NEWS: The Age - 30/07/08 'Dope smokers not so mellow'

Dope smokers not so mellow
Kate Benson Medical Reporter
July 30, 2008

More than a third of people who present at Sydney emergency departments after smoking cannabis are violent and half have mental health problems such as severe anxiety and suicidal thoughts, shattering the image that dope smokers are relaxed and sleepy, researchers have found.

The data, collected by the National Cannabis Prevention and Information Centre, at the University of NSW, indicates that cannabis users can be as aggressive as crystal methamphetamine users, with almost one in four men and one in three women being violent toward hospital staff or injuring themselves after acting aggressively. Almost 12 per cent were considered a suicide risk.

"It flies in the face of what people typically think of cannabis - that it is a natural herb that makes people mellow," the centre's director, Professor Jan Copeland, said yesterday.

"The reality is that it can make people highly agitated and trigger acute episodes of anxiety."

She said the study, which covered two hospitals from 2004 to 2006, revealed that more than 9 per cent of cannabis users had depression or bipolar disorder, 5 per cent had schizophrenia and 4 per cent had paranoia and a history of self-harm.

"It's the first time we have ever gathered this data and it is highly surprising. It's apparent that we need a higher level of early intervention to pick up these problems before they get to the emergency department," Professor Copeland said.

The head of emergency at St Vincent's hospital, Gordian Fulde, said yesterday most people still believed marijuana was a soft drug, but "the old image of feeling sleepy and having the munchies after you've had a smoke is entirely inappropriate for modern-day marijuana".

"The grass we smoked in the '60s could have been lawn clippings compared to this completely different breed of nasty cat," he said.

"With hydroponic cannabis, the levels of THC [the active ingredient tetrahydrocannabinol] can be tenfold what they are in normal cannabis so we are seeing some very, very serious fallout."

Cannabis use was soaring among young professionals in the city and inner west, Dr Fulde said, but users rarely needed sedation.

Click to expand...

The Age

Now I dont smoke weed and do believe it fucks alot of people up.
but im sorry I just dont think i cant trust research from

"the data, collected by the National Cannabis Prevention and Information Centre"

They already show bias. I bet if they found data to the contary they would keep tight liped.

static_mind said:

Now I dont smoke weed and do believe it fucks alot of people up.
but im sorry I just dont think i cant trust research from

"the data, collected by the National Cannabis Prevention and Information Centre"

They already show bias. I bet if they found data to the contary they would keep tight liped.

Click to expand...

You don't really need to even consider any bias, based on what we know of this "research" from the article above, it would seem the methodology of the experiment is incredibly lacking. Just look at the first sentence. "More than a third of people who present at Sydney emergency departments after smoking cannabis are violent and half have mental health problems such as severe anxiety and suicidal thoughts." How long after? In combination with what? Why are they in an emergency departments at all? Surely if they are at the emergency department they aren't typical pot smokers. What do they mean by violent exactly? Half have anxiety problems and suicidal thoughts, but is that a causal link? Are they trying to claim that there is one, or at least trying to mislead the readers without explicitly stating that there is one? Why are they only taking a survey of pot smokers who are sick or disturbed enough to be in hospital, possibly because of pot but probably because of something else including poly-drug use.

This is why I didn't bother replying to this at first, it just seems so silly to bother even with a single opening statement.



EDIT: And I am so sick and tired of these faulty inferences that because "9 percent of cannabis smokers suffer depression or bi-polar" this means that we are to believe pot is the cause. Heck from what I understand 9% is lower than average, so maybe pot stops depression and bi-polar? Maybe if 75% of heroin addicts are childhood abuse victims, heroin is causing childhood abuse in adults?

from what ive experienced working in a non medicated detox, im surprised how low those figures are... but you have to remember if someone is accessing primary health care facilities such as hospitals or detoxification units -there is a reason behind it eg; accidents or psychotic episodes of varying degrees.

They might be up for funding. She's making claims beyond those on their website, which says its all debatable and unprovable. I would suggest ringing the Lismore and Nimbin emergency departments to see if they would verify this view. I would be very surprised if they did. Certainly I could be accused of a “knee jerk” reaction by anyone without experience, but think the article perhaps “politically” inspired, playing to conservative elements. Of course, I can’t prove anything, it’s just my belief.

I don’t know what their data criteria were, and which two hospitals they chose, but am extremely sceptical of their conclusions. I'm told you can't get a copy of this study either, because it hasn't been released yet.

I know I am not a “health professional”, but have lived within the drug using fraternity for 37 years now. I haven’t seen the level of reaction cited with cannabis alone as used by a sane human being. I have known people to try cannabis and feel paranoid, so they don’t continue with it, but they rarely “flip out” about it. Some don’t like the initial increase in heart rate. Psychiatric patients often self-medicate too. Was there a causal connection between cannabis and the patient’s problems or was just any mention in case notes sufficient? Do the percentages overlap? Were these patients tested to see what other drugs were in their systems, or was a patient statement the only source? It is normal user practice to claim the least indictable drug rather than confess something more serious. Culturally, we whiteys are blamers and blame shifters. “It wasn’t me; it was (insert excuse)” and we are all accomplices in this at times.

Very few health or science professionals want to endorse or defend cannabis because of the career damage that could result in the “War on Drugs” climate. A professional criticism of the study by a “neutral” party would be the best outcome, but its more likely Ms Devine will give it another trumpet shortly.

I have not seen anyone become violent as a result of cannabis use. I’m not saying it’s impossible, just that I have not seen it myself. Speed and Alcohol are the usual aggravators of the violent drug behaviour that I’ve seen. I have handed joints to drunken bikies crashing a hippy party to pacify the situation. The aggro one’s that were too drunk went to sleep or outside to puke, and the remainder joined us in good spirit. All we had to do was share our pot and the gig was good. I have known violent types to smoke, and not seem to change either way. Pot was adopted initially by a generation who wanted wars to end. The demographic has blurred since. I don’t think it has any bearing on acts of violence, except to perhaps diminish the likelihood.

People “overdosing” on cookies are suggestible, and quite open to the idea that orange juice will make them feel better, and often agree that it has helped after. Having a sleep is best. Lethargy passes. Violence is hardly an option there. Visions of cookie monsters?

I don’t believe Dr Fulde is correct about potency being tenfold. In 1970 Adelaide you could buy a matchbox of leaf for $10. I will concede that it was about as potent as his lawn clippings. I got no discernible effect from it. By 1971 you could get an ounce of mixed leaf and unmanicured head for thirty dollars. (Potency doubled?) Of course you could still unwittingly buy pot cut with peppermint tea, oregano or parsley if you didn’t know better. There were also occasional imports of strong cannabis and hashish, sometimes just as good as hydro today. (Anyone remember zombie weed?) It wasn’t till 1972 that I finally recognised an effect and felt “stoned”. There were “drought” periods too. The clientele was neither established nor discerning, but was slowly learning. In 1975 ounces of seeded heads were readily available. By 1978 the new marketing buzzword was “sinsemilla” (seedless heads). Average potency of the market product had already increased significantly and the price was rising. Leaf still had a market price. Hydro came in the eighties. The annual Xmas drought ceased. Dealers claimed it was stronger, and it should be, getting more sun than a normal sunny day every day, and having all nutritional requirements met, but not ten times stronger. 1.5 to 2 times maybe, but shorter acting. In 1986 the first hydro I tried, you could be “off your head” having a cone at the beginning of lunch break and be functional again by the time you got back. Good for office workers. Leaf became almost worthless, and nowadays used in cookies if used at all. If you compared leafy crap to good hydro you might get “tenfold”, but it would be misleading to use such a comparison as cannabis of that impotency was only available for a year or so, thirty six or more years ago, depending which Australian capital city you lived in.

Analysis of bush and hydro cannabis done by the Embassy in 2001 didn’t agree with ten times stronger, but I don’t have those figures handy. My recollection is that some of the bush had more THC than some of the hydro, and the hash oil tested had more THC than any of the hydro

It looks like latter day Reefer Madness to me.

Grrr - she makes me so angry!! I'm gonna pull a few cones and go pick a fight!

Some seriously suspect figures there, and the last line is a ripper: "...but users rarely needed sedation". Isn't that contradictory?

I've never seen marijuana 'induce' psychotic or violent behaviour in 20+ years.

^this article (and the NCPIC) is getting a lot of traction (negative, I might add)on email lists for drug& alcohol professionals in Aus too. Here's a snippet that points out the most glaring errors:

"The SMH article says <<< She said the study, which covered two hospitals from 2004 to 2006, revealed that more than 9 per cent of cannabis users had depression or bipolar disorder, 5 per cent had schizophrenia and 4 per cent had paranoia and a history of self-harm. >>> when of course the study shows that 9%, 5%, and 4% of cannabis users who attend Emergency Departments in relation to their cannabis use show these symptoms.

It goes on to assert <<< More than a third of people who present at Sydney emergency departments after smoking cannabis are violent >>> when of course the study shows that violence was responsible for 34.3% of those cases in which injury was recorded. As injury was recorded in less than 20% of cases, (n = 134), this actually represents only 45 of the total 702 cannabis-related presentations.... Of course 6.4% doesn’t sound as exciting as “More than a third…”"

in high school 1999-2004 i smoked cones once evry 2-3 months
towards the end of high school and in the holidays was having 2-3 day chops evry 2 months.
2004 high school finished, smoking an ounce a month i dare say
close to 2005 i was a mess, paranoia, all sorts of shit so i gave up cold turky.

i dont say 'pot is the cause' for depression, bi-polar or psychosis,
if u got that kinda shit in ur gene pool pot is just the catalyst that triggers it.

"its like the fatty kfc that triggers the cancer sells in ur body to spring up,
if ur prone to getting cancer from fatty foods"

"its the sun exposure that causes melanoma id ur prone to skin cancer"

thats how i like to think of it, heaps tired. hope i make sense,

I bet "more than a third" of them have alco consumed another drug that contributed to creating the anxiety and paranoia and the voilentness.

How about instead of trying to stop pot they stop something more dangerous like all the ice going around.

madmick19 said:

from what ive experienced working in a non medicated detox, im surprised how low those figures are... but you have to remember if someone is accessing primary health care facilities such as hospitals or detoxification units -there is a reason behind it eg; accidents or psychotic episodes of varying degrees.

Click to expand...

where is DrPlatypus when we need him

i can definitly agree to this... ive just quit after 15 years, the attempts without benzos (now needed for chronic anxiety & panic attacks) or even when i couldnt get on 4 the first half of the day,,,, used to get me to a near psycotic state, id b a verry angry and cuntfull man. i feel sorry 4 my girlfriends who had to put up wit my shit!! even moreso 4 my daughter and the fact she missed out on time @ the park or whatever coz i was too strung out n spent a lot of time chasing........ im awake now though

^^ reminds me of someone I used to be friends with

When he was stoned, he was a pleasant enough fellow, but if he didn't have a smoke he went evil.

I don't care what anyone says, anything that alters your perception as much as marijuana does must have a significant impact on the brain.

Sure pot is 'natural' and 'from the earth', but so is belladonna and if you injest to much of it you'll die.

Weed does fuck alot of people up, but there is also alot of mis-diagnosing going on simply because people are still smoking, alot of the time when people stop smoking for a decent time most side effects go away.

But on the other hand weed can mentally screw someone up just as much as meth or any other drug. I know more people who steal, lie, cheat and ruin themselves with pot moreso than with any other drug.

the_ketaman said:

But on the other hand weed can mentally screw someone up just as much as meth or any other drug. I know more people who steal, lie, cheat and ruin themselves with pot moreso than with any other drug.

Click to expand...

I agree, but something I would like to point out:

It all depends on the addicted persons personality type,
the only thing I ever 'stole' while smoking, would prob be buds off a friend.

only cause I knew he would do the same thing to me when I'v hit the deck.

It all depends on the level of addiction & personality type, same as a gambler
some take defeat in their stride but some will beg, lie, steel and cheat there way into some money just to blow it again.


the worst thing I'v seen while smoking, would be back in 2004 erra my friend had moved outta home in with his missus, sharing a 2 room flat.

their relationship revolved around pot

smoking = happy
dry = relationship issues.

I rember once I walked into his house, there where shattered bong fragments embeded in his roof with the black tarry water stripe to match on the roof too haha from where some one has wound up there arm and just lobbed it into the ceiling.

there was "fuck you you cheating cunt" wrote all over the walls in permo marker, all because of an argument they had because they could:

a) either pay rent, get food, dry out for 2 weeks
b) pay rent, get less food, get on for couple of days and be faced with the same issue
I didnt see criteria "C"
but when I got there, (mid week) I found out he had went with "A" and then ran with "C" on the fly witch was hock his xbox, some of my xbox games I lent him, and a bunch of other shit to cover "their" habbit for the week.

by far the worst time of my life.

It's nice to see another from my end of the age scale posting here. Thanks for the history of marijuana in modern day SA EmbassyVicePrez, and welcome to Bluelight.

From my extensive experience around stoners, the conclusions drawn are rubbish. Working in front line HR, I've never in ten years seen a case of violence where marijuana was considered a contributing factor. Ridiculous.

As said, the study is loaded from the start. What events preceded these violent people entering Emergency? Reefer madness is probably an appropriate term here, but any study or report which claims such things in light of more than 50 years of reports to the contrary, needs to be finely disassembled and the parameters around which the study was conducted open to scrutiny and peer review.

From recently speaking to an academic in drug research, it would seem we are more and more becoming like the US. In many if not most cases throughout Australia atm, funding is only available for studies which set out to prove a connection between drug use and undesirable activity.

Where is mention of how marijuana has been shown to be a neuroprotectant, and may actually reduce the severity or onset of some age related diseases? There's been enough research to show these things are quite likely. It's why pharmaceutical companies have, over the past decade, devoted a great degree of research into developing new cannabinoid based drugs.

Let's see some demographic studies of people aged 40 and over who've used marijuana for 20+ years. Let's see how their lives and health have been, and what correlations can be made.

The thing is, it's not within the interests of those handing out the money, as such results would likely indicate that the greater proportion of users do not have trouble, particularly in relation to mental health and violence. That would then be a feather in the cap for the pro marijuana camp, and we don't want any of that 8)

Dope, like every other drug, is not for everyone. Some develop problems from using it, there's no denying that. But from my experience, I would say that for a great majority of users, the biggest problem remains a legal one.

The organisation has an 'interesting' web site: http://ncpic.org.au

From the moment you enter, it has a feeling of anti-cannabis propaganda - which is, in fact, their primary objective: "The NCPIC mission is to reduce the use of cannabis in Australia by preventing uptake and providing the community with evidence-based information and interventions."

I mean: how can you use the words Prevention and Information in your name without giving the impression that the information provided will be biased and filtered?

Classic stats like: "Cannabis continues to be the drug that telephone helplines receive the most calls about. In 2007, almost a quarter (23%) of all calls received by the Family Drug Support (FDS) Telephone Helpline were to do with cannabis." - well duhh its the most widely used illicit drug.

Perhaps I shouldn't be defending marijuana but I can't help feeling theres a bigger principle at stake here.

Also: Is it just me, or does the fact that there is very little reference to physical health issues associated with marijuana seem odd? 'Harm minimisation" is a term that comes up in their search engine a lot but the links have very little substance when you check them out. There's a lot of lip service to the concept of harm minimisation or harm minimisation philosophies but it's like they're too scared to commit to what harm minimisation actually entails (ie. admitting that people want to and will get high).

/end_rant

expothead said:

Also: Is it just me, or does the fact that there is very little reference to physical health issues associated with marijuana seem odd?

Click to expand...

You hear one such concern quite commonly from the anti-cannabis crusaders, and that is that marijuana smoke causes three times more damage than smoking. Which as everyone here would know (or so I hope) that it is a silly comparison, even if it is indeed true, since the amount of marijuana smoked by even a heavy user is miniscule compared to ciggerette smoking.

I personally smoke about 10 grams of tobacco a day, I would be amazed to see someone do 10 grams of marijuana.

I would be amazed to see someone do 10 grams of marijuana.

Click to expand...

Well, I've known people who've smoked 2-3 ounces + per week for anything up to 30+ years. Most of course grew their own, but otherwise they seemed to lead normal lives, and generally speaking, appeared to be in good health. But, as with tobacco rolly smokers, all spent a large part of each day mulling and rolling

phase_dancer said:

Well, I've known people who've smoked 2-3 ounces + per week for anything up to 30+ years. Most of course grew their own, but otherwise they seemed to lead normal lives, and generally speaking, appeared to be in good health. But, as with tobacco rolly smokers, all spent a large part of each day mulling and rolling

Click to expand...

Indeed, I once lived with a couple stoners for Uni, who actually had four different dealers because they were too embarrassed to purchase so much pot from a single person. Apparently they thought it would look bad. :D These guys are in my mind, the upper limit of what a human is capable of as far as marijuana consumption goes. I don't think they managed to ever reach 10 grams in a day, maybe 10 grams between them in a day at most.

Anyone beyond that is certainly some sort of creation of the gods, sent and conceived with the sole intention of consuming pot. As such shouldn't be considered as permissible in this comparison.

I don't even think it is possible to push tobacco smoking to the same extremes as pot smoking. You would get pretty sick 8(

Classic stats like: "Cannabis continues to be the drug that telephone helplines receive the most calls about. In 2007, almost a quarter (23 of all calls received by the Family Drug Support (FDS) Telephone Helpline were to do with cannabis." - well duhh its the most widely used illicit drug.

Click to expand...

I wonder how many of those calls had to do with actual problems caused by cannabis or more mundane topics like parents worried their kids are smoking pot.