Psychosis, Hype And Baloney

E-llusion

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Nov 3, 2002
Messages
5,975
Location
ALASKA
Although the mainstream media is eating it up, a new study claiming a link between marijuana use and psychosis should be approached with great caution.

As the month began, the worldwide press jumped all over a study in the March issue of the journal Addiction purporting to show a causal link between marijuana use and psychosis. "Drug Doubles Mental Health Risk," the BBC reported. "Marijuana Increases Risk of Psychosis," the Washington Times chimed in.

Such purported links have lately become the darling of prohibitionists, but a close look at the new study reveals gaping holes unmentioned in those definitive-sounding headlines.

Before we look at the study itself, let's consider some basics: If X causes Y, it's reasonable to expect a huge increase in X to cause at least a modest increase in Y, but this has not been the case with marijuana and psychosis. Private and government surveys have documented a massive increase in marijuana use, particularly by young people, during the 1960s and '70s, but no corresponding increase in psychosis was ever reported. This strongly suggests that if marijuana use plays any role in triggering psychosis, that effect is weak, rare, or both.

For this reason, researchers should approach "proof" that marijuana causes serious mental illness with great caution. The researchers in this case, a New Zealand team led by David M. Fergusson of the Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Sciences, seem to have done just the reverse.

Fergusson's team looked at a group of 1,265 New Zealand kids who were followed from birth to age 25 and assessed at various points along the way for a variety of physical, mental and social problems and issues. At ages 18, 21 and 25 they were assessed for both marijuana use and supposed psychotic symptoms. Having found a correlation with daily users reporting the highest frequency of psychotic symptoms, they then applied a series of mathematical models. These models are designed to adjust for possible variables that might confound the results and to assess whether the marijuana use caused the symptoms or vice versa.

Whatever model was applied, the correlation held up. But the reported "growing evidence" that "regular use of cannabis may increase risks of psychosis" depends completely on the validity of the underlying data, and those data raise some screamingly obvious questions.

Psychotic symptoms were measured using 10 items from something called Symptom Checklist 90. Participants were asked if they had certain ideas, feelings or beliefs that commonly accompany psychotic states. The researchers did not look at actual diagnoses, and the symptom checklist is not identical to the formal diagnostic criteria listed in the DSM-IV manual. Perhaps most important, they only used 10 "representative" items from a much larger questionnaire.

These 10 items focus heavily on paranoid thoughts or feelings, such as "feeling other people cannot be trusted," "feeling you are being watched or talked about by others," "having ideas or beliefs that others do not share." This presents a big methodological problem, because it is well known that paranoid feelings are a fairly common effect of being high on marijuana.

But the article gives no indication that respondents were asked to distinguish between feelings experienced while high and feelings experienced at other times. Thus, we are left with no indication at all as to whether these supposed psychotic symptoms are long-term effects or simply the normal, passing effects of marijuana intoxication. While it's possible the researchers had these data and didn't see a need to report them, the failure to do so is downright bizarre. It's like reporting that people who go to bars are more erratic drivers than people who don't, without bothering to look at whether they'd been drinking at the time their driving skills were assessed.

Even if these were long-term effects, the researchers seem not to have considered that what might be an indication of psychosis in other circumstances could be an entirely normal reaction for people who use marijuana. Consider: Someone using a substance that is both illegal and socially frowned-upon almost by definition has "ideas or beliefs that others do not share." This is not a sign of mental illness. It's a sign of a rational person realistically assessing his or her situation.

The same goes for "feeling other people cannot be trusted." Just ask Robin Prosser, the Montana medical marijuana patient arrested last summer on possession charges by the cops who came to save her life after she'd attempted suicide because she was in unbearable pain after running out of medicine.

Fergusson reports very little raw data, so we don't know which symptoms came up most often, or whether the differences in average levels of symptoms between users and non-users came from a few people having a lot of symptoms or a lot of people having a couple symptoms. The heavy-user group, with the highest levels of supposed psychosis, reported an average of less than two symptoms each. So it is entirely possible that the entire case for marijuana "causing" psychosis is based on marijuana smokers having the completely reasonable feelings that they have beliefs different from mainstream society and thus should be a tad suspicious of others.

"Proof" that marijuana makes you psychotic? No. Not even close. But don't expect the mainstream media to figure this out.

Bruce Mirken is communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project. Mitch Earleywine, Ph.D., is associate professor of psychology at the University of Southern California and author of Understanding Marijuana (Oxford University Press, 2002).

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Psychosis, Hype And Baloney

By Bruce Mirken and Mitch Earleywine, AlterNet. Posted March 7, 2005


Link
 
FINALLY someone wrote a media-ready piece about this. It is well known, has been well-documented, and has been generally accepted for quite some time that marijuana does, indeed, potentiate psychosis in THOSE WHO ARE ALREADY PRONE TO IT - i.e. those with a family history of it, or a preexisting medical condition that favors psychotic tendencies. This, however, IN NO WAY, suggests that marijuana *causes* psychosis. Another classic example of correlation NOT proving causation. Another *very* confounding correlative condition is that those who have mental deficiencies are far more prone to use drugs, particularly marijuana, to ease their conditions. Unfortunately for those who are trying to temper psychosis, marijuana only makes it worse.

My favorite part: "But the article gives no indication that respondents were asked to distinguish between feelings experienced while high and feelings experienced at other times. Thus, we are left with no indication at all as to whether these supposed psychotic symptoms are long-term effects or simply the normal, passing effects of marijuana intoxication. While it's possible the researchers had these data and didn't see a need to report them, the failure to do so is downright bizarre. It's like reporting that people who go to bars are more erratic drivers than people who don't, without bothering to look at whether they'd been drinking at the time their driving skills were assessed.

Even if these were long-term effects, the researchers seem not to have considered that what might be an indication of psychosis in other circumstances could be an entirely normal reaction for people who use marijuana. Consider: Someone using a substance that is both illegal and socially frowned-upon almost by definition has "ideas or beliefs that others do not share." This is not a sign of mental illness. It's a sign of a rational person realistically assessing his or her situation."
 
...marijuana does, indeed, potentiate psychosis in THOSE WHO ARE ALREADY PRONE TO IT

Emphasis added to the bottom line.

Please proceed to piss on the corporate media.
 
Right on kitty. As far as marijuana even potentiating psychosis in those who are prone to it, that's true but somewhat limiting. My whole family is prone to depression and anxiety, and while before marijuana has both brought out and covered those symptoms for me, I have lately used it to confront and overcome my anxiety. It is a versatile tool, one that can be controlled to do things other than exascerbate problems.
 
StagnantReaction said:
...marijuana does, indeed, potentiate psychosis in THOSE WHO ARE ALREADY PRONE TO IT

This is not necessarily true. The psychosis/marijuana use link is still based on correlation. This means that it is quite possible that people who are prone to psychosis smoke marijuana because it alleviates their symptoms. People, especially in the bluelight community, need to stop blindly repeating that marijuana potentiates psychosis...because this has, in no way, ever been proven.

other than that..great article. I'd love to see this published in some major news papers.

peace
 
My dad retired from the science field and used to tell me that research studies are like swimsuits, the most interesting part of them is what you don't get to see. It is really easy to scew studies, NIDA does it all the time. This study seems to have too many variables and not enough controls, which mean more research must be done to conclude anything.
 
Jimmy the Gun said:
This is not necessarily true. The psychosis/marijuana use link is still based on correlation. This means that it is quite possible that people who are prone to psychosis smoke marijuana because it alleviates their symptoms. People, especially in the bluelight community, need to stop blindly repeating that marijuana potentiates psychosis...because this has, in no way, ever been proven.

You should check out some more recent studies. Most of them suggest that the connection is far more than correlative. I can't think of the names of the good ones off hand, but I'll ask my psychologist this weekend :) And yes, i'm fully aware that correlation does not prove causation, and I did mention that many people with behavioral abnormalities use marijuana to alleviate their problems - you should read a little closer! :) I have bipolar disorder with pretty bad anxiety, but as much as it would seem contrary to "typical" clinical reactions, I often find that pot alleviates a lot of my symptoms. However, it does sometimes potentiate my anxiety pretty badly... I just have to ride that razor edge reeeeeally carefully. I usually do a pretty good job of it, as do many other people I know.
 
God, I hate having to talk about this article. The problem
with your arguement, and most of the others raised, is that people keep thinking the paper is saying "we have proof that cannabis causes schizophrenia". The authors seem to be very careful in their wording, so that they are always saying things like "The results of the present study add to a growing body of evidence suggesting that regular cannabis use may increase risks of psychosis.". So they are saying this paper "suggests", or "indicates".. epidemiology can never proove causal linkages (at least, not "proove" things in the way controlled clinical trials can). They also never say that these results show anything about schizophrenia. They are talking about psychotic symptomatology.

Before we look at the study itself, let's consider some basics: If X causes Y, it's reasonable to expect a huge increase in X to cause at least a modest increase in Y, but this has not been the case with marijuana and psychosis. Private and government surveys have documented a massive increase in marijuana use, particularly by young people, during the 1960s and '70s, but no corresponding increase in psychosis was ever reported. This strongly suggests that if marijuana use plays any role in triggering psychosis, that effect is weak, rare, or both.
That is just absolute rubbish... And it's the fact that this is just such absolute rubbish that tells you that the rest of this arguement should be discounted as well. "Why?" you say, "Whats rubbish about it?"

Firstly, the paper in question only shows a definate increase in psychotic symptomes... it says nothing about psychosis, or schizophrenia.. i.e. who says there is anyone going to hospitals, checking in with psychosis because of these symptomes... so where is this guy getting his statistics on the amount of people suffereing from psychotic symptomotology?

Even if we ignore that, and say something like "surely an increase in psychotic symptomotology must at least in part cause an increase in people approaching primary health workers with psychsosis".. Okay.. so lets say the people who smoke "at least monthly" check in. So they get psychosis somewhere between 25-33% more than normal people according to the paper. The peak amount of 12th graders ever smoking that often was 10.7% in 1978 according to NIDA. Erowid estimated that in the 1950s 1% of people were smoking cannabis that often, according to a Gallop pole... ( a number I think is a gross understimation, how many Mexicans and African Americans would have been asked?) so over 27 years, there was a total 9% increase in regular cannabis smoking...

We can say that (increase in the percentage of total pop that smokes cannabis weekly) times (the increase in psychosis caused by cannabis ) times (Percentage of total pop that is psychotic ) = the percent of total cannabis smokers which have psychosis in the total population... If we then devide that by (Percentage of total pop that is psychotic ) we will find out the increase in total psychotism caused by cannabis...

If we switch to symbols so that:
Increase in percentage of total pop that smokes cannabis weekly = C
Percentage of total pop that is psychotic = P
The increase in psychosis caused by cannabis* = a
And the percentage increase in total psychotic populations = T

T = (C x a x P) / P
So using simple math T = C x a
i.e The total increase in psychotisism is = 9% x 1.2 or 1.3 a max of about 12%... a 12% increase in psychotisism, spread out over 27 years? During a time of radicle reshuffeling of the mental health industry (antipsychotics were first introduced in the early 50s)... I don't think you'd notice it.


*Psychotic symptomatology as defined and measured by the paper
 
Last edited:
=Psychotic symptomatology as defined and measured by the paper
 
i.e The total increase in psychotisism is = 9% x 1.2 or 1.3 a max of about 12%... a 12% increase in psychotisism, spread out over 27 years? During a time of radicle reshuffeling of the mental health industry (antipsychotics were first introduced in the early 50s)... I don't think you'd notice it.

I see where you are going. But why does your equation show a 12% increase in psychotisism while the paper states no increase in psychotisism. Sorry if i'm slow to catch on...
thanks for your informative responses :)
 
The paper shows a 1.2-1.3 x increase in psychotic symptomes in people who smoke weekly.... I was saying, even if we assume that psychotic symptomes = psychotisism.
 
The authors seem to be very careful in their wording, so that they are always saying things like "The results of the present study add to a growing body of evidence suggesting that regular cannabis use may increase risks of psychosis."

Yeah they are careful with their wording in that way to maintain technical correctness will still providing hype and fear for the media and the public. Thats why you get media headlines like ""Drug Doubles Mental Health Risk," and "Marijuana Increases Risk of Psychosis,".

And it's the fact that this is just such absolute rubbish that tells you that the rest of this arguement should be discounted as well.

Thats an excuse for attacking the weakest point made in the article and ignoring the stronger points made.

Psychotic symptomatology as defined and measured by the paper.......The paper shows a 1.2-1.3 x increase in psychotic symptomes in people who smoke weekly.... I was saying, even if we assume that psychotic symptomes = psychotisism

And that was addressed in this part of the article, all of which you seem to justify ignoring in your statement above:

Psychotic symptoms were measured using 10 items from something called Symptom Checklist 90. Participants were asked if they had certain ideas, feelings or beliefs that commonly accompany psychotic states. The researchers did not look at actual diagnoses, and the symptom checklist is not identical to the formal diagnostic criteria listed in the DSM-IV manual. Perhaps most important, they only used 10 "representative" items from a much larger questionnaire.

These 10 items focus heavily on paranoid thoughts or feelings, such as "feeling other people cannot be trusted," "feeling you are being watched or talked about by others," "having ideas or beliefs that others do not share." This presents a big methodological problem, because it is well known that paranoid feelings are a fairly common effect of being high on marijuana.

But the article gives no indication that respondents were asked to distinguish between feelings experienced while high and feelings experienced at other times. Thus, we are left with no indication at all as to whether these supposed psychotic symptoms are long-term effects or simply the normal, passing effects of marijuana intoxication. While it's possible the researchers had these data and didn't see a need to report them, the failure to do so is downright bizarre. It's like reporting that people who go to bars are more erratic drivers than people who don't, without bothering to look at whether they'd been drinking at the time their driving skills were assessed.

Even if these were long-term effects, the researchers seem not to have considered that what might be an indication of psychosis in other circumstances could be an entirely normal reaction for people who use marijuana. Consider: Someone using a substance that is both illegal and socially frowned-upon almost by definition has "ideas or beliefs that others do not share." This is not a sign of mental illness. It's a sign of a rational person realistically assessing his or her situation.

So IOW pot can make you feel a little paranoid, especially when its against the law, and that means pot "may" make you have "psychotic symptoms". Big deal.
 
Anyone who writes gargbage of such magnitudes should be ignored. But if I was going to keep going, the "the questions they asked are what people who smoke weed experience, because of legitimate and drug induced paranoia" kinda crap... that doesn't explain the marked dose dependence.. you'd think someone who smoked weekly would experience the same paranoia as someone who smoked daily...

The "the article doesn't differentiate between high and non-high experiences" doesn't matter, no where in the article do they say that the psychotic symptomes are perminent. I admit it's odd, and definately detracts from the generalization of the article... but it's the media who are doing the generalization, not the article itself.
 
Anyone who writes gargbage of such magnitudes should be ignored.

Thats a snobby cop out. He's asking legitimate questions. And once again you go after the weaker points. Why is it for this study out 90 psychotic symptoms they only picked 10 that were related to paranoia? You don't think these scientists from the "Christchurch School" have any bias?

"the questions they asked are what people who smoke weed experience, because of legitimate and drug induced paranoia" kinda crap... that doesn't explain the marked dose dependence..you'd think someone who smoked weekly would experience the same paranoia as someone who smoked daily...

Why? Someone who smokes daily has to worry about getting busted every day. Some who smoke weekly only has to worry about getting busted once per week. Someone who smokes daily is more likely to identify with stoner culture and feel more "different" from mainstream society. The guy who smokes one day a week is likely to hang out nonsmokers and not feel as "different". It is also much more likely the one who smokes infrequently wasn't high the day he answered the questions.


"the article doesn't differentiate between high and non-high experiences" doesn't matter, no where in the article do they say that the psychotic symptomes are perminent.

We've known for a long time the psychedelic and psychedelic like drugs, including cannabis, can have acute psychotomimitec effects. We've known for long time pot can make people a little bit paranoid. That is hardly "growing evidence" that "regular use of cannabis may increase risks of psychosis" . Wording like that is put out to hype the media. All the study shows that pot can make you a little bit paranoid.

Smoking too much pot can give you a smokers cough too. Does that mean we should say pot gives you symptoms of pneumonia? After, coughing is a symptom of pneumonia.
 
Last edited:
It sounds to me like you're sticking your head in the sand man. There is so much evidence that cannabis causes psychosis. These authors have a "bias" aka a hypothesis for a damn good reason.

It's not a cop out anyway, if I started a sentance "I am god, I am the king of England, listen to the holy truth that shall flow from my lips" you should ignore whatever comes out of my mouth. I see your point, and while it is theoretically possible that 100% correct statements could follow, that doesn't detract from the fact that the statements are coming from a crazy person.

And they didn't pick 10 questions that were related to paranoia, they picked two "feeling other people cannot be trusted; feeling that you are watched or talked about by others." And one other questionable one "having ideas and beliefs that others do not share"... but again, I think that's a pointless argument for many reasons, another reason being, even if you do use the full battery of DSMIV questions, you still show that cannabis causes psychotic symptomes (e.g. Arseneault et al., 2002). Interestingly, looking at data previously gathered from this group (Fergusson et al., 2003 Psychol. Med.), they show the response break down to the same questions at age 18 and 21. Here they showed that DSM defiened dependent users (probably >weekly and daily) at 18 were ~2.9 times more likely than non-drug controls to show psychotic symptomatology, while users at 21 were only 2 times more likely. Seeing as those dependent users made up 10% of the total cohort... if those increases in symptomes were just made up by the "paranoid type" questions, you would expect that 10% who were 2.9 times more likely to show psychotic symptomes would be responsible for ~29% of the symptomes... when that dropped to only 2 times more likely at age 21, you would expect them to be responsible for ~20% of the paranoid type questions... so a drop of 9%... or ~3% decline in each of the three questions...

...or however you choose to do the maths, you would think that when the percentage of 'cannabis induced psychotics symptomes dropped' the number of people responsing to the paranoid type questions should drop. This is in complete disagreement with what is found, where 'others can not be trusted' increased from (%(n)) 15.0(154) to 15.7(159) and 'I am being watched' increased from 15.0(154) to 19.5(197). Although "Having ideas or beliefs that others do not share" did increase a bit from 18.1 to 18.8%... though that increase can't account for the total increase in psychotism seen.

We don't know whether or not the authors asked the patients to exclude symptomes which were induced by acute cannabis, the point is, even if they didn't, nothing in the article is invalidated.

I disagree with your points on the dose dependent effects, but as there is no study looking at the frequency of "paranoid" type reactions to the effect of acute cannabis, it's kinda a moot point.

Maybe we're gonna have to agree to disagree...
 
Last edited:
Yes, I think we are going to agree to disagree. Because I think you have your head in the sand of statistics that are based on a selective subset of DSM criteria which are rather flakey and mechanistic for diagnosing illnesses in the first place, and comletely ignorance of the situational factors that affect pot smokers. DSM is a document driven by politics, profit motives and cultural prejuduce, as are these studies. You can't treat this stuff like hard science.

It's not a cop out anyway, if I started a sentance "I am god, I am the king of England, listen to the holy truth that shall flow from my lips" you should ignore whatever comes out of my mouth.

You know...they didn't say "I am god...". What they did was make a statement of sociological value.
 
Last edited:
BilZ0r, I sometimes get the impression that you are trying to demonstrate to the NIDA that they should hire you.

Look, man, I doubt that they are watching. :D
 
Private and government surveys have documented a massive increase in marijuana use, particularly by young people, during the 1960s and '70s, but no corresponding increase in psychosis was ever reported. This strongly suggests that if marijuana use plays any role in triggering psychosis, that effect is weak, rare, or both.

So is this true or not true?
 
^It's a falacious argument, as I demonstrated above, because the total increase in psychosis would have been very small (~10%) spread out over many years, and that there are not statistics gathered that would even test that assumption.

This paper is nothing to do with NIDA, it came out of New Zealand.

My stats aren't coming from DSM4, I'm just generating them from the paper at hand. I agree though, DSMIV is pretty bullshit, at the time I thought it was you who was saying "why didn't they use DSM as opposed to the scale they did use". And even though I think DSM is bullshit (especially to do with anxiety/panic diagnosis), if by the DSM scale, you're schizophrenic, then you really are crazy.

Meanwhile, you didn't refute anything I said. I thought you were saying that the increase in 'psychosis' was only because there was an increase in 'paranoid-type' answers. I showed that was not the case.
 
Top