IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Jake Ellison at Seattle PI - the Pot Blog...
http://blog.seattlep...juana/#10529101=0

But why is marijuana associated with schizophrenia?

That’s what researchers are trying to figure out, and there have been three key studies, recently published, that point in two different directions, which is why I chose to start this story as I did. Rather than blast out headlines that contribute to the whipsaw, head-jerking of “Yes it does!” and “No it doesn’t!” let’s start with what none of this research does.

None of the research on cannabis and schizophrenia establishes or disproves a causal link. No research has proven that ingestion of the chemicals in marijuana causes physical damage that results in clinical psychosis (as opposed to just thinking someone is stupid or nuts).

What two of the research articles I’ll bring up do establish is a correlation between marijuana use and the presence of brain structure anomalies found in people with schizophrenia. The third research finding establishes that there is no strong correlation between cannabis use and schizophrenia.

[...]

So, if this risk of schizophrenia is proven, will that stop the forward progress of legalization?

Just a guess here, but I’m gonna say, Nope. Voters don’t appear to think that marijuana is good for you … they appear to be voting it in because it isn’t any worse, at least, than alcohol and the war on drugs causes more social and personal damage than the drug itself.

Legalization is not creating marijuana use nor a market for it. After decades of prohibition, use has even slightly increased over that time. So it’s not like folks are going to suddenly stop using because of some bad news on the research front. And until people decide to stop using cannabis, we’ll be right where we are with a raging black market and prisons full of non-violent offenders.

… after all it’s taken decades to reduce smoking, and alcohol consumption seems totally unimpaired by the litany of body and brain killing side effects.

Here’s that paragraph from professor Robin Murray, from King’s College London:

It is difficult to look at the relationship between environmental and genetic factors, but we have examined that question in relation to cannabis. We now know that there is an interaction between the catechol-O-methyl transferase gene (COMT), which some regard as a susceptibility gene for schizophrenia, and cannabis consumption. People with the Val/Val variant of COMT are much more likely to develop psychosis if they abuse cannabis in their adolescence, but there is no evidence that people with the Val/Val genotype of COMT actually take more cannabis than the rest of the population. So it’s not that the cannabis consumption is a manifestation of predisposition to schizophrenia. Rather, cannabis consumption interacts with genetic susceptibility to schizophrenia. The result is that the majority of the population can abuse as much cannabis as they like and don’t come to much harm. But a vulnerable minority, about 25 percent of the population, is prone to psychotic reactions if they take regular cannabis (Caspi et al., 2005).


[...]


FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.
New I suspect that's true of lots of things
Behavior or food A doesn't make you x% more likely to experience outcome B, rather x% of the population is susceptible, and behavior/food A is the trigger.
--

Drew
New FWIW.
Doesn't appear that the whole relative safety thing has been worked out then, does it?
;0)
New Sure it has
Do a genetic check for the 25%. Then let them determine for themselves if they want to throw the dice, fully informed.
     My letter to the President. - (mmoffitt) - (52)
         so you are saying the pres is brain damaged? /me flees -NT - (boxley) - (1)
             Likely. - (mmoffitt)
         It's a real Puzzlement, because of the legal fallout.. - (Ashton) - (14)
             My biggest problem, perhaps has always been... - (mmoffitt) - (13)
                 should take about 3 weeks that study - (boxley)
                 you're going to die on that hill, aren't you? - (rcareaga) - (11)
                     lrpd that - (boxley) - (1)
                         And also, too - (drook)
                     Miss the "Perhaps"? - (mmoffitt) - (8)
                         You cite a single study from last year - (rcareaga) - (7)
                             There are more studies with similar results. - (mmoffitt) - (6)
                                 "No worse" is an impossible measure - (crazy) - (1)
                                     I don't have any illusions about alcohol. - (mmoffitt)
                                 Jake Ellison at Seattle PI - the Pot Blog... - (Another Scott) - (3)
                                     I suspect that's true of lots of things - (drook)
                                     FWIW. - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                         Sure it has - (crazy)
         Atrios today. - (Another Scott) - (34)
             I'm no longer necessarily opposed to that. - (mmoffitt) - (27)
                 That's a narrow definition of "dangerous" - (drook) - (26)
                     Abnormal brain structure, poor memory, schizophrenia. - (mmoffitt) - (25)
                         How about in humans? - (drook) - (22)
                             Seriously? - (mmoffitt) - (21)
                                 Yes - (drook) - (20)
                                     That could be because the law was slow to catch up. - (mmoffitt) - (15)
                                         No, didn't know the details - (drook) - (14)
                                             Familiar with Copi? - (mmoffitt) - (13)
                                                 Let's see the quote again. - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                                     Wow. - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                                         Soviet-sooth-sayers say sententious Stuff! [stolen, swiftly] -NT - (Ashton)
                                                 Horrible abuse of Boolean logic - (drook) - (9)
                                                     Who knows? - (mmoffitt) - (8)
                                                         "not known" != "not true" -NT - (drook) - (7)
                                                             Huh? - (mmoffitt) - (6)
                                                                 I don't think so - (drook) - (5)
                                                                     Back at you. - (mmoffitt) - (4)
                                                                         How many times can a hair be split? - (drook) - (3)
                                                                             That's just disingenuous. - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                                                                                 I'm out - (drook)
                                                                                 I categorize this exercise with another, here. - (Ashton)
                                     pot smokers can crash cars, but that is anecdotal - (boxley) - (3)
                                         I've heard it said... - (rcareaga) - (2)
                                             :-) -NT - (Another Scott)
                                             Best in thread. -NT - (mmoffitt)
                         Re: Abnormal brain structure, poor memory, schizophrenia. - (gcareaga) - (1)
                             I'm not looking for such a particle. - (mmoffitt)
             Ad under it was for Penn Station subs - (drook) - (5)
                 Starting at $175. - (Another Scott) - (4)
                     What I mean is, are they targeting keywords - (drook) - (3)
                         Ah. Hadn't thought of that (obviously). Thanks. -NT - (Another Scott)
                         marijuana-targeted marketing - (rcareaga) - (1)
                             I vaguely remember something about RJR. - (mmoffitt)

We are gonna party all... night... LONG!
249 ms