• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Smoking just one cannabis joint raises danger of mental illness by 40%

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,820
1,123
126
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

Oh, yes, I have publish articles in both the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine.

Truely a highlight of my career!
No one is doubting the importance of your e-career. I would ask you some basic questions about cardiac dysrhythmia protocols but I don't want your e-personna to take any more dents than it already has "doc".
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
I would ask you some basic questions about cardiac dysrhythmia protocols
i also published seminal work in the 1980's on oral amiodarone in Circulation, prior to it ever being available in the U.S....

Don't mess with a professional sonny.....
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,820
1,123
126
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
I would ask you some basic questions about cardiac dysrhythmia protocols
i also published seminal work in the 1980's on oral amiodarone in Circulation, prior to it ever being available in the U.S....

Don't mess with a professional sonny.....
I think you are confused about what the word professional means. :roll:

Funny that you should mention Amiodarone, I have published work in the American Journal of Respiratory Care on Amiodarone Induced Pulmonary Toxicity. So you are in good company sonny.....
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,214
2
0
How does it make me biased?
Advertising/marketing. You can lead from there...I am too busy with my (B) to expound on that topic.
So you're suggesting that saying the word 'jilted' releases mind- or body-altering chemicals? I know weed does. Thus, it's not completely out of the question for someone to suggest that these alterations can potentially be harmful. Hoping that it isn't true doesn't mean that it isn't true. I don't know that it is true, but I also don't know that it's false. I know quite a few potheads and quite a few non-potheads and the rate of mental problems doesn't seem much different between the two groups. However, this a scientific study does not make, so I can't draw any conclusions from my limited anecdotal experience. You, on the other hand, have drawn conclusions from your own limited anecdotal experience though you are perhaps even less qualified to do so.
Everything has an effect. I simply doubt that weed--a single joint--increases the chances of a particular mental illness by 40%. This is a very researched drug and a very researched mental disorder and for somebody to come up with such an extreme statement is simply asinine. I don't need to read a study about it. In regards to being less qualified, simply the fact I consider this a ridiculous study makes me more so. If they told us that taking a single tylenol at some point in a person's life makes them 40% more likely to commit homicide or 600% more likely to molest animals I would also doubt it.

I am not a pothead just as I don't do lines of coke (at least not since the accident).
So, for example, if your average chance of developing into a crazy is 1%, smoking cannabis will increase it to 1.4%? That's a 40% increase =).
That is of course what it means; it doens't mean one joint and you have a 40% chance of getting it, but if your chance is 1% it's now 1.4%

Anyway, lemon law is perfectly on point here and posting more in the thread than I so I officially am supporting everything he says in this thread, regardless of content, topic, or extremism of it.
 

Mxylplyx

Diamond Member
Mar 21, 2007
4,197
100
106
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
I would ask you some basic questions about cardiac dysrhythmia protocols
i also published seminal work in the 1980's on oral amiodarone in Circulation, prior to it ever being available in the U.S....

Don't mess with a professional sonny.....
I think you are confused about what the word professional means. :roll:

Funny that you should mention Amiodarone, I have published work in the American Journal of Respiratory Care on Amiodarone Induced Pulmonary Toxicity. So you are in good company sonny.....
Ok, yall's dick swinging contest looks pathetic.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Well John of S. who asks---Before you start judging this study, have you even read it?

You haven't, have you?

As a matter of facts I said one thing in my initial answer to this post.

a. That without bothering to really research the study, it can't be correct if it fails the predictive sniff test. Ands when it fails to account for the real world public health statistics---its the end of story.

b. But the more I learn about the study, its based on the results of 35 other past studies. And if any ONE of those studies is biased, alas poor Yorick, its all trash. And its unclear if the peer review is examining the question of is are the overall study methodology correct given you assume all 35 previous studies as valid or what.

c. And like the tobacco question, that is certainly borne out in public health stats, you get into a entirely different set of problems when we try to separate the ill effects of nicotine from the delivery system of a cigarette. Lots of real quality scientific questions to ask without relying on this garbage study.

d. And you may or may not assume I am a MJ advocate. When in fact I am not. And have worked counselling young people not to use cannabis. But the one thing that really hurts me is when they seize upon publically discredited studies such as this. And then assume if one such study can't be supported by facts, all the rest will be the same. Its an equally bogus argument---but very hard to sell to someone else not willing to have an open mind and want to over simplify a complex problem.
And without bothering to read your response i'll just write you off as a complete moron.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
I now understand why Lemon Law doesn't want to quote, he likes to steal a sentence out of a post, build himself a strawman and argue against that.

Do yourself a favor and quote entire posts and respond to them in their entirety instead of quoting only sentences and arguing on them.
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,929
1
81
I didn't read the whole thread, but the % is supposed to increase from 1% to 2% only. Still a very low chance.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,520
0
0
I'm not a doctor, but as someone who at least passed 6th grade math, I noticed a pretty obvious problem with this study, or at least that article's interpretation of it. Did anyone else catch it? Well in case you didn't, here you go.

With up to 40 per cent of teenagers and young adults in the UK believed to have tried cannabis, the researchers estimate that the drug could be behind 14 per cent of cases of schizophrenia and other psychotic illnesses.
So that's a 40% increasing in your chances of having a mental illness from just trying weed once, and 40% of teenagers and young adults in the UK have tried weed, yet weed is only behind an estimated 14% of cases of mental illness? Like I said, I'm not a doctor, so I can't judge the methodology used in the study...but I am pretty good at running things past what my high school math teacher called "your BS detector". The theory goes that you don't have to understand all the work to get to a conclusion, if the conclusion looks obviously wrong, the methodology is obviously flawed, even if you can't explain why. A 40% increase in mental illness among 40% of the population does not line up with weed being behind 14% of cases of mental illness...whatever the methodology used. Who needs 20 years of education and an MD, simple math tells you this study is questionable at best.
 

DangerAardvark

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2004
7,582
0
0
The most important point is this: even assuming that this study is completely correct (debatable, regardless of what the only two people who actually give this report credence say), Marijuana retains its status as less harmful than alcohol and cigarettes... easily.

On another point, being anti-Bush has very little to do with being a liberal, these days. Anti-Bush is the rule, not the exception. The exception is this forum, which has a comparable amount of Democrats and Republicans, and a large (compared to the nation as a whole) amount of Independents/Libertarians.

Now what's the one thing that most Democrats, Libertarians and Independents have in common? Oh yeah, they want the government to butt the fuck out of our personal lives. And that's why there are precisely two people defending a study that is just more ammunition in the fight to deprive us of more rights. How typically English.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,394
3,035
126
Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
I would ask you some basic questions about cardiac dysrhythmia protocols
i also published seminal work in the 1980's on oral amiodarone in Circulation, prior to it ever being available in the U.S....

Don't mess with a professional sonny.....
I think you are confused about what the word professional means. :roll:

Funny that you should mention Amiodarone, I have published work in the American Journal of Respiratory Care on Amiodarone Induced Pulmonary Toxicity. So you are in good company sonny.....
Ok, yall's dick swinging contest looks pathetic.
I am finding it highly entertaining...just waiting for one of them to screw up...lol
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,551
2
0
Originally posted by: thraashman
I love how none of you have read the study, just a brief article on it. And you immediately come in to defend your buddy pot. Well I think we can guess who the pot smokers in ATPN are! I don't care what the study says in the end, I've seen enough of the effects of pot on people that I will never smoke it. I really don't want to end up as stupid as those people are.
Too late;)
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,658
13,740
136
Heh. Grant whores confirm ontology- what a surprise...

Lemon Law has is right, in the first place. Studies like this have no control group, just self-selected subjects... which raises the question that perhaps pre-psychotic personalities are attracted to psychotropic substances...

Duh! Another amazing revelation! Mentally ill people will attempt to self-medicate!

Not that any of the adherents of reefer madness control would even begin to understand how profoundly such a phenomenon could affect their oh so precious "scientific" studies...
 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,311
8
81
From a non-scientific perspective, the whole idea just sounds ridiculous. People have been smoking pot since long before the '60s, so you think we'd have a much more serious mental health epidemic on our hands.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,294
1
76
Refuting this study on the basis that public health statistics don't show a corresponding increase in the rates of mental illness is not a logical argument, unless one can demonstrate the infallability of those public health statistics.


 

FrancesBeansRevenge

Platinum Member
Jun 6, 2001
2,181
0
0
Originally posted by: Tom
Refuting this study on the basis that public health statistics don't show a corresponding increase in the rates of mental illness is not a logical argument, unless one can demonstrate the infallability of those public health statistics.
First, you demonstrate the 'infallability' of the study and then we'll get to work on doing the same with the public health statistics. :p
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,520
0
0
Originally posted by: Tom
Refuting this study on the basis that public health statistics don't show a corresponding increase in the rates of mental illness is not a logical argument, unless one can demonstrate the infallability of those public health statistics.
OK, for those of you who slept through science in high school...here's a tip, supporting a theory requires you to PROVE it. If you think public health stats are flawed, provide proof to that effect. Otherwise, clam up.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,113
3,156
126
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Tom
Refuting this study on the basis that public health statistics don't show a corresponding increase in the rates of mental illness is not a logical argument, unless one can demonstrate the infallability of those public health statistics.
OK, for those of you who slept through science in high school...here's a tip, supporting a theory requires you to PROVE it. If you think public health stats are flawed, provide proof to that effect. Otherwise, clam up.
Are you crazy?

or should I ask

Have you ever smoked a Joint?

;) :D
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
I point out, that as heartsurgeon claims, this study is a product of medical science, was published in a scientific journal, may have met some somewhat unknown peer review criteria, and now all issues regarding validity, including possible flawed public health data should be on the table.

But I also point out that this is a product of medical science and may or may not be the best state of the arts medical knowledge can produce today. And what medical science knows is always a time dependent moving target. I also point out that before the invention of the microscope, medical science was in a pitiful state of knowledge. And medical authorities far smarter than heartsurgeon were evolving long, complex, and learned theories based on philigious humors and similar mumbo jumbo. Then came the invention of the microscope and suddenly medical authorities were SEEING entire worlds of knowledge they had no idea even existed before. And even the dumbest of doctors could then make advances in medical knowledge that their smarter predecessors could never make---simply because they were blind to the existence of worlds we now see.

But the other point to make is that scientific methodology is the means that scientists in general see. And to advance, science can only rely on clear pictures. And when science starts to rely on vague pictures they in essence start hallucinating. And then can never be sure if they are seeing something real or not. And I hope that all can agree that the study being cited does not even fall into the class of a clear window---its more of an opaque and frostie lens that is almost 100% likely to be an optical illusion. There is nothing wrong with asking the question or testing the hypothesis that cannabis use can cause mental illness. The problem is in assuming that this study is going to be anything remotely resembling anything anyone can base a valid conclusion on.

In short----todays medical science can do better than that.----way way way better.

And pardon me for guessing on no evidence that this report will get attacked in the medical community. But we could be talking about six months or more for the attacks to get into journals. But if I can be so bold as to ask---heartsurgeon, especially if these attacks become accepted medical fact, will you then come back and issue the retraction responsible science usually expects from anyone who wants to maintain their credibility?

And cheer up---IF your peer reviewers and Lancet journal get really discredited for putting their names on a piece of garbage, which medical science is now honor bound to do IF they over reached, you almost better beat us nay sayers to the punch because you don't want to have us do it for you.
 

SirStev0

Lifer
Nov 13, 2003
10,453
4
81
Coorelation vs. Causation.

It has long been countered that people with mental illness are more likely to use mind altering drugs... who is to say that it isnt schizo that causes people to smoke marijuana...
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,719
3,528
126
Originally posted by: SirStev0
Coorelation vs. Causation.

It has long been countered that people with mental illness are more likely to use mind altering drugs... who is to say that it isnt schizo that causes people to smoke marijuana...
Nobody can say, as of yet, and it hardly matters because the danger from marijuana remains at almost zero.

Who is to say that the economic value of creative work inspired by smoking pot is not easily worth any down side?
 

SirStev0

Lifer
Nov 13, 2003
10,453
4
81
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I don't doubt it, everyone i know who is a pothead is dumber than a brick shithouse.

When i was a Sergeant i had a few people who you could easily pick out as potheads, one of them went into psychosis a few months into the training, a few months after he stopped smoking.

Luckily he didn't manage to kill anyone but it was more luck than anything else, that incident led to the strict tests we have today.
A member of the Armed Forces with an opinion on people with mental illness...

( I realize this will probably be considered a flamebait and be met with hostility but it needs to be said, the government is finally getting around to acknowledging the rampant mental illness found in veterans... personally I find it disgusting how ignored it still is... I've seen it working as an EMT... men who watched others scarfice their lives while living in an extremely hostile condition to be dumped back into the real world with no support or acknowledgement that they may have been screwed up in the process... pathetic. )
 

HeXploiT

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2004
4,358
0
71
Actually anyone with a brain can see that mental illness from pot is immediate.
Ever talk to someone when they are stoned?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY