NationStates Jolt Archive

Cannabis users are 40% more likely than non-users to suffer a psychotic illness such as schizophrenia, say UK experts.

...

The study found the most frequent users of cannabis have twice the risk of non-users of developing psychotic symptoms, such as hallucinations and delusions.

But the evidence for a link with depression and anxiety was less clear, they said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6917003.stm

I think this presents a clear argument for why this drug should remain illegal. This is not some faked survey by a group with an agenda, but a university team conducting a serious academic study.

And cigarettes gives you cancer, yet they're legal.

Funny, huh?

And cigarettes gives you cancer, yet they're legal.

Funny, huh?

Not really.

That is an argument against tobacco being legal, not one to legalise cannabis.

While I agree that cannabis should remain illegal,

The claims that this study has made are circular logic, especially the claim that those who have smoked cannabis once in their entire lives are 40% more likely to suffer from schitzophrenia....

Perhaps, the reason why these people smoked cannabis was because they had psychological issues in the first place....

Therefore, in my opinion, this cannot be credible. Looks like a strawman to me.

You're saying that only mad people smoke cannabis?

While I agree that cannabis should remain illegal,

The claims that this study has made are circular logic, especially the claim that those who have smoked cannabis once in their entire lives are 40% more likely to suffer from schitzophrenia....

Perhaps, the reason why these people smoked cannabis was because they had psychological issues in the first place....

Therefore, in my opinion, this cannot be credible. Looks like a strawman to me.

I saw a Dutch documentary about this a year or so ago and it was quite interesting, although it seemed to conclude that only those with a history of mental problems would be affected.

Is there any research into the psychological effects of cannibis on 'normal' people? Did it make them delusional and paranoid?

Not really.

That is an argument against tobacco being legal, not one to legalise cannabis.

So you're ignoring one thing, while making the other sound worse.

To legalize one thing, and make the other evil, is hypocritical.

Sorry, I'll leave.

So you're ignoring one thing, while making the other sound worse.

To legalize one thing, and make the other evil, is hypocritical.

Sorry, I'll leave.

I'm not ignoring it, nor am I legalising it. If it were up to me, I would regard tobacco in the same way as cannabis. However, it's not up to me. As such, all I can do is say that I don't buy the argument that "it's bad, but so are other things, so we should allow it".

And evidence also shows that prolonged exposure to conservative or right-wing political ideology causes a severe psychosis risk.

And evidence also shows that prolonged exposure to conservative or right-wing political ideology causes a severe psychosis risk.

Great! I'm sure the scientists will welcome your evidential input.

Wait, you don't have any? You mean to say you were just making a sarcastic comment in an effort to discredit the research, because you have nothing to disprove it?

Wrong. Certain strains of impure, chemically altered cannabis induce psychosis, hence suggesting that regulation of quality is necessary; legalisation would allow such regulation to occur rather more easily.

lacent is respected sceintific journal, but I belive the odds of psycotic epidose on marjiuana is real low;therefore, the media is just blowing up story more than it needs to be. Question one how many out of 100,000 pot users get phycosis. Question two: How many were abusing other drugs like meth, alcohol while using pot at the same time. Finally, alcohol used in excess amounts causes phycosis too, and eating junk food juice up the dompaimine receptors to pleasure.

Wrong. Certain strains of impure, chemically altered cannabis induce psychosis, hence suggesting that regulation of quality is necessary; legalisation would allow such regulation to occur rather more easily.

Again, what is your source to disprove this Lancet study?

Again, what is your source to disprove this Lancet study?

T'was on the BBC a while ago, and I distinctly remember it being part of the reason the Independant foolishly dropped it's "legalize cannabis" campaign.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6917003.stm

I think this presents a clear argument for why this drug should remain illegal. This is not some faked survey by a group with an agenda, but a university team conducting a serious academic study.

How is this an arguement for keeping cannabis illegal?

The numbers are still small.



Though interestingly the study also suggests that cannabis doesn't effect young adolescent minds more than older minds.

Is that a significant risk, though?

A heavy user is twice as likely to suffer psychotic illnesses. OK. But what's the base risk?

If it's 1 in 100 people*, the heavy users' risk is 1 in 50. Ie. still small.

*Number made up on spot to demonstrate point.

Philosopy, you obviously don't seem to put much weight on individual liberty then.

Philosopy, you obviously don't seem to put much weight on individual liberty then.

I put a great deal of weight on individual liberty. However, there are two points to be made.

Firstly, individual liberty has a limit; the law has consistently ruled that it does not extend to doing serious harm to yourself.

Secondly, individual liberty is restricted where it interferes with the liberty of others, be it those who have to pay for your health care, those who may be harmed by your taking of the drug, through the smoke or through the crime that it can fuel, or those family and friends around you who have to watch you harm yourself, or even give up their own lives to care for you when you are ill.

We're starting to restrict the use of tobacco on grounds of public health. It would be wrong to go the other way with another dangerous substance.

I think this presents a clear argument for why this drug should remain illegal.

I don't. If people wish to risk it it is their life and their choice. Same reasoning applies to tobacco, alcohol, skydiving and so on.

The Netherlands don't seem to have a problem with it.

Reading this thread kind of makes me feel guilty. However, the only real argument that Philosophy made about keeping it illegal was the drain on health care, so i'm happy to be denied certain treaments if I OD as long as it goes legal. Actually on second thoughts keep it illegal, then I will get treatment if I OD. Everyone wins.

The study found the most frequent users of cannabis have twice the risk of non-users of developing psychotic symptoms, such as hallucinations and delusions.
Really? A psychoactive drug causes hallucinations and delusions? Who knew.

However, they said they could not rule out the possibility that people at a higher risk of mental illness were more likely to use the drug.
And the study becomes dismissible because it is unscientific and just out to villainize cannabis.

And the study becomes dismissible because it is unscientific and just out to villainize cannabis.

From what I can tell the article is reasonably good (though I'm no scientist admittedly.

If anyone is interested it is available from Ben Goldacre's "Bad Science" site:

There is risk associated with anything and everything that humans can possibly do.

The worse thing I've done while stoned is write really asinine shit and post it here on NSG.

The findings are not justification for it to remain illegal. It seems to me that those affected would have already been ideal candidates for psychological problems. All the Cannabis was doing was merely speeding up the process. There was already an existing risk.

Studies have shown that if you get behind the wheel of a car, your chances of being hit by another car drastically increase as oppose to if you stay away from a road. So, should we ban cars?

Secondly, individual liberty is restricted where it interferes with the liberty of others, be it those who have to pay for your health care, those who may be harmed by your taking of the drug, through the smoke or through the crime that it can fuel, or those family and friends around you who have to watch you harm yourself, or even give up their own lives to care for you when you are ill.

Fortunately or unfortunately that is not the case.

If it were, acting in myriad anti-social ways would have to be curtailed too.

Plus, it can be argued that the things you outlined above can be ameleorated by legalising it.

Firstly, individual liberty has a limit; the law has consistently ruled that it does not extend to doing serious harm to yourself.


Unfortunately the study says lots of things, but it doesn't suggest that smoking weed constitutes doing serious harm to yourself.

Firstly, individual liberty has a limit; the law has consistently ruled that it does not extend to doing serious harm to yourself.

A notion I disagree with.

Secondly, individual liberty is restricted where it interferes with the liberty of others, be it those who have to pay for your health care, those who may be harmed by your taking of the drug, through the smoke or through the crime that it can fuel,

Agreed. However, by increasing the insurance fees for people that smoke/engage in risky activities, limiting the use to private home and special locations and de-criminalising it most of those problems are solved.

or those family and friends around you who have to watch you harm yourself, or even give up their own lives to care for you when you are ill.
Unless they are dependants, that is the choice of those family members and therefor their own problem.
I do agree that forbidding certain risk taking when you are entrusted with the care of others - e.g. underage children - would be fair.

<snip>
And the study becomes dismissible because it is unscientific and just out to villainize cannabis.
To be fair, I don't think it's the study itself that should be the target of the pro-legalisation lobby but rather the way that the media (for example, the BBC who are carrying this story as part of their 30 minute news loop as I type) are sensationalising the report's conclusions.

Unsurprisingly, this latest report is being used to to demonise the drug in a blanket fashion, despite there still being no conclusive proof that cannabis causes psychosis. Medical opinion still seems to be divided on whether it causes these problems or whether it simply exacerbates latent conditions and brings them to the fore. The report linked to in the OP mentions that the incidence of schizophrenia has not changed over the last 30 years which, when coupled with the acknowledged increases in cannabis use amongst the population, seems to me to contradict the way that the report is being presented.

I am perfectly prepared to accept that heavy cannabis use by those who are not completely developed (i.e. young teens) may cause future psychological problems, but then again the same arguments could be made for many other substances.

Repeatedly crossbreeding the naturally evolved plants to dramatically increase the THC content (e.g. the various skunks) produces some pretty dangerous strains, and it is these that should be causing the most concern for the authorities. Much like moonshine in the U.S. Prohibition era, some of this stuff is of extremely dubious quality, and makes a strong argument for legalisation/regulation on its own, without even going into any of the civil liberties aspects.

I put a great deal of weight on individual liberty. However, there are two points to be made.

Firstly, individual liberty has a limit; the law has consistently ruled that it does not extend to doing serious harm to yourself.

What's the point of individual liberty is one cannot be a masochist? As long as one is not hurting another, why should the law say what you can and cannot do do your own body? Your body belongs to you and only you. It is not the property of anyone else.

If you want to do serious harm to yourself, that is your choice. Until your actions do serious harm to another, the law should simply stay out. And note, I'm not referring to actions that result in psychological harm because the degree of severity varies greatly based on the person and it's asinine to assume that the results will be the same.

I have a question for you, if you believe that personal liberties should end when there is a chance of one causing harm, should we all simply be locked in padded rooms? After all, there is a great risk associated with life in general. Nothing other than taxes, assholes and death are absolutes.

btw, here's the article if anyone is interested:

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2007/07/27/cannabis_new.pdf

I am perfectly prepared to accept that heavy cannabis use by those who are not completely developed (i.e. young teens) may cause future psychological problems, but then again the same arguments could be made for many other substances.
I will be prepared to accept it when they can prove cannabis is can be the cause without a medical predisposition to psychoses. Without a medical background check of the participants in the study, it is worthless.

I will be prepared to accept it when they can prove cannabis is can be the cause without a medical predisposition to psychoses. Without a medical background check of the participants in the study, it is worthless.

A bit hard to do that considering it was a meta-analysis.

(Though IIRC they do admit that some of the studies used may have put people down as having mild psychosis, but who would have fallen out of the criteria commonly used.)

While I agree that cannabis should remain illegal,

The claims that this study has made are circular logic, especially the claim that those who have smoked cannabis once in their entire lives are 40% more likely to suffer from schitzophrenia....

Perhaps, the reason why these people smoked cannabis was because they had psychological issues in the first place....

Therefore, in my opinion, this cannot be credible. Looks like a strawman to me.

they didnt DO a study at all. they looked at 35 studies done by other groups and came to a conclusion.

The researchers looked at 35 studies on the drug and mental health - but some experts urged caution over the results.

The study found the most frequent users of cannabis have twice the risk of non-users of developing psychotic symptoms, such as hallucinations and delusions.

But the evidence for a link with depression and anxiety was less clear, they said.



looking at the results of other studies can show a correlation but, as you say, it cant show that marajuana CAUSED psychosis. it may well be that a large percentage of those who are on their way to a psychotic episode self medicate with marajuana.

i agree with you that this paper should be read with caution. no one should base legislation on a paper like this.

This reminds me of the wild claims made by the 30's propaganda film Reefer Madness.

In Reefer Madness it is said that you can tell potheads because they are chronic masterbators and rapist while their women are constantly pregnant by jazz musicians. [presumably black]

Come on people. Enough Bravo Sierra is enough.

It's estimated that there are 25-30 million daily pot smokers in the US alone. Given the pure numbers alone, WHERE is the plague of psychosis?

The "psychosis plague" induced by smoking tons of pot for decades simply does not exist but biased research by GRANT WHORES that tows the government line certainly does.

looking at the results of other studies can show a correlation but, as you say, it cant show that marajuana CAUSED psychosis. it may well be that a large percentage of those who are on their way to a psychotic episode self medicate with marajuana.

i agree with you that this paper should be read with caution. no one should base legislation on a paper like this.

;)

80% of the people I have met who smoke pot do so to self medicate [/anecdotal]

;)

80% of the people I have met who smoke pot do so to self medicate [/anecdotal]

ME TOO! [/anecdotal]

it could be that many psychotic episodes have been forestalled by smoking a bit of dope to calm down.

no way to know with a study like this.

However, the only real argument that Philosophy made about keeping it illegal was the drain on health care, so i'm happy to be denied certain treaments if I OD as long as it goes legal. Actually on second thoughts keep it illegal, then I will get treatment if I OD. Everyone wins.
OD on pot?

We're starting to restrict the use of tobacco on grounds of public health. It would be wrong to go the other way with another dangerous substance.
'We' may be restricting the use of tobacco, but no-one, not even the government, is calling for its criminalisation (too much tax revenue ;)). I wouldn't smoke near children anyway, and if/when cannabis is legalised, I'd be content with similar restrictions on smoking cannabis as are now in place for smoking tobacco.

I'm happy with just lighting up a j in the comfort of my own home, my friend's, or in the great outdoors.

This reminds me of the wild claims made by the 30's propaganda film Reefer Madness.

In Reefer Madness it is said that you can tell potheads because they are chronic masterbators and rapist while their women are constantly pregnant by jazz musicians. [presumably black]

Come on people. Enough Bravo Sierra is enough.

It's estimated that there are 25-30 million daily pot smokers in the US alone. Given the pure numbers alone, WHERE is the plague of psychosis?

The "psychosis plague" induced by smoking tons of pot for decades simply does not exist but biased research by GRANT WHORES that tows the government line certainly does.

Quebec Foxtrot Tango.

Philosopy, you obviously don't seem to put much weight on individual liberty then.

Neither do you, so keep your trap shut.

an alternative interpretation of their results could be that people more prone to psychosis are more likely to use canabis and other mind altering substances. this is an interpretation that has been put forwards many times before and yet never gets the same coverage because it's just not sensational enough to make headlines.

While I agree that cannabis should remain illegal,

The claims that this study has made are circular logic, especially the claim that those who have smoked cannabis once in their entire lives are 40% more likely to suffer from schitzophrenia....

Perhaps, the reason why these people smoked cannabis was because they had psychological issues in the first place....

Therefore, in my opinion, this cannot be credible. Looks like a strawman to me.

Somehow, I doubt you know what either circular logic or strawman arguments are. ;)

an alternative interpretation of their results could be that people more prone to psychosis are more likely to use canabis and other mind altering substances. this is an interpretation that has been put forwards many times before and yet never gets the same coverage because it's just not sensational enough to make headlines.

That's the explanation I would tend to look at, but I'd also be interested in seeing the effects of certain chemical compounds in an experimental setting. THC, in particular, has some evidence showing it to be derogatory to physiological functions in the brain. Of course, the counter would be the fact that cannabinoids have a positive effect on mental functions.

What'ev.

OD on pot?




I remember hearing that there was actually one guy who did OD on pot. It was the only death with pot being the only cause of death that I've ever heard of. It was a Jamaican taxi driver who had smoked a pack of joints (20) a day from the time he was I think 12 until he died when he was 30 after his heart stopped. I have no source because I came across it in eleventh or twelfth grade when I was doing a paper on cannabis. So, take that with a grain of salt and this fancy, limited edition rooster-shaped pepper shaker.

I remember hearing that there was actually one guy who did OD on pot. It was the only death with pot being the only cause of death that I've ever heard of. It was a Jamaican taxi driver who had smoked a pack of joints (20) a day from the time he was I think 12 until he died when he was 30 after his heart stopped. I have no source because I came across it in eleventh or twelfth grade when I was doing a paper on cannabis. So, take that with a grain of salt and this fancy, limited edition rooster-shaped pepper shaker.

I'd imagine that would have gotten expensive over time...

I'd imagine that would have gotten expensive over time...

The pepper shaker? It is limited edition.

The pepper shaker? It is limited edition.
I'll take it!

And I'll take that large pinch of salt too.

I have a question for you, if you believe that personal liberties should end when there is a chance of one causing harm, should we all simply be locked in padded rooms? After all, there is a great risk associated with life in general. Nothing other than taxes, assholes and death are absolutes.

I didn't say personal liberty should end when there is a chance of causing harm at all, actually. I said that the law has consistently refused to extend the notion of liberty to doing serious bodily harm to yourself. It's actually a fairly complicated point, but I didn't intend it as a central pillar of anything I said here.

To answer your point, though, prohibition of you doing serious harm to yourself is in no way the same thing as preventing you from taking risks. To use your own analogy, it's the difference between being allowed to drive a car and being allowed to step in front of a car with the intention of being hit.

I'll take it!

And I'll take that large pinch of salt too.

Only got a grain. Used the rest of it to throw over my shoulder to keep the Vampire away.

I didn't say personal liberty should end when there is a chance of causing harm at all, actually. I said that the law has consistently refused to extend the notion of liberty to doing serious bodily harm to yourself. It's actually a fairly complicated point, but I didn't intend it as a central pillar of anything I said here.

To answer your point, though, prohibition of you doing serious harm to yourself is in no way the same thing as preventing you from taking risks. To use your own analogy, it's the difference between being allowed to drive a car and being allowed to step in front of a car with the intention of being hit.

Problem is though you need to show that smoking cannabis causes serious bodily harm...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12912592&postcount=1

No, you've posted a meta-study that suggests it probably increases one fairly minor risk.

Problem is though you need to show that smoking cannabis causes serious bodily harm...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12912592&postcount=1

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12912592&postcount=1

You could at least link to the post where I posted the actual study rather then yours which just linked to a news story on it.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12912592&postcount=1

However, they said they could not rule out the possibility that people at a higher risk of mental illness were more likely to use the drug.


Further study and evidence required methinks

Further study and evidence required methinks

I do like the defence that you have to be mad to smoke it in the first place, I really do.

I do like the defence that you have to be mad to smoke it in the first place, I really do.

So do I. Of course, I also recognise that almost everyone does crazy things ;)

And cigarettes gives you cancer, yet they're legal.

Funny, huh?

Cars are legal. Kitchen knives are legal. In the US, in most places guns are legal.

Sex without protection and a blood test is still legal.

I see this as a progressive chain of events. There will always be people who want to remove all vices and all risks, and will work to make life "not fun".

After a while, they'll say that sitting in a chair doing nothing is risky. You might fall off and get hurt.

I do like the defence that you have to be mad to smoke it in the first place, I really do.

If it's a possibility it makes sense to investigate it instead of going straight for a possibly flawed conclusion

Cars are legal. Kitchen knives are legal. In the US, in most places guns are legal.

Sex without protection and a blood test is still legal.

I see this as a progressive chain of events. There will always be people who want to remove all vices and all risks, and will work to make life "not fun".

After a while, they'll say that sitting in a chair doing nothing is risky. You might fall off and get hurt.

Taking risks in the course of life is a thousand miles from deliberately harming yourself. And why should those of us around you have to sort out the mess you make from your 'fun'?

Taking risks in the course of life is a thousand miles from deliberately harming yourself. And why should those of us around you have to sort out the mess you make from your 'fun'?

Because that is how society is arranged.
Maybe we should divide humans in two groups: those who are willing to take responsiblity for their own actions and those who are not.
The first group would be allowed more, but also receive harsher punishments for mistakes.
The second would be treated as if in a nanny state, less individual rights but more protection.

Taking risks in the course of life is a thousand miles from deliberately harming yourself. And why should those of us around you have to sort out the mess you make from your 'fun'?

What about any of the contact sports (and plenty of the non contact sports) which have a risk of serious injury. No-one takes part in them with the intent to deliberately harm themselves. They just see it as a possible risk.

The same goes for smoking cannabis. There is a possible risk but that isn't the reason for people smoking it. The risk is a side issue for them just as in many other more mundane cases

Taking risks in the course of life is a thousand miles from deliberately harming yourself. And why should those of us around you have to sort out the mess you make from your 'fun'?

There's a little thing called risk.

If I jump off of a 500ft cliff (I'm sure pantless would want to be there to see it), there's a near certainty that I'll be killed or severely injured.

If I smoke pot, there's a "risk" that something bad will happen - and I won't even die.

Better yet, you won't have to fish through a steaming pile of raw meat to get my driver's license to see who I am.

Someone get this man outta his job!

i have a feeling you're in the wrong thread...

What about any of the contact sports (and plenty of the non contact sports) which have a risk of serious injury. No-one takes part in them with the intent to deliberately harm themselves. They just see it as a possible risk.

The same goes for smoking cannabis. There is a possible risk but that isn't the reason for people smoking it. The risk is a side issue for them just as in many other more mundane cases

I disagree; I would not place cannabis in the same class as sports. You say it is 'just a risk'; I say it is a totally unacceptable risk. There is no benefit whatsoever from smoking it, and widespread disadvantages that impact on those people around the user.

The point with all risks is that you balance the positives against the negatives in order to ascertain whether or not it is justified. In this case, the negatives far outweigh any 'positive' that comes from its use.

I disagree; I would not place cannabis in the same class as sports. You say it is 'just a risk'; I say it is a totally unacceptable risk. There is no benefit whatsoever from smoking it, and widespread disadvantages that impact on those people around the user.

The point with all risks is that you balance the positives against the negatives in order to ascertain whether or not it is justified. In this case, the negatives far outweigh any 'positive' that comes from its use.

there's as much benefit to smoking canabis as there is to drinking alcohol. in fact there's more if you consider it's medicinal uses. the purpose for smoking and drinking is pleasure for the most part. is that not a legitimate goal for you to allow others to pursue?

I disagree; I would not place cannabis in the same class as sports. You say it is 'just a risk'; I say it is a totally unacceptable risk. There is no benefit whatsoever from smoking it, and widespread disadvantages that impact on those people around the user.

The point with all risks is that you balance the positives against the negatives in order to ascertain whether or not it is justified. In this case, the negatives far outweigh any 'positive' that comes from its use.

No benefit? I thought the whole point was that it was relaxing, among other things. To me relaxation is a good thing.

Some sports don't have a benefit other than exhiliration, relaxation, etc. They do however have serious risks going along with them. Better get rid of them ;)

i have a feeling you're in the wrong thread...
Ma skillz ar leeeking!!

I disagree; I would not place cannabis in the same class as sports. You say it is 'just a risk'; I say it is a totally unacceptable risk. There is no benefit whatsoever from smoking it, and widespread disadvantages that impact on those people around the user.

The point with all risks is that you balance the positives against the negatives in order to ascertain whether or not it is justified. In this case, the negatives far outweigh any 'positive' that comes from its use.
Oh come now Philosopy, you can't deny that there are some positives to smoking pot. Fair enough, you might not want to experience the sensations yourself, but increased audio and visual stimulation, feelings of well-being, increased lateral thinking, muscle relaxent, a sense of calm, etc., are quite obviously positives.

there's as much benefit to smoking canabis as there is to drinking alcohol. in fact there's more if you consider it's medicinal uses. the purpose for smoking and drinking is pleasure for the most part. is that not a legitimate goal for you to allow others to pursue?

Medicinal purposes is an entirely different point; it is possible to allow a drug for prescribed use without allowing it for recreational use.

If you can't get pleasure except through a drug, I feel sorry for you. Again, it comes back to balancing whether the risks are justified, and a 40% increased risk of a psychotic illness, plus the associated health costs and the risks of harming those around you are more than enough to convince me that the risk is totally unacceptable.

Medicinal purposes is an entirely different point; it is possible to allow a drug for prescribed use without allowing it for recreational use.

If you can't get pleasure except through a drug, I feel sorry for you. Again, it comes back to balancing whether the risks are justified, and a 40% increased risk of a psychotic illness, plus the associated health costs and the risks of harming those around you are more than enough to convince me that the risk is totally unacceptable.

What are your thoughts on alcohol by the way?

and a 40% increased risk of a psychotic illness,
Based on what? This analysis? Trash without a study of the participants medical history and independent mental health risk.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6917003.stm

I think this presents a clear argument for why this drug should remain illegal. This is not some faked survey by a group with an agenda, but a university team conducting a serious academic study.

You left out a very important caveat:
However, they said they could not rule out the possibility that people at a higher risk of mental illness were more likely to use the drug.

Study author, Professor Glyn Lewis, professor of psychiatric epidemiology, said: "It is possible that the people who use cannabis might have other characteristics that themselves increase risk of psychotic illness.

That people succeptable to psychiatric illnesses "self-medicate" with alcohol, nicotine, THC, and other psychoactives is a well known condition.

This ststudy appears to simply be a poorly constructed indictment of the state of mental health and psychiatry in the UK. (The US is no better, mind you. Japan, where I reside, is much worse.)

What are your thoughts on alcohol by the way?

I'm sure alcohol almost certainly causes as much trouble or more than cannabis.

You left out a very important caveat:

Actually, I've commented on that at least twice. For the third time, the idea that you'd have to be mad to use it hardly strikes me as a good reason to legalise it.

Based on what? This analysis? Trash without a study of the participants medical history and independent mental health risk.

And what are you basing your dismissal of this academic study on? The fact that you don't like it?

And what are you basing your dismissal of this academic study on? The fact that you don't like it?

The fact that you haven't shown that cannabis was the cause of the mental illness rather than just a coincidence

And what are you basing your dismissal of this academic study on? The fact that you don't like it?

The fact that without showing and recording a patient's medical and mental health history, they can show no legitimate causation of psychosis solely by the use of cannabis rather than a genetic predisposition.

If I was going to prove sugar caused hair loss, I would need to know if the participants in the study had a genetic predisposition to hair loss.

The fact that you haven't shown that cannabis was the cause of the mental illness rather than just a coincidence

So, to take what you're saying to its logical conclusion, we should legalise cannabis because people with serious mental health issues like to smoke it?

So, to take what you're saying to its logical conclusion, we should legalise cannabis because people with serious mental health issues like to smoke it?

No what i'm saying is that your assertion that "Cannabis causes psychosis" is flawed and can't be used in an argument about legalising cannabis without investigating the flaws.

The cannabis may have no effect on the emergence of psychosis. People who have psychotic episodes might operate dangerous machinery but I wouldn't say that dangerous machinery should be criminalised because of this.

a 40% increased risk of a psychotic illness

You do realise that that doesn't mean, if the base risk is 1%, that users have a 41% risk? It means that they have a 1.4% risk.
That really isn't significant.

So, to take what you're saying to its logical conclusion, we should legalise cannabis because people with serious mental health issues like to smoke it?
That's not the logical conclusion at all.

Dundee is merely saying that your statement that cannabis causes psychosis is unproven by this study, as it admits itself.

No what i'm saying is that your assertion that "Cannabis causes psychosis" is flawed and can't be used in an argument about legalising cannabis without investigating the flaws.

The cannabis may have no effect on the emergence of psychosis. People who have psychotic episodes might operate dangerous machinery but I wouldn't say that dangerous machinery should be criminalised because of this.

The study shows that there is nearly twice the risk of serious mental illness in those who smoking cannabis. If that is being caused by the cannabis, then it is a strong argument against its legalisation. If it is not caused by the cannabis, then it is an equally strong argument against cannabis, because it raises other serious questions about its use among people with such issues.

Unless you can show that there is a 40% higher risk that people operating dangerous machinery have mental illness, your analogy is irrelevant.

Well if the argument involves illegalilization of things that are dangerous, then drain cleaner and alchohal and knives and swords and a helluva lot of prescription drugs should be illeagal too. However, if your argument is that is can cause Mental health problems, which is prue and simple horse-shit. And besides that, (for Americans anyway) It's unconstitutional to deny someone the right to put something into themselves that only harms them. Although regulating it would be entirely understandable...

you're being unreasonably essentialist Philosopy. no one is saying that only people with mental illness smoke canabis. the point is that the people who were shown to be at greater risk of mental ilness might smoke canabis as self-medication rather than have had the canabis increase that risk. nowhere did the study say that all those surveyed had their mental health adversely affected so your statement that you have to be mad to smoke pot is twisting the words that are there. as is your statement that if i have to take drugs to experience pleasure then you would pity me. i didn't say that, i merely presented drug use as one method to achieve the goal. anyway, the kind of pleasure experienced from drugs is unreplicable through other means, just as the pleasure experienced through sex or physical activity or eating or whatever.

You do realise that that doesn't mean, if the base risk is 1%, that users have a 41% risk? It means that they have a 1.4% risk.
That really isn't significant.

In an additional article, experts said up to 800 schizophrenia cases a year in the UK could be linked to cannabis use.

I'd say that's pretty significant.

I remember seeing a program about a mental health clinic in Brixton (for those who don't know, it's an area in London where there are a lot of Jamaicans). They were being overloaded with people with psychosis and other mental problems, and this high concentration of people with these problems coincident with a population of heavy cannabis users sparked research into the causes. The interviews with these relatively young guys with so many problems were very moving and sad.

The point with all risks is that you balance the positives against the negatives in order to ascertain whether or not it is justified. In this case, the negatives far outweigh any 'positive' that comes from its use.

Are you for the outlawing of "thrill" sports, then? Skydiving and bungee jumping and pleasure cruises serve no purpose except to entertain as their "positive" however they risk lives, cost lots and lots of money and encourage participation in other thrill seeking behavior (except for pleasure cruises...but you can get eaten by jellyfish and those things are freaking terrifying so any aquatic activity that isn't designed to hunt all the buggers to extinction is automatically in error)?

The study shows that there is nearly twice the risk of serious mental illness in those who smoking cannabis. If that is being caused by the cannabis, then it is a strong argument against its legalisation. If it is not caused by the cannabis, then it is an equally strong argument against cannabis, because it raises other serious questions about its use among people with such issues.

i don't understand that one. are you saying that even if canabis does not have an detrimental effect to a person's mental health you would ban it anyway just because some people with mental health isses use it to alleviate their conditions?

I disagree; I would not place cannabis in the same class as sports. You say it is 'just a risk'; I say it is a totally unacceptable risk. There is no benefit whatsoever from smoking it, and widespread disadvantages that impact on those people around the user.


It's not your right to say it though.


Actually, I've commented on that at least twice. For the third time, the idea that you'd have to be mad to use it hardly strikes me as a good reason to legalise it.

That's not the arguement at all.

The study shows that there is nearly twice the risk of serious mental illness in those who smoking cannabis. If that is being caused by the cannabis, then it is a strong argument against its legalisation. If it is not caused by the cannabis, then it is an equally strong argument against cannabis, because it raises other serious questions about its use among people with such issues.

On which page?

I'd say that's pretty significant.

I didn't think editorials counted as scientific proof.

I'd say that's pretty significant.

doesn't say it's a causative link though, does it? the link could just be as simple as that those 800 schizophrenics smoked canabis once in their life and the sentence would still be truthful.

I'd say that's pretty significant.

And I'd question the meaning of 'experts', 'up to 800' and 'could be linked'.

So unnamed experts reckon that out of a population of 60,776,238 (July 2007 est.), anywhere between 0 and 800 cases of schizophrenia could possibly have something to do with cannabis. Or not, as the case may be.

Not exactly a damning indication.

Based on what? This analysis? Trash without a study of the participants medical history and independent mental health risk.

I fairness I think that some of the studies analysed in the article did that.

Cannabis raises psychosis risk

So do I. :D

...any drug legal or not that is strong enough to be good for you is also strong enough to be bad for you. People regularly screw themselves up using Over The Counter meds because they treat them like so many Skittles and M&Ms...and they are not intended to be mildly mind altering like Pot is. So why the surprise/debate that a mild hallugenigenic <sp?> that directly causes changes in the brain (strong enough to be "good") is also strong enough to be bad and potentially <sp?> cause mental illness?

I don't think you'd get many people here, or in RL, arguing that cannabis is 100% safe to everybody all the time. But for most of us out there, it's just as safe as many legal activities.

There seems to be very little evidence, if any at all, that those without already existent psychological problems would be aversely affected.

The study shows that there is nearly twice the risk of serious mental illness in those who smoking cannabis.


Ok , lets put this in perspective. If i told you i had a magical ball, and it would increase your chances of winning the lottery by 40%, how much would you pay for this ball? $10 $100? $1000? 5 easy payments of only 99.99 each?

The math says that your odds of winning the lottery go from 1 in 20 million to 1 in 12 million. The answer is the magic ball is virtually worthless because 40% more of near zero is still near zero.

Ok , lets put this in perspective. If i told you i had a magical ball, and it would increase your chances of winning the lottery by 40%, how much would you pay for this ball? $100? $1000? 5 easy payments of only 19.99 each?

The math says that your odds go from 1 in 20 million to 1 in 12 million. The answer is the magic ball is virtually worthless. As is this study.

I wouldn't say that the study is totally useless, it just isn't the magic nail in the coffin for the legalising of cannabis

I'd say that's pretty significant.

Which gives you something like 3,000 cases a year in total, if the 40% increase holds. Out of 60,000,000 people. (I was trying to find an actual "cases per year" total but couldn't, so had to do the maths backwards. It is the cace, coincidentally, that about 1% of the population are diagnosed with schizophrenia (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/medical_notes/1079451.stm), though).

Of course, it's not the only thing to affect it, I've found; babies born between February and April (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1446968.stm) are 10% more likely to suffer (and heaven help them if they're born by caesarian section (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/216831.stm)). Should we criminalise conception at certain times of year? Ban caesarians except when absolutely necessary?

And let's compare it to other risks... How many people suffer heart disease due to a poor diet? It's a hell of a lot more than 800 per year, isn't it? So should we ban all unhealthy food? There are plenty of healthier alternatives available, after all, and what you eat is pretty much down to choice ('cos it ain't due to poverty (http://www.inthenews.co.uk/news/health/low-income-people-have-similar-diets-$1108949.htm)), so why not force them to be healthy there? It would be far more beneficial.

There's no benefit to eating fish and chips or a burger over a nice vegetable stir-fry, after all, is there?

Edit: And a pre-emptive "Yes it does." (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=533939). Plus extra health costs.

Actually, I've commented on that at least twice. For the third time, the idea that you'd have to be mad to use it hardly strikes me as a good reason to legalise it.

No, you misunderstand simple cause and effect. Your original claim was that cannabis causes mental illness. The fact that it is commonly used to self-medicate for mental-illnesses neither indicates it is a cause nor needs to be prohibited. It simply indicates that mental illnesses are improperly treated

The fact that you haven't shown that cannabis was the cause of the mental illness rather than just a coincidence

Or a possible (NOT diffinative) symptom of an underlying illness.

The fact that without showing and recording a patient's medical and mental health history, they can show no legitimate causation of psychosis solely by the use of cannabis rather than a genetic predisposition.

If I was going to prove sugar caused hair loss, I would need to know if the participants in the study had a genetic predisposition to hair loss.

Bingo.

So, to take what you're saying to its logical conclusion, we should legalise cannabis because people with serious mental health issues like to smoke it?

No. What has been repeatedly said is that this is a seriously flawed study and is thus not good evidence to support a case for prohibition.

No what i'm saying is that your assertion that "Cannabis causes psychosis" is flawed and can't be used in an argument about legalising cannabis without investigating the flaws.

The cannabis may have no effect on the emergence of psychosis. People who have psychotic episodes might operate dangerous machinery but I wouldn't say that dangerous machinery should be criminalised because of this.

Bingo again.

The study shows that there is nearly twice the risk of serious mental illness in those who smoking cannabis.

No. There was no cause and effect established. Linking A to be does NOT mean A causes B. In this case, it appears B may well cause A.

If that is being caused by the cannabis, then it is a strong argument against its legalisation. If it is not caused by the cannabis, then it is an equally strong argument against cannabis, because it raises other serious questions about its use among people with such issues.

Meeting new people is pleasant. However, X% of people you meet are psychotic. Thus, we can conclude that meeting people causes psychosis in X% of the population, so we should prohibit meeting new people...

Your argumnent is utterly ridiculous.

I fairness I think that some of the studies analysed in the article did that.

It implies that it doesn't.

It implies that it doesn't.

What implies it?

If you can't get pleasure except through a drug, I feel sorry for you.

Marijuana is smoked for pleasure/recreation =/= can't get pleasure except through a drug

Philosopy feels sorry for someone =/= argument in favor of illegalization

Again, it comes back to balancing whether the risks are justified, and a 40% increased risk of a psychotic illness

Correlation=/=causation

You're also taking a statistic for correlation and trying to use it as a chance of something happening. Which is silly.

, plus the associated health costs and the risks of harming those around you are more than enough to convince me that the risk is totally unacceptable.

That's nice. But your own risk-assessment is not everyone's risk-assessment, and risk-assessment (evaluating benefits and risks) is an inherently subjective activity. You personally don't think there are any benefits - but I do. You think there are huge risks - I don't. So your assessment is different. But your assessment is, again, not an argument one way or the other about the objective harmfulness of use.

If you want to talk about OTHER drugs (legal or not) that run a psychosis risk, why not examine a prescription drug that has worse side effects than Marijuana? And I can attest that through personal experience, this drug has actually done worse things to my body in the two short months I have used it than Marijuana has done to me in over three years of active recreational use.

I am talking of course of a prescription drug known as Prednisone. It is used as an immunal suppressant. In my case, it's to lower the instance of proteiniria in the urine as I have a condition that prevents the kidneys from properly functioning resulting in scarring and mild functionality loss.

Major
depression, mania, or other psychiatric symptoms - oh, what do you know, a perfectly LEGAL precription drug can also trigger psychiatric symptoms...
unusual fatigue or weakness
Mental confusion/indecisiveness
blurred vision
abdominal pain
peptic ulcer
infections
painful hips or shoulders
osteoporosis
acne breakouts
insomnia
reduced libido

Minor
weight gain
Stretch marks
facial swelling
nervousness
acne
rash
increased appetite
hyperactivity
frequent urination
Diarrhea
Removes Intestinal flora

All the symptoms in purple I am experiencing. It is NOT fun and you know what? I have yet to experience anything bad involving Marijuana. In fact, it has helped me greatly in the past.

I have to admit, I can't see the point of keeping Marijuana illegal when there are prescription drugs that can fuck you over badly.

I had hideous stretch marks on my body; unnatural fat distribution and weight gain. I can't lie flat on my back because it hurts like a bitch now. Even my doctor admits that the side effects are really bad in me.

I was briefly on a prescription drug known as Cellcept. When a person uses it, they may feel nausea. I felt it, and you know what enabled me to actual eat while I had to take that prescription drug? Marijuana. Yes. I used it to suppress nausea.

I know there are some negative aspects to Marijuana but I have yet to experience them to any degree. Sure I've felt my pulse race but I actually like that; the feeling of my pulse picking up may freak some people but I like it.

I get more good than not out of Marijuana so I fail to see why it should remain illegal when there are prescription drugs which are supposed to actually aid us that actually do more harm than good. Especially the one I'm citing above. My doctor is taking me off it because it failed to work properly despite research showing it can work.

Also worth noting, withdrawing suddenly from Marijuana will not do the same amount of damage as withdrawing from Prednisone suddenly. I have gone without Marijuana and felt no withdrawal symptoms. If I stopped Prednisone cold turkey, my blood pressure drops significantly and a number of other side effects are triggered.

Don't tell me I'm comparing apples to oranges. I'm not comparing the two drugs. I'm simply stating that there is legal stuff that is worse than Marijuana yet no one has made it illegal.

Speaking of prescription drugs, my favorite is when their side-effects are counter productive to what they are supposed to help.

Anti-depressants: Warning, when given to teenagers, may increase thoughts of suicide
W.t.f?

Diabetes medicine: Warning, double risk of heart failure.
Well fuck.

Speaking of prescription drugs, my favorite is when their side-effects are counter productive to what they are supposed to help.

Anti-depressants: Warning, when given to teenagers, may increase thoughts of suicide
W.t.f?

Diabetes medicine: Warning, double risk of heart failure.
Well fuck.

Or Ritalin. That's another one that is supposed to help but in the end, the effects don't seem worth it.

That isn't to say all prescription drugs are with bad side effects.

Speaking of prescription drugs, my favorite is when their side-effects are counter productive to what they are supposed to help.

Anti-depressants: Warning, when given to teenagers, may increase thoughts of suicide
W.t.f?

Diabetes medicine: Warning, double risk of heart failure.
Well fuck.

migraine medication: side effects include headaches

nausea meds I took for morning sickness while pregnant : most common side effect nausea

with those two how do you know it's a side effect and not just the pill isn't working :confused::p

Or Ritalin. That's another one that is supposed to help but in the end, the effects don't seem worth it.

That isn't to say all prescription drugs are with bad side effects.

You mean people who are prescribed that stuff actually take Addy and Ritalin? I thought those with prescriptions just sell it to students who need to pull all nighters or want to make themselves feel up to partying.

Is there any research into the psychological effects of cannibis on 'normal' people? Did it make them delusional and paranoid?
How about personal experience?
I know someone who, while previously only a little Bi-polar, has been into drugs for years, the majority of it cannabis. It appears that he completely has schizophrenia now.

How about personal experience?
I know someone who, while previously only a little Bi-polar, has been into drugs for years, the majority of it cannabis. It appears that he completely has schizophrenia now.
Confirming (albeit through personal experience) what most, if not all, of the pro-legalisation posters have said; those with existing psychological problems can be adversely affected by psychoactive drugs.

Not exactly a startling revelation though.

Only the most naive person would argue that psychoactive drugs are 100% safe to everyone, at all times. It's just that that risk has been consistently exaggerated by governments and lobbyists; there is nothing to suggest that cannabis should be kept illegal because of its supposed dangers.

you do know that for thousands of years, indigenous peoples have smoked marijuana for medicinal and religious purposes.

it doesn't cause any deaths a year through.

you do know that for thousands of years, indigenous peoples have smoked marijuana for medicinal and religious purposes.

For thousands of years people lived in mud huts, what's your point?

it doesn't cause any deaths a year through.

neither does smoking, or drunk driving, or cage fights or dog attacks.

most people die because their heart stops.........we should ban hearts.

neither does smoking, or drunk driving, or cage fights or dog attacks.

most people die because their heart stops.........we should ban hearts.

And brains! Ban brains!

And brains! Ban brains!

oh, I already gave mine up months ago, troublesome thing it was.

I'd say that's pretty significant.

800 possible links per year, out of 2 million estimated smokers.

That's 0.0004% chance. And even that figure assumes causation, which is far from even suggested, let alone proven.

Insignificant, I'd say. Wouldn't you?

it doesn't cause any deaths a year through. neither does smoking, or drunk driving, or cage fights or dog attacks.

most people die because their heart stops.........we should ban hearts.

BUT IT DOESN"T!!!:headbang:

oh, I already gave mine up months ago, troublesome thing it was.

We noticed.

Just Kidding :)

You're saying that only mad people smoke cannabis?

I wouldn't. If prozac made normal people feel good too, I imagine the corellation between prozac use and depression would be lower. People with depression or anxiety disorders feel better when using pot. Correlation does not imply causation.

Neighborhoods with a large police presence often have high crime rates, therefore police cause crime.

I'm not ignoring it, nor am I legalising it. If it were up to me, I would regard tobacco in the same way as cannabis. However, it's not up to me. As such, all I can do is say that I don't buy the argument that "it's bad, but so are other things, so we should allow it".

Perhaps the idea is that the solution is worse than the problem.


We're starting to restrict the use of tobacco on grounds of public health. It would be wrong to go the other way with another dangerous substance.

I partially agree. Perhaps it would be better if the two meet in the middle. More restrictions on tobacco, fewer restrictions on marijuana. I don't want to have to inhale marijuana or tobacco smoke when I'm walking down the street. I don't want people driving under the influence of alcohol or pot.

;)
80% of the people I have met who smoke pot do so to self medicate [/anecdotal]

That bwould have been me. I was depressed for an extended period of time in my early twenties. Pot made me feel good.

And brains! Ban brains!

Now you've lost the zombie vote....

Mmmm... brains!

You're saying that only mad people smoke cannabis?

People with mental illnesses are known to self medicate with alcohol or illegal drugs.

they didnt DO a study at all. they looked at 35 studies done by other groups and came to a conclusion.


And this is being used as a basis for argument? I wonder how many other studies were ignored?

This research's phony! I've smoked pot for years and nothing bad has ever happened to me, nor to any of my other personalities! :p

(Before you ask, no, I haven't, no, I don't have any other personalities, and no, I don't have any meaningful opinion on this topic, though I do believe it should be legalized.)

I disagree; I would not place cannabis in the same class as sports. You say it is 'just a risk'; I say it is a totally unacceptable risk. There is no benefit whatsoever from smoking it, and widespread disadvantages that impact on those people around the user.

Someone who's less lazy than me please post a link regarding the many medical benefits aside from the relaxation . . .

I'm sure someone has pointed this out already but there are drugs that are legal that kill, obvious one being alcohol and tobbaco.



Number of alcohol-related deaths(4) and deaths from drug-related poisoning(5) involving selected drugs,(6) England and Wales, 1999 to 2003(7)
Deaths from drug-related poisoning where the following
substances were specifically mentioned 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
(a) Heroin/morphine 754 926 889 790 591
(b)+(c) Cocaine (including crack cocaine)(8) 88 80 96 139 113
(d) Ecstasy 26 36 55 55 33
(e) Cannabis 8 11 15 15 11
(f) Alcohol-related deaths 5,505 5,614 5,970 6,033 6,580


so in 5 years there have been 60 deaths due to cannabis related poisoning! I think there are drugs we need to take a look at rather than cannabis. On the subject of mental health issues I think alcohol wins on that one too.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmhansrd/vo050318/text/50318w02.htm

No what i'm saying is that your assertion that "Cannabis causes psychosis" is flawed and can't be used in an argument about legalising cannabis without investigating the flaws.

The cannabis may have no effect on the emergence of psychosis. People who have psychotic episodes might operate dangerous machinery but I wouldn't say that dangerous machinery should be criminalised because of this.

I would bet that nearly everyone who participated in this study had been to school at least once in their life. This proves it! School causes psychosis!

In an additional article, experts said up to 800 schizophrenia cases a year in the UK could be linked to cannabis use.

I'd say that's pretty significant.

Except this doesn't say that cannabis caused or even contributed to these cases of schizophrenia. The only argument this supports is that up to 800 British schizophrenics have smoked weed each year. How many cases of schizophrenia does the UK have per year anyway?

Except this doesn't say that cannabis caused or even contributed to these cases of schizophrenia. The only argument this supports is that up to 800 British schizophrenics have smoked weed each year. How many cases of schizophrenia does the UK have per year anyway?

I think its fair to say opinion is divided on this one


DOES CANNABIS USE CAUSE PSYCHOSIS? A STUDY OF TRENDS IN CANNABIS USE AND PSYCHOSIS IN ENGLAND, 1995-2003

Dr. R.D. Newcombe, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, England; August 2004
ABSTRACT

Introduction. Recent literature reviews have concluded that the notion of cannabis-induced psychosis lacks conceptual and empirical validity. This paper focuses on ‘true’ cannabis psychosis (CP) - a unique mental disorder arising from intoxication by cannabinoids, persisting beyond their metabolisation, and occurring without predisposition to psychosis.

Methods. A documentary research study was designed to evaluate the hypothesis that cannabis use (CU) is a cause of psychosis – either general (schizophrenia) or unique (true CP). This hypothesis generated two testable predictions: (1) trends in CU and CP should be positively correlated, and (2) the demographic and treatment characteristics of CP cases should be different from the profiles of both cases of schizophrenia and other cannabis-related mental and behavioural disorders (MBDs) defined by ICD-10 – notably acute cannabis intoxication (ACI) and harmful cannabis use (HCU). National official statistics were collected on (a) the annual number and characteristics of diagnosed cases of schizophrenia and cannabis-related MBDs in England from 1998/99 (1995/96 for CP) to 2002/03 (Hospital Episode Statistics); and (b) the prevalence of past-year CU among 16-59s in England & Wales in the decade ending 2002/03 (British Crime Survey).

Findings. The annual rate of CP among English CUs was typically as low as one in 10,000. But although past-year CU climbed from 2.55 million (8.7%) in 1994 to 3.36 million (10.9%) in 2002/03, there were no clear trends in either schizophrenia (36,000-38,500 cases annually) or CP cases (280-380). Both predictions were disconfirmed. First, the correlation between CU and CP numbers over six comparison years was found to be small and non-significant. Second, although CP cases were clearly different from schizophrenia cases - including being a mean 15-years younger, and averaging one (rather than 4-5) months in-patient treatment – their profile was very similar to that of both ACI and HCU cases. Lastly, assessment of research evidence about cannabis consumption over the study period found no significant changes in relevant variables (eg. dosage, THC potency).

Conclusions. There was no support for the claim that cannabis use can cause psychosis, nor for a ‘true’ CP. Instead, CP cases were arguably misdiagnoses of extreme cases of ACI and HCU, and/or MBDs arising from other/multiple drug use. Urgent research is also needed into which ingredients of cannabis are responsible for any mental disorders which are attributed to its use, particularly since Britain’s most popular product - Moroccan soap-bar/formula - is routinely adulterated with toxic chemicals.

http://www.thehempire.com/images/docs/adiktCP.doc
Sorry for the long quote but to answer your question

36,000-38,500 cases annually

3.36 million (10.9%) in 2002/03 users of cannabis

800 linked.

Sorry I'm not buying