Where the Telegraph, Daily Fail Get it Wrong on Cannabis

Jabberwocky

Frumious Bandersnatch
Joined
Nov 3, 1999
Messages
1,220
Location
Looking-Glass Land
Where the Telegraph, Daily Mail Get it Wrong on Cannabis

Edward Fox | 10/8/14 said:
The UK tabloid hysteria has flared again over the dangers of cannabis, distorting recent research in an act that will prove detrimental to further educating people on the real harms associated with drug use.

Professor Wayne Hall’s recently published paper in the journal Addiction -- “What has research over the past two decades revealed about the adverse health effects of recreational cannabis use?” – has created a minor media frenzy in the UK. The Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail -- ever-foaming at the mouth, ready to vent their moral outrage -- respectively ran the headlines: Cannabis as addictive as heroin, major new study finds, and, Cannabis: The Terrible Truth, the latter doing so with an air of vindication, as if to say: “Look, we’ve been right all along.”

So, we arrive once again for this seemingly monthly dose of media fear mongering over how drugs will destroy us all if we don’t rid the world of them. And, as ever, papers have skirted over key caveats in the study in question and twisted words so as to push their agenda.

Below is a brief rundown of where they got it wrong on this occasion.

On Addiction

The Telegraph’s claim that Professor Hall at any point stated that cannabis is on a par with heroin when it comes to addictiveness is a pernicious manipulation of his words. The exact phrasing he used to present his study was, in fact:

"If cannabis is not addictive then neither is heroin or alcohol."

This in no way equates to equal levels of harm, nor addictiveness, and at no point does The Telegraph cite a quote by Professor Hall that can back up their absurd headline. Adopting the paper’s same method of reasoning, one could just as easily print the headline: “Alcohol as addictive as heroin.” But that wouldn’t serve the paper’s view as well, would it?

On Cannabis’ Impact on Mental Health

Both newspapers claim that Professor Hall’s study found that cannabis causes mental health problems. This is conveyed by each as a statement of fact, when it is anything but.

Professor Hall’s findings were, rather, that the link between cannabis and mental health problems such as psychosis and depression has been found to be unclear. Research has determined that cannabis may be a contributing factor or heighten the risk of developing a disorder, but to frame it as a sole causation of a condition is misleading given the need to account for other confounding variables e.g. family history of mental illness and socio-economic standing. Some research has managed to do this, but there is no consensus on the issue, Hall states.

On Cannabis as a 'Gateway Drug'

The Daily Mail states that the study shows that “cannabis … opens the door to hard drugs.” This is, in a sense, true as Professor Hall did find from analyzing different studies that cannabis users may be more likely to use cocaine and heroin.

However, the Mail fails to note that this finding is based on the exposure of cannabis users to the drug market and/or factors completely unrelated to cannabis, such as the “risk-taking or sensation-seeking,” of the user in question.

Thus, a pharmacological explanation of escalation in drug use is falsely left on the table by the Mail’s inability to go into further detail, suggesting that the effect of cannabis on the user in and of itself serves as a gateway to other substances. As Sanho Tree, director of the Drug Policy Project at the Institute for Policy Studies, has pointed out in the past, if you frame cannabis as a gateway drug you may as well note that everyone suffering from alcohol misuse has probably drunk milk at one point in their life.

On Other Harms & Media Responsibility

The Telegraph and Mail both highlight Hall’s key findings that driving after smoking cannabis increases the chance of an accident, and that it is potentially harmful to the development of a baby if a mother smokes during pregnancy.

These are both vital pieces of information that need disseminating.

The problem with the coverage – primarily The Mail’s here – is that it implies that those advocating reform of cannabis laws are pushing the issue on the basis it is a harmless substance. No drug is without associated harms. Indeed, more needs to be done to educate people on this, yet the current drug policy paradigm is hell bent on education through fear in the false belief it will result in total abstinence. Elements of the media are sadly complicit in perpetuating this ridiculous (and dangerous) model, despite the fact that it is one under which the damages they are so afraid of occurs.

Demonizing drug users and manipulating research findings to sell papers serves only to avoid an open and honest debate on how to properly mitigate the harms of illicit drugs. If parts of the media continue down this sensationalist road, they will remain a malicious hindrance to real progress.
http://www.talkingdrugs.org/where-the-telegraph-and-daily-mail-get-it-wrong-on-cannabis

Wow, just discovered this site. I'm highly enjoying it so far. Check it out, lots of interesting stuff. Next article I read with be on Heroin Assisted Treatment in the UK! Didn't know that was still possible!!! I guess I'll see.

Any yes, fuck the daily fail.
 
Nicely countered!

There can be little doubt that for some, chronic use of marijuana/cannabis can be problematic, & that for the extreme minority, the odd toke can be pretty detrimental. But to compare the few, rare risks associated with cannabis to the risks associated with heroin, or alcohol for that matter, is, quite simply, bollocks.
 
I for one became pretty fucking pissed when I read the statement "cannabis use doubles risk of mental disorders"
That is the simple correlation/causation fallacy.
The amount of other factors that could contribute is endless.
Personally I find it far more likely that the genetic disposition to mental disorders and the genetic disposition to drug use and abuse are very related.
It is definitely a noticeable trend and to claim that all the different mental disorders are directly caused by marijuana is ludicrous
 
^Ah, but as you know this has been the norm for about a hundred years now, since the image of the junkie and the dope fiend was created during the early part of the 20th century. And that has how it's been portrayed in the media, culture, society and medicine long since. Only know is medicine beginning to question those images. In society and culture at large they're still largely intact. In some societies and cultures they're fast diminishing, but sadly they're not the norm. Due to the nature of mass media and especially the tabloids they're images that are still presented as fact, seeking to garner the hysteria that will buy more papers with gripping headlines, no matter how untrue or rooted in bigotry. But you know all this, I have a feeling.

I digress.
 
Absolutely but much media has been slowly making progress and taking a more open minded view to drug discussion, then this article comes around and blasts it all back to the fucking stone age
I guess the only thing to do is sigh and shake your head in disappointment
 
I read in a journal not long ago that debunked the schizophrenia connection/debate.

The study showed that instead of research concluding that cannabis users were more likely to develop schizophrenia, it actually found that people with schizophrenia were just more likely to use cannabis.

I've always said that correlation is by no means causation.
 
I read in a journal not long ago that debunked the schizophrenia connection/debate.

The study showed that instead of research concluding that cannabis users were more likely to develop schizophrenia, it actually found that people with schizophrenia were just more likely to use cannabis.

I've always said that correlation is by no means causation.

For every journal article you'll find saying that cannabis doesn't cause (or trigger, although I think the difference is mostly semantic) schizophrenia/psychosis, you'll find another two or three saying it does, one saying that it actually prevents it (or lessens the chance), and a good half dozen at least saying that a connection is clear but the nature is not yet evident, and more study is needed. It's the same for most things, scientists can usually twist their stats to support whatever outcome they want for their study, then find a few ''peers'' ideologically or career motivated to ''review'' it and a journal ideologically or financially motivated to publish it - even if you don't take different methodology into account. Any single study is pretty meaningless, and even meta-analyses can be twisted the same way (arguably even more easily).

Personally, going off what I've seen in the heavy weed smokers and mentally ill people in my life, and what I've read that I find at least vaguely trustworthy, I lean pretty far towards there being at least some causal relationship between marijuana and schizophrenia/psychosis (along with depression and anxiety). I still support legalization, because that beats the hell out of a physical dependence forming GABAergic drug which damages basically every organ and system in the body and induces disinhibited and violent/dangerous behavior, but I don't think the pro-weed crowd are doing themselves any favors by trying to deny every single harmful effect, as the paper points out, no drug is without harmful effects.
 
but I don't think the pro-weed crowd are doing themselves any favors by trying to deny every single harmful effect, as the paper points out, no drug is without [potentially] harmful effects.

Regardless of what one might think on this specific debate in the last two posts...

QFT
 
For every journal article you'll find saying that cannabis doesn't cause (or trigger, although I think the difference is mostly semantic) schizophrenia/psychosis, you'll find another two or three saying it does, one saying that it actually prevents it (or lessens the chance), and a good half dozen at least saying that a connection is clear but the nature is not yet evident, and more study is needed.

why is the difference mostly semantic? it's a huge difference between people getting schizophrenia a few years before they would have gotten it and people getting schizophrenia because of weed, when they would otherwise have lived a life without psychosis. if you think there is a causal relationship, how do you reconcile that with the fact that as cannabis use has skyrocketed in the last 100 years, while the incidence schizophrenia has stayed the same?
 
Top