Study says 1 joint increases chance of mental illness by 40% (merged)

[m885]

Correlation does not equal causation, this study seems flawed.

 

[yoker]

This was made big news in Ireland, it was on all the national news headlines. It was stated as fact and I'm sure its massively set back any chance of steps toward legalisation. The science involved in this survey looks like a report that was rushed before a deadline for some college project.

 

[wesmdow]

i couldnt even read all the way through that bullshit.

 

[frizzantik]

'... individual lifetime risk of chronic psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia, even in people who use cannabis regularly, is likely to be low - less than three per cent ...'

'Even if cannabis does cause an increased risk of developing psychosis, most people who use cannabis will not develop such an illness.

'Nevertheless, we would still advise people to avoid or limit their use of this drug, especially if they start to develop any mental health symptoms, or if they have relatives with psychotic illnesses.'

of course if you show signs of mental illness you should stop using all drugs until your doctors says it's ok, but even this article says it's not really something most people have to worry about. of course you don't get that in the headline.. all you get is sensationalistic bullshit.. "one joint will make you an insane killer!!! the devil's weed!!" I can't believe the UK is so caught up in reefer madness after all these years

 

[burn out]

Correlation does not equal causation, this study seems flawed.

lol, look up quasi-experimental design. it would be impossible to do an experimental design for a study like this because of ethical concerns.

 

[kracks]

i met the guy who killed lucy braham....he smoked crack regularly

 

[Mehm]

Correlation does not equal causation, this study seems flawed.

This is the FUNDAMENTAL flaw with this study. Mental illness and smoking cannabis are related. It is IMPOSSIBLE to say that one causes the other. So as far as distorting statistics goes...this article doesn't even do that. All it does is take a correlation and lie about it causing something. ANY statitian or scientist could tell you that.

Why doesn't the article say, "40% of schizophrenics have smoked a joint at some time in their life?" (or whatever the true statistic may be) And then go on to say that smoking weed can ease their symptoms and should be reasearched as a possible medication for schizophrenia?

I'll tell you why. It's because the "government" obviously has a vested interest in making the public view cannabis negatively.

Burnout: you ask why we are so ready to jump on this article? It's because we are all sick to death of people making up lies and trying to regulate our personal behavior (that doesn't effect other people) with laws. If these people reported something sane and truthful, we would be a lot less apt to pounce.

 

[9mmCensor]

Correlation does not equal causation, this study seems flawed.

90 % of statistics are flawed because of this.

 

[burn out]

This is the FUNDAMENTAL flaw with this study. Mental illness and smoking cannabis are related. It is IMPOSSIBLE to say that one causes the other. So as far as distorting statistics goes...this article doesn't even do that. All it does is take a correlation and lie about it causing something. ANY statitian or scientist could tell you that.

Why doesn't the article say, "40% of schizophrenics have smoked a joint at some time in their life?" (or whatever the true statistic may be) And then go on to say that smoking weed can ease their symptoms and should be reasearched as a possible medication for schizophrenia?

I'll tell you why. It's because the "government" obviously has a vested interest in making the public view cannabis negatively.

Burnout: you ask why we are so ready to jump on this article? It's because we are all sick to death of people making up lies and trying to regulate our personal behavior (that doesn't effect other people) with laws. If these people reported something sane and truthful, we would be a lot less apt to pounce.

no, i don't ask why you're ready to jump on this article. i don't care about this article (what do you expect from the media?). i ask why people find the idea that getting stoned all the time can cause mental problems is such a far fetched idea?

 

[hazza]

"SKUNK: THE NEW METH"
"SKUNK: NOT EVEN ONCE"

lol...this is typical university study bullshit...im going to smoke some cones..

 

[hussness]

This report brings up an excellent case of a propaganda tactic called hazard ratios. They're used by magazines all the time to decry modern medicine, and ironically the the stats aren't fallacious. Someone using this would look at a medical study, find the incidence of some disease, and then compare it to the incidence of that disease in the general population. Since there is error involved in any study, and this error is inversely proportional to the size of the sample, more often than not some study will find that say, 1.4% of the study sample developed heart disease during the course of the study. Suppose the incidence of heart disease in the general population is only 1.0%. The study would have shown that whatever operations performed in on the non-control sample were associated with a 40% rise in heart disease, and numerically, they would be right. However, most propagandists neglect to mention measures of statistical significance.

 

[qwe]

could be any number of reasons, for instance, some other factor could be contributing to a declining rate of schizophrenia or it could be the fact that since cannabis causing full blown schizophrenia is relatively rare, there isn't any statistically significant difference.

if the number of cannabis users jumps from less than .1% to 30% + (after popularization of cannabis in the 60s), there should be statistical evidence in schizophrenia sufferers. or did all the other variables happen to decrease schizophrenia at exactly the same time cannabis became popular, and at just the right pace?

how do you know that other contributing factors aren't already criminalized? for example, if growing up in an abusive household contributes to mental illness (which it probably does) are you saying that child abuse is legal?

if you smoke a joint, you are playing with (and, arguably, perhaps harming) YOUR brain/mind

if you abuse a child, you are harming another person

big difference

 

[fastandbulbous]

Study says 1 joint increases chance of mental illness by 40%

It should continue with the following,"in people with a latent psychotic illness" - but then any strong emotional event can do that. How about 'losing your virginity can increase the chance of mental illness by 40%' - in people with latent psychotic illness that's just as likely

 

[StoneHappyMonday]

no, i don't ask why you're ready to jump on this article. i don't care about this article (what do you expect from the media?). i ask why people find the idea that getting stoned all the time can cause mental problems is such a far fetched idea?

Because 'cause' has not been established.

Because many of us have our own experience, and our friends experience, of more than 30 years smoking without any problems.

Because many of us can see through the thin veneer of political bullshit that accompanies such studies.

Because 'your side' puked-out on Reefer Madness some 50-70 years ago. And yet you still expect us to swallow the same politically-charged madness.

 

[Real_Illusion]

Rather than saying that drug use causes mental illness, I'd say mental illness causes drug use. I think drug use can exacerbate the problem, and I wouldn't be surprised if it increases chances of mental illness slightly, but I highly doubt 40%. I also feel how much and in what ways it increases chances of mental illness depends alot on what drugs your doing and how you use them.

To go back to my original point, the reason why a higher percentage of people who are mentally ill use drugs than non-mentally ill people, may be due simply to a stronger desire for drugs in mentally ill people. If you are dealing with severe depression, paranoia, anger, guilt, or delusions, it may seem a reasaonable choice to pickup drugs or alcohol to go escape from such feelings. In other words, the higher instances of drug use amongst the mentally ill may be triggered because quite frankly, they have more reasons to do drugs than someone with sanity!

 

[DragonFly31]

This report brings up an excellent case of a propaganda tactic called hazard ratios. They're used by magazines all the time to decry modern medicine, and ironically the the stats aren't fallacious. Someone using this would look at a medical study, find the incidence of some disease, and then compare it to the incidence of that disease in the general population. Since there is error involved in any study, and this error is inversely proportional to the size of the sample, more often than not some study will find that say, 1.4% of the study sample developed heart disease during the course of the study. Suppose the incidence of heart disease in the general population is only 1.0%. The study would have shown that whatever operations performed in on the non-control sample were associated with a 40% rise in heart disease, and numerically, they would be right. However, most propagandists neglect to mention measures of statistical significance.

If I remember correctly my calculus and stats lessons, although obviously the bigger the sample the better the accuracy involved in the measurements of the sample with regards to the total population, there is a specific number (about n= 60, if my memory serves right?) at which the degree error of the sample (with regards to the total population) becomes extremely small.

What I'm saying is the the error of a sample is NOT inversely proportional to the size of the sample; that taking random samples of a population, even small ones, can give accurate measurements and representations for that population.

It is the way the statistics are presented that flaw this study, the way they are interpreted, and not the statistical study itself.

This sentence, pointed out by another user, sums the article up well for me:
"'Even if cannabis does cause an increased risk of developing psychosis, most people who use cannabis will not develop such an illness."

 

[socko]

That study is trash. They have no idea of the concept that "correlation does not imply causation." What kind of "journal" would publish this nonsense: "Study says 1 joint increases chance of mental illness by 40%"

 

[burn out]

if the number of cannabis users jumps from less than .1% to 30% + (after popularization of cannabis in the 60s), there should be statistical evidence in schizophrenia sufferers. or did all the other variables happen to decrease schizophrenia at exactly the same time cannabis became popular, and at just the right pace?

if the number of people who develop full blown schizophrenia from cannabis is very small, one other variable could easily make any changes in the rate of schizophrenia statistically insignificant. especially because many of the people who develop FULL BLOWN schizophrenia after smoking cannabis, probably would have developed it anyway. so why would you expect to see any statistically significant difference? people who develop milder forms of mental illness from cannabis might go undiagnosed.

if you smoke a joint, you are playing with (and, arguably, perhaps harming) YOUR brain/mind

if you abuse a child, you are harming another person

big difference

i don't think you got my point. i wasn't saying abusing someone is equivalent to smoking weed. i was saying the claim that marijuana use was the only contributing factor to mental illness that the government was interested in was baseless (as far as i can tell).

 

[burn out]

Because 'cause' has not been established.

Because many of us have our own experience, and our friends experience, of more than 30 years smoking without any problems.

Because many of us can see through the thin veneer of political bullshit that accompanies such studies.

Because 'your side' puked-out on Reefer Madness some 50-70 years ago. And yet you still expect us to swallow the same politically-charged madness.

it goes without saying that you can never truly establish cause from a quasi-experimental design. you can't prove that tobacco smoking causes lung cancer, you can only show that people who smoke tobacco have much higher rates of lung cancer.

your criticisms are based on even weaker logic. for instance, i know people who smoked tobacco for 30 years with no problems. i don't know ONE SINGLE PERSON who has lung cancer even out of all the people i know who smoke. i guess i should conclude that tobacco smoking doesn't cause cancer and all the research is just propaganda.

 

[burn out]

That study is trash. They have no idea of the concept that "correlation does not imply causation." What kind of "journal" would publish this nonsense: "Study says 1 joint increases chance of mental illness by 40%"

no scientific journal would. do you understand that you are reading a publication in the british media and not the study itself?