What's new
By:

Early Onset Psychosis Linked To Mary Jane Use

^ interesting? I'd say the chicken-or-egg scenario is predictable. Are people depressed cuz they smoke weed? Or do people smoke weed cuz they are depressed?


Anecdotally, I lean towards the latter.

EDIT: this is coming from the perspective of a person who has never smoked marijuana
 
dalamon said:
^ interesting? I'd say the chicken-or-egg scenario is predictable. Are people depressed cuz they smoke weed? Or do people smoke weed cuz they are depressed?


Anecdotally, I lean towards the latter.

EDIT: this is coming from the perspective of a person who has never smoked marijuana
Click to expand...

And both of those are probably not the main reason for either occurrence
 
Scat said:
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/daily-pot-tied-age-first-psychotic-episode-155332322.html

Hardly a proper scientific study but the correlations are interesting.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, it seems the methodology makes either direction of causation possible (as alluded to in the article). That is, it's entirely possible (and it makes a lot of sense IMO) that those with psychological problems are self-medicating. These results also leave open the possibility that people prone to psychotic episodes who self-medicate with cannabis experience those episodes LATER than they otherwise would.

In other words, this study is of little to no value.

It'll be great when cannabis is re-scheduled so that proper research is easier to conduct in the United States (it'll be great when it's legalized and regulated...). No reasonably informed person actually thinks cannabis is a drug with "no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse". ****ing ridiculous.
 
LazyD said:
And both of those are probably not the main reason for either occurrence
Click to expand...

Yup. Simplifying, and generalizing an issue like drug abuse-rates is so 19th-century Positivist that it's a little embarrassing to read. I know that's not what the article is arguing explicitly-- but I can bet my left nut that many will read it, and be like "Ah-Ha!!! Weed causes depression! Let's ban it"
 
dalamon said:
Yup. Simplifying, and generalizing an issue like drug abuse-rates is so 19th-century Positivist that it's a little embarrassing to read. I know that's not what the article is arguing explicitly-- but I can bet my left nut that many will read it, and be like "Ah-Ha!!! Weed causes depression! Let's ban it"
Click to expand...

Yep.

And even IF true, this is totally way worse than long-term effects of alcoholism, right? Tobacco? Oxy?

Oh wait, it's not.
 
Well it's a lot easier for parents to warn against drug-abuse when something is illegal. Now they'll have to work harder to properly convey their morals to their kids!!! Woe is us!
 
Although this article isn't about the regulation of cannabis, it's probably worthwhile to point out that even if cannabis use causes earlier onset of psychosis, prohibition may not be the best way to reduce consumption (in the general population OR among high risk individuals).
 
GVC said:
Unfortunately, it seems the methodology makes either direction of causation possible (as alluded to in the article). That is, it's entirely possible (and it makes a lot of sense IMO) that those with psychological problems are self-medicating. These results also leave open the possibility that people prone to psychotic episodes who self-medicate with cannabis experience those episodes LATER than they otherwise would.

In other words, this study is of little to no value.

It'll be great when cannabis is re-scheduled so that proper research is easier to conduct in the United States (it'll be great when it's legalized and regulated...). No reasonably informed person actually thinks cannabis is a drug with "no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse". ****ing ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Question this raises, for the regular pot smokers.

Let's say it is fully legalized, and then there are all kinds of studies done in the light of full disclosure. And let's say that study after study proves without doubt that weed is bad for you (pick a way, but bad for you nonetheless). Will that change your attitude toward it?
 
LogGrad98 said:
Question this raises, for the regular pot smokers.

Let's say it is fully legalized, and then there are all kinds of studies done in the light of full disclosure. And let's say that study after study proves without doubt that weed is bad for you (pick a way, but bad for you nonetheless). Will that change your attitude toward it?
Click to expand...

It wouldn't change my attitude towards it at all. Would I smoke less? Maybe. But my decisions would be still be made at the margin, only change would be having more weight on the 'don't smoke' side.

Sidenote: I hate hypothetical questions, and I especially hate questions asking about how you, personally, would behave in a hypothetical situation. No one knows, it isn't real, and hasn't happened.

Nothing personal though, good question
 
LogGrad98 said:
Let's say it is fully legalized, and then there are all kinds of studies done in the light of full disclosure. And let's say that study after study proves without doubt that weed is bad for you (pick a way, but bad for you nonetheless). Will that change your attitude toward it?
Click to expand...
As with anything else, of course. I think there are a large number of "legalizers" who would love more information. The current War on Drugs makes that very difficult (the next reasonable argument I hear as to why cannabis is a schedule 1 substance will be the first I've heard). It may or may not affect my behavior (I'm consuming less and less anyway fwiw) or my opinion on legalization (the anecdotal evidence suggests, to me anyway, that prohibition is generally very expensive and almost completely ineffective).
 
LazyD said:
It wouldn't change my attitude towards it at all. Would I smoke less? Maybe. But my decisions would be still be made at the margin, only change would be having more weight on the 'don't smoke' side.

Sidenote: I hate hypothetical questions, and I especially hate questions asking about how you, personally, would behave in a hypothetical situation. No one knows, it isn't real, and hasn't happened.

Nothing personal though, good question
Click to expand...

I understand that about hypotheticals. But if you think about it we operate our daily lives in hypothetical space. We don't put it in the same terms all the time, but we prepare to do things based on what we think might happen in a given circumstance. But I personally enjoy the thought exercise of putting myself in situations that otherwise I may never be in to see if I can challenge my own way of thinking or make myself see things from a different viewpoint. Different opinions for different folks I guess. But thanks for responding.


I have no issues with weed personally, and I am not a user at all. When I had medical issues that would have made it a viable option for me it was on the very leading edge of the medical marijuana debate, but my doctor mentioning it got me thinking. I have had a couple of pain specialists since then who thought I could benefit as I deal with chronic pain and will for the rest of my life. I just have heard a lot on this forum in these debates as people get very vehement that it causes no harm. It sometimes seems like it is argued a little too hard, almost as if folks are trying to convince themselves it is ok to do it. So I was curious, if something came to light that completely blew that view out of the water, what would some of our ardent users do.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Question this raises, for the regular pot smokers.

Let's say it is fully legalized, and then there are all kinds of studies done in the light of full disclosure. And let's say that study after study proves without doubt that weed is bad for you (pick a way, but bad for you nonetheless). Will that change your attitude toward it?
Click to expand...

Depends on how it is bad for you (smoking, vaping, or eating?) And depends on how bad it is for you. (Is it bad for you like soda pop and hamburgers? Or is it bad for you like meth, arsinic, rat poison?)
 
It would seem if it did increase the incidences of psychosis the rates of it would have gone up with the usage of pot increasing the past two decades or so. From everything I've read it hasn't.
 
I know that for me personally pot is harmful. If it wasn't I would use it regularly, but it is massively demotivating for me, a side effect I think that gets minimized more than it should. Besides that it causes anxiety for me, paranoia, etc. Then there's the stupidification factor, which coupled with the anxiety and paranoia can absolutely disrupt my normal behavior in favor of avoiding contact with other people.

It's not like that for everyone. Not sure why the effects are so different from one person to the next but I know many people who claim none of the side effects I experience. Many claim the opposite, that it calms them down and makes their thinking more clear and gives them a desire to go out and have a good time. If I used pot going out in public would be the very last thing I would want to do. It'd be munchies and goofy comedy shows time for me.
 
LogGrad98 said:
I understand that about hypotheticals. But if you think about it we operate our daily lives in hypothetical space. We don't put it in the same terms all the time, but we prepare to do things based on what we think might happen in a given circumstance. But I personally enjoy the thought exercise of putting myself in situations that otherwise I may never be in to see if I can challenge my own way of thinking or make myself see things from a different viewpoint. Different opinions for different folks I guess. But thanks for responding.


I have no issues with weed personally, and I am not a user at all. When I had medical issues that would have made it a viable option for me it was on the very leading edge of the medical marijuana debate, but my doctor mentioning it got me thinking. I have had a couple of pain specialists since then who thought I could benefit as I deal with chronic pain and will for the rest of my life. I just have heard a lot on this forum in these debates as people get very vehement that it causes no harm. It sometimes seems like it is argued a little too hard, almost as if folks are trying to convince themselves it is ok to do it. So I was curious, if something came to light that completely blew that view out of the water, what would some of our ardent users do.
Click to expand...

Word

I'm sure it would totally reduce the total of regular smokers, which is even more reason to disregard attempting to control this substance.

It would still not change the way I feel about using it because I find it fun, and as a catalyst to my creative and professional life
 
this is america damn it if i can stuff my face with twinkies and pound down a bottle of jack daniels wit no 1 even blinkin and eye, not sure if srs bout dat mary jane bein illegal. i mean srsly bros. at least mj is 100% natural, not artificial **** thats comletely legal. this **** is unamerican bros. not sure why these freedom haters dont move elsewhere tbh.
 
Scat said:
So is hemlock. 100% natural does not automatically make it safe.
Click to expand...

Ya but i would still rather have it be natural than man made. Like MJ vs percocet, lortab, oxy.
 
fishonjazz said:
Ya but i would still rather have it be natural than man made. Like MJ vs percocet, lortab, oxy.
Click to expand...

exactly bro. countless peoples have died from overdosin on synthetic drugs for them to be considered more dangerous than MJ--yet mj is outlawed with extreme punishments just for having it on you while stuff like narcotic painkillers (for 1 example) are exxtreeeemley easy to get prescribed-- 'got a lil backpain doc' etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top