
'Skunk-like cannabis' increases risk of psychosis, study suggests - DanBC
http://bbc.co.uk/news/health-31480234
======
mgraczyk
Whenever studies like this come up, I think it's important to remember that
alcohol causes the majority of substance induced psychosis.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance-
induced_psychosis#IC...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance-
induced_psychosis#ICD-10)

Quoted reactions to the paper included calls to ban skunk-like cannabis
because that may reduce incidence of psychosis. Why are there no calls to ban
alcohol, despite the fact that we already know it causes far more cases of
psychosis?

Nobody suggests banning alcohol because we've learned from history that that
wouldn't work. Why then do they think banning any form of cannabis would work?

~~~
p01926
Every type cannabis has been banned since its existence became known to the
general public; a decision that took all of five minutes to debate in
parliament. What those caring commentators are really suggesting is that
cannabis users suffering from psychosis would also benefit from a little
prison time. Just talking about cannabis, it seems, is enough to induce mental
illness.

~~~
jasonm23
Sorry, but that's simply not true.

British drug laws were relatively liberal until the 1971 misuse of drugs act.

It's also widely known that Queen Victoria used Cannabis as a medicine for her
menstrual cramps.

------
MattWilliams456
For me this article, as biased as it is in not noting any of the benefits of
cannabis, still points towards legalisation and education as the solutions to
this problem. I way prefer to smoke milder forms of pot but these are simply
unavailable to me. The market is loaded with 'super skunk' and I have no idea
what process I am supporting when I purchase it. If only I could walk to the
store and buy a nice organic ethically produced mild weed I would be a very
happy chap.

~~~
DanBC
It's very frustrating that someone buying cannabis that has been farmed by
unpaid forced traffic labour where the proceeds go to a criminal gang is
treated more leniently than someone who grows their own plant for personal
use.

------
JimmyM
"hash, a milder form of the drug" \- I thought hash was the resin, which could
be made from any plant variety, including Skunk and Skunk-like types? I was
also under the impression that hash, in the form of cannabis resin, was
stronger, not weaker.

EDIT: Found a 'source' for my vague thoughts, even if it's just Wiki. Took a
little while to overcome Google's inclination to serve me information about
hashing functions and hash maps but I imagine, say, a journalist could have
googled hash and found this with little effort:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashish](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashish)

~~~
madaxe_again
Yes. The article, like most of them on the topic in the UK press today, is
nonsense.

Hash is, per gram, assuming you've made your hash from the same plant as
you're measuring against, much, much stronger - as you're getting rid of the
useless leaves, stalks, and vegetal matter, and just retaining the resin from
the trichomes.

~~~
TillE
They try to explain again:

"Unlike skunk, hashish - cannabis resin - contains substantial quantities of
another chemical called cannabidiol or CBD and research suggests this can act
as an antidote to the THC, counteracting psychotic side effects."

Which is still nonsense, because hash will have exactly the same cannabinoid
profile as the plant it was made from.

And are they seriously using "skunk" as some kind of meaningful distinguisher?
Even if that's just their term for all deliberately cultivated, non-landrace
cannabis, there's still a huge variety of stuff out there.

------
ArekDymalski
If the research procedure really looked like the one described in the article,
the results may be as well interpreted in opposite direction: young people
with predisposition for psychosis use skunk more often then healthy ones. I'm
always shocked how unscient ific the medical research is.

~~~
zecg
I can recommend this book:
[https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22245552-chasing-the-
scr...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22245552-chasing-the-scream)

And here's an excerpt: \--- Gabor began to read about a group of American
scientists who had carried out something called the Adverse Childhood
Experiences Study. It is the most detailed research ever conducted into the
long-term effects of early childhood trauma. It looked at ten different
terrible things that can happen to a kid, from physical abuse to sexual abuse
to the death of a parent, to track how it shapes that child over their
lifetime.

These scientists discovered that for each traumatic event that happened to a
child, they were two to four times more likely to grow up to be an addicted
adult. Nearly two-thirds of injection drug use, they found, is the product of
childhood trauma. This is a correlation so strong the scientists said it is
“of an order of magnitude17 rarely seen in epidemiology or public health.” It
means that child abuse is as likely to cause drug addiction as obesity is to
cause heart disease.18

Another long-term study, published in American Psychologist,19 followed kids
from the age of five until they were eighteen, to figure out how much the
quality of your parenting while a child affects your drug use as you get
older. When the children were still small, the scientists gave them a task to
carry out with their parents—like piling up building blocks—and then they
watched how well the parents helped and encouraged them through a one-way
mirror. They wrote down which kids had parents who were loving and supportive,
and which had parents who were disengaged or nasty to them. It turned out the
kids whose parents had been either indifferent or cruel were dramatically more
likely to heavily use drugs than the others. They had grown up, they found,
less able to form loving relationships, and so they felt more angry and
distressed and impulsive a lot of the time.

If we can figure out at the age of five which kids are going to be addicts and
which ones aren’t, that tells us something fundamental about drug addiction.
“Their relative maladjustment,” the study found, “precedes the initiation of
drug use.” Indeed, “Problem drug use is a symptom, not a cause,20 of personal
and social maladjustment.” \---

~~~
madaxe_again
>>Nearly two-thirds of injection drug use, they found, is the product of
childhood trauma.

You're aware you don't inject marijuana, right? I mean, the news media in the
UK today seems to think you do, but you don't.

Either way - your post reminds me generally of Rat Park, which was posted
about here a few days back. Addiction as a product of environment and
conditioning rather than idiopathic.

Oh, and you can't be physiologically addicted to cannabis. Psychologically,
sure, but you can be psychologically addicted to American Idol, and I know
which I'd rather poison my mind with.

~~~
tsotha
Actually a small percentage of people (the government says 9%) can become
physiologically addicted to cannabis. Withdrawal is pretty mild, though,
compared to other drugs.

~~~
madaxe_again
I'd be very hesitant to call it physiological addiction - I find I sleep badly
for a few days when I go from daily to nothing, but it's nothing compared to,
say, nicotine - which is also actually pretty mild in the grand scheme of
things.

~~~
DanBC
Are you part of the 9%?

~~~
madaxe_again
Apparently so, given that I do go through mild withdrawal after a long period
of heavy use - but as I said, it's so mild I hesitate to ascribe it to
withdrawal - more just a shift in what's normal.

------
swombat
Bah, another example of bad science reporting. Here's the Guardian version of
this:

[http://www.theguardian.com/science/sifting-the-
evidence/2015...](http://www.theguardian.com/science/sifting-the-
evidence/2015/feb/16/does-smoking-skunk-cause-psychosis-but-milder-cannabis-
doesnt)

> _The Mail on Sunday has shouted that ‘cannabis TRIPLES psychosis risk’ and
> that skunk is to blame for ‘1 in 4 of all new serious mental disorders’. Is
> this what the study they cite shows? Well, no, but it’s really interesting
> research which could advance our understanding of the relationship between
> cannabis and psychosis._

> _However, the authors clearly point out that they cannot be sure the
> association seen in their study is causal._

Edit: Hilariously, here's a later Guardian article:

[http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/feb/16/skunk-
cannabi...](http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/feb/16/skunk-cannabis-
triples-risk-psychotic-episodes-study)

> _Sir Robin Murray, professor of psychiatric research at King’s College
> London, said there was now clear evidence for a causal link between smoking
> strong cannabis and the risk of mental illness._

Great to see some consistent messages here. Wtf @ Guardian.

------
DanBC
By "psychotic illness" they mean people who were ill enough to get an in-
patient admission at a mental health hospital. At least, this is what the
researcher said in a radio interview. The BBC web report is less clear.

The researcher said that cannabis clearly has some benefits (mentioning MS and
epilepsy) and has said that milder cannabis does not see the increased risk of
psychosis.

Frustratingly the actual research hasn't been published yet and the BBC
doesn't link to it.

------
javajosh
What do you get when you mix a) the last vestiges of a well-meaning but
stubborn rear-guard action to keep pot criminalized (NIHR), b) a psychology
department in need of grant money (King's Cross College), and c) a media
property in need of clicks (BBC)? You get a study[1] that makes weak claims
("people who take powerful drugs every day are more likely to experience
psychosis") which gets sensationalized and used as link bait.

I'd write to the author but the piece doesn't have a byline. Whenever you get
to use the word "psychosis" in the title of a piece, you should get some sort
of prize.

[1]
[http://www.thelancet.com/pb/assets/raw/Lancet/pdfs/14TLP0454...](http://www.thelancet.com/pb/assets/raw/Lancet/pdfs/14TLP0454_Di%20Forti.pdf)

------
sudioStudio64
Beware the "new drug menace moment"...!!! You think you know weed? I bet you
thought that "skunk" weed was just a slang term! Hah! Thank god the BBC has
our backs and keeps watch for dangerous stuff like this.

------
shiggerino
What on earth is skunk-like cannabis?

Do they have cannabis that resemble other musteloids?

------
toddkazakov
Apparently the study does not measure how many people got psychosis after the
use of cannabis. So now I am wondering how does one measure the "risk of
psychosis"?

------
sfjailbird
It is surprising how defensive people get when risks related to cannabis use
is brought up.

Regardless of any factual errors in the article. Anyone who has been around
smokers for a long time will know that paranoia of various degrees of severity
is very common side effect of cannabis use. For some, it is merely unsettling,
for others it becomes a debilitating condition.

As I said, everyone who's been around smokers for a long time knows this (the
plural of anecdote is data). I guess that leaves the hipsters and
intelligentsia casual users to get upset when their cool and sophisticated
drug is shown to have problems too. Well it does.

~~~
nate_meurer
I look forward to seeing your data compiled and peer reviewed. Until then it
really is just plural anecdote.

And yes, I too am around a lot of smokers, and not a one of them shows any
sign of hightened "paranoia", whatever that means. See the problem with
anecdotes?

------
norswap
Correlation, causation, same old, same old.

~~~
james1071
I would be surprised if any correlation were spurious (assuming that the
correlation is highly statistically significant and thus not a product of
chance).

