Only when smoked
marijuana can be consumed in other ways
That’s good to know. At least the vascular diseases can be avoided when smoking pot. That does nothing for the carcinogens though.
So do cars, do you think we should ban cars? In fact almost all smokes contain carcinogenics, should we also ban coal? Power plants?
Yes. They must eventually be replaced with environmentally friendlier alternatives. Carcinogens are unacceptable and should never be willingly ingested just for fun.
All of them concur that …
Citation needed. Which specific articles are you referring to when you say “All of them”? Call me crazy, but I have a hutch you did not read every single cannabis study that’s ever been written.
… a lot of the meta-analysis point to …
Citation needed. Which meta-analysis? Written by whom? When?
none of them claim causation.
Citation needed. Which specific articles are you referring to when you say “none of them”? Call me crazy, but I have a hutch you did not read every single cannabis study that’s ever been written.
I’m quoting the articles you provided, have you even read them?
From the link you sent:
including schizophrenia (a type of mental illness where people might see or hear things that are not really there).2
And the 2 reference is:
Volkow ND, Swanson JM, Evins AE, et al. Effects of cannabis use on human behavior, including cognition, motivation, and psychosis: a review. JAMA Psychiatry. 2016;73(3):292-297.
On that article it reads:
The link between cannabis use and schizophre-nia could stem from direct causality, gene-environment interac-tions,sharedetiology,orself-medicationforpremorbidsymptoms,although some researchers have suggested that only the first 3 hy-potheses remain open questions.48-50
References 48-50 are:
Ferraro L, Russo M, O’Connor J, et al. Cannabisusers have higher premorbid IQ than other patientswith first onset psychosis.Schizophr Res. 2013;150(1):129-135.
Large M, Sharma S, Compton MT, Slade T,Nielssen O. Cannabis use and earlier onset ofpsychosis: a systematic meta-analysis.Arch GenPsychiatry. 2011;68(6):555-561.
Miettunen J, Törmänen S, Murray GK, et al.Association of cannabis use with prodromalsymptoms of psychosis in adolescence.Br JPsychiatry. 2008;192(6):470-471.
Of those only 49 refers to psychosis, from that article:
Perhaps most importantly, few studies explicitly state whether the substance was being used prior to the onset of psychosis, which makes it difficult to draw causal inferences from a reported association.
Also from that paper:
patients with schizophrenia are more likely to use substances than members of the wider community.
Long story short the study agrees that people with schizophrenia are more likely to use drugs, and that the studies it references don’t take into consideration what came first. Long story short the links you provided are proof that people with schizophrenia like cannabis, not that cannabis causes it.
Your turn to provide studies that claim what you say that they claim, because the ones you listed disagree with you, they’re just being misquoted in several layers.
Long story short the links you provided are proof that people with schizophrenia like cannabis, not that cannabis causes it.
That’s your personal conclusion, not the conclusion of the paper that the CDC cites.
Cannabis use preceded psychosis in these studies:
Arseneault L, Cannon M, Poulton R, Murray R, Caspi A, Moffitt TE. Cannabis use in adolescence and risk for adult psychosis: longitudinal prospective study. BMJ. 2002;325(7374):1212-1213.
Zammit S, Allebeck P, Andreasson S, Lundberg I, Lewis G. Self reported cannabis use as a risk factor for schizophrenia in Swedish conscripts of 1969: historical cohort study. BMJ. 2002;325(7374):1199.
Weiser M, Knobler HY, Noy S, Kaplan Z. Clinical characteristics of adolescents later hospitalized for schizophrenia. Am J Med Genet. 2002;114(8):949-955.
Also:
“Controlling for familial risk in one large epidemiological study considerably attenuated but did not completely eliminate the association of cannabis use with schizophrenia, with odds ratios of 3.3 and 1.6 with 3-year and 7-year temporal delays, respectively.” (Volkow ND, Swanson JM, Evins AE, et al. 2016)
The study in question:
Giordano GN, Ohlsson H, Sundquist K, Sundquist J, Kendler KS. The association between cannabis abuse and subsequent schizophrenia: a Swedish national co-relative control study. Psychol Med. 2015;45(2):407-414.
You can’t cherry-pick the sections of the article that benefit your personal opinions and simply ignore the rest. Its clear that you did not read these articles with objectivity in mind, and for that reason I will no longer respond to you. Best of luck, hopefully you can overcome your rudeness and lack of objectivity some day.
References
Volkow ND, Swanson JM, Evins AE, et al. Effects of cannabis use on human behavior, including cognition, motivation, and psychosis: a review. JAMA Psychiatry. 2016;73(3):292-297.
No, initially I told you what they said, but since you didn’t believed me (or read them yourself) I had to quote them verbatim.
Yes I’m rude, that’s because you’re being obnoxious control freak that wants to prevent people from using one of the safest recreational drugs out there on the off possibly that a small number of people with predisposition to schizophrenia might abuse of this substance and make their condition appear earlier than it would otherwise. And I’m presumptuous because when I quote a scientific paper I read it first, and if I smell bullshit I read the thing they’re quoting, I’ve written enough papers myself and been around academia long enough to know how these meta-analysis get written.
Again, did you read the study you just quoted? Because you’re quoting the meta-analysis of it, not the study itself, here’s what that study actually concludes:
population-based estimates of cannabis-schizophrenia co-morbidity substantially overestimate their causal association. Predictions of the cases of schizophrenia that might be prevented by reduced cannabis consumption based on population associations are therefore likely to be considerably overestimated.
Also that study analyzed people with a schizophrenia diagnostic, and looked at previous arrests for drug related crimes to classify who used Marijuana, which is a very bad methodology for several reasons:
Impulsiveness is a clinical feature of schizophrenia. Therefore it’s entirely possible that schizophrenics are simply most likely to get arrested, that would cause the same results observed.
Risk for schizophrenia is larger between close relatives, but even between monozygotic twins it’s only 40%, so it’s entirely possible that with such a small group as in that research it’s just coincidence.
I’m not cherry-picking, I’m pointing failures in their methodologies, and misquotes from one paper to the one that’s analyzing it, to show you how “A drug related rap sheet together with family history is a predictor for schizophrenia” becomes “Marijuana causes schizophrenia”.
Edit: also forgot to quote this, it’s not just my opinion z the paper itself admits this is a possibility:
Second, we identified CA from medical and legal records, using ICD and conviction codes to capture prevalence within our study population. Although this method has the important advantage of not requiring accurate respondent recall and self-reporting, the risk for misclassification bias remains. Furthermore, we have assumed that those admitted to hospital or convicted for cannabis use represented a subsample of heavy cannabis users, which are labeled ‘cannabis abusers’ in this study (i.e. it is likely that there were many more people who used/abused cannabis than those who were registered as CA). Therefore, some risk remains that CA identification in the current sample may be contaminated by evidence of prodromal schizophrenia. Because our subjects experienced adverse medical or legal consequences of their cannabis use, our results are not directly comparable to studies that examine cannabis use or even heavy cannabis use
And finally, I don’t care if you answer or not, I’m not answering to you, I expect you read those papers and got to some conclusion. I’m answering so that other people who’re just going to read the title and your response know that that’s not exactly what the paper says, as usual people do a very shallow approximation of what the paper actually says.
That’s good to know. At least the vascular diseases can be avoided when smoking pot. That does nothing for the carcinogens though.
Yes. They must eventually be replaced with environmentally friendlier alternatives. Carcinogens are unacceptable and should never be willingly ingested just for fun.
Citation needed. Which specific articles are you referring to when you say “All of them”? Call me crazy, but I have a hutch you did not read every single cannabis study that’s ever been written.
Citation needed. Which meta-analysis? Written by whom? When?
Citation needed. Which specific articles are you referring to when you say “none of them”? Call me crazy, but I have a hutch you did not read every single cannabis study that’s ever been written.
I’m quoting the articles you provided, have you even read them?
From the link you sent:
And the 2 reference is:
On that article it reads:
References 48-50 are:
Of those only 49 refers to psychosis, from that article:
Also from that paper:
Long story short the study agrees that people with schizophrenia are more likely to use drugs, and that the studies it references don’t take into consideration what came first. Long story short the links you provided are proof that people with schizophrenia like cannabis, not that cannabis causes it.
Your turn to provide studies that claim what you say that they claim, because the ones you listed disagree with you, they’re just being misquoted in several layers.
You didn’t quote any articles initially.
You’re rude and presumptuous.
That’s your personal conclusion, not the conclusion of the paper that the CDC cites.
Cannabis use preceded psychosis in these studies:
Also: “Controlling for familial risk in one large epidemiological study considerably attenuated but did not completely eliminate the association of cannabis use with schizophrenia, with odds ratios of 3.3 and 1.6 with 3-year and 7-year temporal delays, respectively.” (Volkow ND, Swanson JM, Evins AE, et al. 2016)
The study in question:
You can’t cherry-pick the sections of the article that benefit your personal opinions and simply ignore the rest. Its clear that you did not read these articles with objectivity in mind, and for that reason I will no longer respond to you. Best of luck, hopefully you can overcome your rudeness and lack of objectivity some day.
References
No, initially I told you what they said, but since you didn’t believed me (or read them yourself) I had to quote them verbatim.
Yes I’m rude, that’s because you’re being obnoxious control freak that wants to prevent people from using one of the safest recreational drugs out there on the off possibly that a small number of people with predisposition to schizophrenia might abuse of this substance and make their condition appear earlier than it would otherwise. And I’m presumptuous because when I quote a scientific paper I read it first, and if I smell bullshit I read the thing they’re quoting, I’ve written enough papers myself and been around academia long enough to know how these meta-analysis get written.
Again, did you read the study you just quoted? Because you’re quoting the meta-analysis of it, not the study itself, here’s what that study actually concludes:
Also that study analyzed people with a schizophrenia diagnostic, and looked at previous arrests for drug related crimes to classify who used Marijuana, which is a very bad methodology for several reasons:
I’m not cherry-picking, I’m pointing failures in their methodologies, and misquotes from one paper to the one that’s analyzing it, to show you how “A drug related rap sheet together with family history is a predictor for schizophrenia” becomes “Marijuana causes schizophrenia”.
Edit: also forgot to quote this, it’s not just my opinion z the paper itself admits this is a possibility:
And finally, I don’t care if you answer or not, I’m not answering to you, I expect you read those papers and got to some conclusion. I’m answering so that other people who’re just going to read the title and your response know that that’s not exactly what the paper says, as usual people do a very shallow approximation of what the paper actually says.
Bloody beautiful, well done.