Show me the corpses of all those dead people who never touched tobacco but smoked cannabis daily, if not hourly, since they first toked.

Given the population explosion experienced all over the planet, and the time factor (at least 40 years) the morgues in major cities on Earth should be so full of dead cannabists, they have to rent space from meat packers to hold them all. By the anti's reasoning, the single largest industry remaining in the US should he the funeral home business. Crematoriums would have to be running 'round the clock. There wouldn't be enough arable land left to grow food because of all the cemetaries full of dead tokers.

But...it ain't happened. As it never will. The same can't be said for those partial to alcohol or tobacco or prescription drugs; no doubt about 'cause of death' on *their* post-mortems.

Otto von Bismarck

I used to work for a research facility and I have learned never to believe "studies show..." I found research to be surprisingly sloppy.

Rather than asking "what happens if..." they have a pre-drawn conclusion in their minds and torture statistics to prove what they wish.

There are many steps in gathering data. Even if an experiment is well-designed, if the assistants gathering and collating the data, or the computer people manipulating and storing the data, etc. make any mistakes, the validity of the study is suspect. There's rarely any detailed review of these processes.

Many of these "conclusions" are statistical artifices and do not correspond to the intuitive sense of probablility. Saying "pot means 5x risk of heart attack" implies that if you took 100 non-smokers and charted their time of heart attack, it would be randomly distributed; whereas, if you looked at smokers who smoked ONLY ONCE during the study, the distribution of heart attacks was skewed towards the times of smoking.

If people smoke 100 joints during a year-long study, how can you say that joint number 78 caused a heart attack?

As Sam pointed out, the controls were not present. What happens in many of these studies is they try to measure a dozen variables at a time, don't really control very well, and at the end take a big data dump and do a few weeks' worth of manipulation/torture of the numbers until they get a result that they can publish and get more money to repeat the cycle.

This "study" again flaunts the first axiom of the Scientific Method that we all learn in 8th grade - where is the control population? How can they analyze 3000 people who have survived heart attacks and make a conclusion about marijuana smoking in the general population? Where are the 3000 people randomly selected and studied? Where are the 3000 people with heart disease that smoke MJ and the 3000 with heart disease that do not smoke MJ? There is no causality here! You can't replace scientific causality with a fancy press release!

What do any of these people have to do with my health? I will likely never have a heart attack, let alone survive one.

What if some people can feel the early signs of a heart attack and smoke cannabis to relieve the symptoms? What if this use of cannabis actually helps people survive a heart attack? Wouldn't the findings match these results exactly? You'd find a higher ratio of people surviving who had used cannabis right before the attack. An exact match with these results.

Boston--March 2000, Harvard Medical School affiliate Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center--In the first hour after smoking marijuana, a person's risk of a heart attack can shoot up nearly five-fold, say researchers at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. The study is believed to be the first to document a link between smoking marijuana and heart attacks.

As an immediate trigger for heart attack, marijuana is less risky than a spurt of exercise for a couch potato or a snort of cocaine. But marijuana smoke is about twice as dangerous as exercise for a fit person, sex for a sedentary person, a tantrum of anger or a bout of anxiety.

"As baby boomers enter the age at which coronary disease is the most important cause of death and the leading cause of morbidity, we may see an increase in marijuana-associated heart attacks," says internist Murray Mittleman, M.D., director of cardiovascular epidemiology at BIDMC. "In the debate about medicinal use, marijuana may be contraindicated for people with existing coronary disease."

Mittleman will present his results Thursday, March 2, at the Conference on Cardiovascular Disease Epidemiology and Prevention in San Diego. The meeting is sponsored by the American Heart Association.

The findings are the latest to emerge from a multicenter study of 3,882 patients who survived heart attacks. In this report, 124 people reported using marijuana regularly. Of these, 37 people reported using marijuana within 24 hours of their heart attacks, and nine smoked marijuana within an hour of their heart attacks. After smoking marijuana, the researchers found that the relative risk of a heart attack increased by 4.8 times within the first hour but dropped to 1.7 times in the second hour, suggesting a rapid decline in the acute cardiac effects.

http://cannabisnews.com/news/18/thread18927.shtml

2) The risk of head or neck cancer in a regular pot smoker is increased fivefold from the control, whereas adding cigarettes to it increases the risk sevenfold again

3) Marijuana is more carcinogenic than cigarettes - no basis for this claim cited (what about tobacco fertilizer? radon byproducts? corporate tobacco additives? impurities caused by pot prohibition?)

4) Heart attack rate increased fivefold by smoking - obvious if you realize that smoke contains carbon monoxide which starves the heart muscle of oxygen that it needs. Obviously they don't mention cigarettes which also contain nicotine that further constricts blood vessels - weed doesn't have this issue. There have been a few documented cases of people with bad hearts succumbing to heart failure while stoned - the question is would it have happened otherwise? We certainly don't see stoners dropping like flies from worn-out hearts like cigarette smokers in their 60's.

I have been doing my best to avoid news except news about the disaster. I find the human interest stories interesting and they give me hope that people still do care. They are going to try to help the animals now too. So many dogs and cats with no one to care for them. They are so friendly and they said it was because restaurant owners fed them the scraps from the restaurants and tourists would feed them too so they love everybody. They are going to try to innoculate the animals and they don't want to remove them it seems because they are good for the people to gain comfort. It's good to see good happen.

But wouldn't an increased cancer rate lead to an increased death rate? Just where are all of these bodies???

FoM, thanks for the Kubby press release! That was brilliant! As many have said here, there are no cannabis laws in Canada!

unrelated...

Democracy is now officially dead but at least millions of Americans are now aware of it thanks to a few very brave souls...

Congress Formally OKs Bush Election: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=512&u=/ap/20050106/ap_on_go_co/electoral_vote&printer=1

Senator Barbara Boxer, D-CA and Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones, D-OH contested the election: http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1069

Ten Senators Speak Out in Support for Sen. Boxer in Electoral Challenge: http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=531

Democrats interrupt electoral vote count, force debate on Ohio elections: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2005/01/06/national1519EST0642.DTL

Congress Debates, Democracy Wins - Electoral Reform Moves to Center Stage: http://www.votecobb.org/

THE WAY OUT IS THE WAY IN...

Ten Things We Learned About 9/11 In 2004: http://rense.com/general61/things.htm

Mike Ruppert to Speak in Seattle - Saturday, January 15th: http://www.septembereleventh.org/seattle/index.php

Thursday, January 6, 2005

VANCOUVER -- Have the laws against marijuana already fallen? In a motion filed in BC Supreme Court and scheduled today to be heard on March 3rd, Michele Kubby will ask the court a simple question: "On what authority can any court in Canada enact a law so as to replace a law that has officially been declared unconstitutional and of no force and effect?"

According to documents filed with her motion, Mrs. Kubby is arguing that the Canadian government has already agreed in Parker and other cases that the laws against cannabis have fallen, but insists that the new medical cannabis regulations "fix" the unconstitutional laws against cannabis. In fact, the Crown has dismissed over 4000 cases as a result of the Parker decision. Mrs. Kubby asserts that in the absence of a valid law prohibiting the possession of marihuana, the various "fixes" of the Medical Marihuana Access Regulations promulgated in 2001-2003 & 2004 are null, void and without underpinning.

Mrs. Kubby is asking the court to rule that the court does not have the power to re-enact a dead law. It is contended that the law in question was repealed by virtue of the Interpretation Act, section 2 (2) and that once repealed any replacement was within the exclusive power and jurisdiction of Parliament. Thus, Canada, since the time of repeal is without a law prohibiting marihuana possession.

Mrs. Kubby will also present to the court an issue of first impression which will require the Court to rule for the first time, whether the Constitution Act (1982) section 52, precludes all Courts from suspending declarations of unconstitutionality when courts have determined that a given law violates Charter Rights and/or Freedoms. It is Mrs. Kubby's contention that such a suspension allows enforcement of an unconstitutional law contrary to the mandate of section 52 and has the effect of nullifying and/or amending Charter of Rights and Freedoms Secion 24 (1).

"We not only have the actual statements by judges that Canada's cannabis laws have fallen, we have a motion to force the BC Supreme Court to compel the Court to officially recognize that the all the laws against cannabis, including trafficking, have fallen and that marijuana is no longer a part of the Canadian Controlled Drugs and Substances Act," argued Mrs. Kubby "The government of Canada certainly knows the score. So far, over 4,000 Canadians who can afford to do so have disputed their pot charges, including trafficking. These fortunate few have all had their cases DISMISSED . Thousands upon thousands have succumbed because of lack of funds to fight the Crown's knowingly unlawfully instituted charges," Mrs. Kubby said.