Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Link Between Marijuana and Psychosis Goes Both Ways

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the that's-far-out-man dept.

Medicine 358

An anonymous reader writes with news of a study out of the Netherlands (abstract) about the link between psychosis and marijuana use. The researchers wanted to examine what caused the relationship — was marijuana use leading to psychosis, or did those suffering from psychosis have a higher tendency to seek out marijuana? As it turns out, they found evidence for both. From the article: "... using pot at 16 years old was linked to psychotic symptoms three years later, and psychotic symptoms at age 16 were linked to pot use at age 19. This was true even when the researchers accounted for mental illness in the kids' families, alcohol use and tobacco use. Griffith-Lendering said she could not say how much more likely young pot users were to exhibit psychotic symptoms later on. Also, the new study cannot prove one causes the other. Genetics may also explain the link between pot use and psychosis, said Griffith-Lendering."

cancel ×

358 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Heard weed makes you want to eat (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42398765)

Sort of like this fat bastard erroneus "Oh... to eat pizza again..." by erroneus (253617) on Saturday December 22, @05:20PM (#42371769) from http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3335159&cid=42371769 [slashdot.org] what a hideous fatbody monstrosity.

Re:Heard weed makes you want to eat (0, Offtopic)

Jetra (2622687) | about 2 years ago | (#42398937)

Hey, go troll somewhere else.

Re:Heard weed makes you want to eat (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42398961)

pheeding teh trlz? shame on jooz.

Re:Heard weed makes you want to eat (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42399049)

Where? Pizza Hut? No way. Erroneus may be there like this http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3341329&cid=42396495 [slashdot.org]

Re:Heard weed makes you want to eat (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42399553)

Hey, I heard Anonymous Cowards jack off to little girls. Oh yeah, gotta get them girlies.

Wonder drug? I think not. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42398783)

Ha! What now potheads? Are you druggists going to ignore this study too?

If you idiots spent as much time *actually helping* society as you do smoking illegal drugs and promoting their "health benefits" maybe this world wouldn't be as shitty.

Re:Wonder drug? I think not. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42398857)

go to hell narc

you couldn't handle having your mind expanded because there isn't anything to expand in the first place,

Re:Wonder drug? I think not. (4, Informative)

gomiam (587421) | about 2 years ago | (#42399151)

I don't know what kind of expansion you are talking about. After years of watching pot smokers I can't actually say their minds have expanded at all. Some of them seem to have lost a bit of functionality, actually.

Re:Wonder drug? I think not. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42399021)

People like you make this world a shitty place, not people who smoke pot.

Re:Wonder drug? I think not. (4, Insightful)

Cryacin (657549) | about 2 years ago | (#42399095)

I personally find studies out of Amsterdam to be the most unbiased in the world. Remember that it's tolerated there, not promoted, like cigarettes in America, for instance, by the tobacco lobby.

If the drug does cause psychosis, then society as a whole can react to it accordingly. Conversely, if people with psychosis are attracted to the drug, then there must be an underlying reason for that.

I look forward to seeing what else comes of this.

Re:Wonder drug? I think not. (2)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 2 years ago | (#42399117)

If the drug does cause psychosis, then society as a whole can react to it accordingly.

The reaction would probably be along the lines of banning people from putting it inside their own bodies entirely. Safety is always a nice excuse for getting rid of freedom to many people, it seems.

Re:Wonder drug? I think not. (2, Interesting)

dinfinity (2300094) | about 2 years ago | (#42399257)

You'd think that, but 'hard on crime' and 'good (Christian) morals' have been pretty influential there lately. The current thing is that weed sold in the infamous coffee shops may only be sold to residents of the country (although enforcement is left to the cities):
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/10/30/dutch-amsterdam-weed-marijuana/1668761/ [usatoday.com]

Disinformation combined with demagoguery is a powerful tool in any country with very capable profit-oriented media organizations. Apparently, science is becoming more and more corrupted in the necessary quest for money as well.

The researchers here do not deserve their titles. From the *abstract*:
"Conclusions: Cannabis use predicts psychosis vulnerability in adolescents, and vice versa which suggests that there is a bi-directional causal association between the two."

Please tell me nobody here on Slashdot gives any credibility to that 'suggestion'. If you do, read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation#Third_factor_C_.28the_common-causal_variable.29_causes_both_A_and_B [wikipedia.org]

So (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42398785)

So, we learned nothing of value except that studies like this have inconclusive results. Oh, and teenagers can experience psychosis before, during and after using drugs.

Re:So (0, Flamebait)

ganjadude (952775) | about 2 years ago | (#42398881)

no we learned that by pretending to be anti marijuana, we can get federal money to do a report that offers nothing of value.

Re:So (5, Funny)

flaming error (1041742) | about 2 years ago | (#42398931)

Especially true when the study is conducted in a swing state like the Netherlands.

Re:So (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42398997)

Yeah these Netherlands assholes are always trying to mooch from the US federal government.

Re:So (2)

drainbramage (588291) | about 2 years ago | (#42399109)

Calm down, I think he was joking.
I'm pretty sure Netherlands is where Peter Pan is from.
Or Peter Noone, one of thos guys.

Re:So (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42399101)

Like "ganjadude" here has a totally unbiased and rational view on the subject.

Every time we get studies talking about the health risks of marijuana, there are potheads up in arms about the results. Is it so hard to admit that your sacred weed isn't as perfect and healthy as you imagine it is?

I'd be more inclined to listen to pro-drug arguments if they were rational and not based on feelings or false promises. Arguing with potheads is like arguing with anti-gay activists who refuse to listen to reason. You firmly believe in your drug (or your God) and nothing, not even science, will every sway you.

Re:So (2, Informative)

jimmetry (1801872) | about 2 years ago | (#42399259)

Some are like that, but please don't generalise and say it's everyone. There are plenty of people who use it the way others use alcohol and live normal lives. Dumb people aren't made any smarter by pot, so they still have equally dumb ideas... Pot just happens to be what they talk about. The neuronal connections were never there in the first place.

Re:So (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42399457)

Stupid pothead, it was done in the Netherlands.

Re:So (1)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | about 2 years ago | (#42398903)

Falling in love is> a form of psychosis.

Re:So (3, Insightful)

Jetra (2622687) | about 2 years ago | (#42398951)

So is puberty.

Re:So (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42398979)

"Both of the above" is not the same as "inconclusive".

Re:So (3, Insightful)

Immerman (2627577) | about 2 years ago | (#42399029)

Griffith-Lendering said she could not say how much more likely young pot users were to exhibit psychotic symptoms later on

Sounds like a sign of a BS study to me - either your sample size and methodology are sufficient to show a numerical correlation, or they're not. If they are, then it's *really* easy to specify the degree of correlation - aka how much more likely it is that a person in group A will also be B. If not, well then your study didn't actually find a statistically significant correlation, did it?

Re:So (2)

Kjella (173770) | about 2 years ago | (#42399043)

So, we learned nothing of value except that studies like this have inconclusive results. Oh, and teenagers can experience psychosis before, during and after using drugs.

And if we knew the results of the study up front, we wouldn't have needed to do the study in the first place. As much as some people like to believe this is some sort of conspiracy theory to keep grant money flowing it's completely natural that at times you find that the results are inconclusive, it's only with 20/20 hindsight you can say it was pointless.

Re:So (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42399299)

No, we learned that there is a link and that it goes both ways. What your propose is that we learned there may or may not be a link and it may or may not go one way or the other. That is not what it says, it says that there is a link and that the link goes both ways. Not sure why misunderstanding the article gives you a +4.

Re:So (1)

v1 (525388) | about 2 years ago | (#42399375)

So, we learned nothing of value

it's just a reminder that "correlation is not the same as causation". In simpler terms, when you notice that you have a Y when you are studying an X, it doesn't mean Y contributed to X. Sometimes it means X contributed to Y. (and sometimes they mutually reinforce each other)

It'd be like finding a link between eating doritos and smoking pot, and thinking the doritos were contributing to the pot smoking. That one's a bit more obvious, but in any event you can't just automatically assume Y is causing X without more thorough research. And it looks like that's just what they did. So it wasn't wasted time.

Re:So (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42399533)

Weak correlations from small sample sizes are notorious for for reflecting the bias of the researchers. Papers like these should be published in the famous Journal of Irreproducible Results.

We learned erroneus (253617) = fatass (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42399573)

"Oh... to eat pizza again..." by erroneus (253617) on Saturday December 22, @05:20PM (#42371769) from http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3335159&cid=42371769 [slashdot.org] since that disgusting fatbody pig's an obese swine with no dick!

Correlation not cause (5, Interesting)

gurps_npc (621217) | about 2 years ago | (#42398803)

Which is more likely: 1) People with psychological issues seek pharmaceutical drugs to help them stay calm and not screw up their lives even though they are hearing voices and other psychotic issues.

2) Drugs cause the problems - but no one ever noticed before.

3) Some idiot won't even consider option #1 and go right option #2 - without any evidence at all, let alone proof.

Note, I have kidney disease - and as such do not take pot, drink alcohol or do any other drug without my doctor's express advice. My body can't handle it - but I'm not stupid enough to think other people have the same problem I do.

Re:Correlation not cause (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42398869)

Big Pharma is scared shitless of the prospect of Marijuana legalization. Both the Alcohol and Pharma lobbies have a lot to lose with the legalization of Marijuana.

Speaking of big Pharma, I wonder how many of the recent modern spree killers were prescribed and taking psychotropic drugs around the time of their killing sprees? Is it possible that had they been smoking marijuana without taking taking Paxil and Zoloft, they'd have just played a lot of games and eaten a lot of twinkies rather than murdering?

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:Correlation not cause (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42398915)

Only an internet neckbeard pothead would think that weed can solve the severe mental health problems that fucking serial killers suffer from.

Re:Correlation not cause (5, Insightful)

SomePgmr (2021234) | about 2 years ago | (#42399215)

I'm not the GP, but I do know that some prescription antidepressants have known side effects that can include violent psychotic breaks and strong suicidal ideation.

That's not conspiracy talk, that's printed on the box.

Having said that, I'd honestly like to know more about this link between marijuana use and psychosis. I know everyone here has already dismissed it, but this is the sort of thing people should have pretty good answers on. It's not a new theory, after all. Show us the results. Good ones. We'll go from there.

Re:Correlation not cause (1)

rtb61 (674572) | about 2 years ago | (#42399319)

First a correction needs to be made. What is the connection between Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) use and psychosis and what is the connection between Cannabidiol (CBD) use and psychsis. What are optimum ratios THC:CBD for say stable use. Which would be much like the safe ratios for alcohol to water in many beverages and yet still orders of magnitude safer, less addictive and less impact on society in terms of violence and reckless behaviour than alcohol. It is well known that THC/CBD use substantially reduces alcohol consumption due to the nausea affect and the bodies heightened response to the earlier elimination of the toxin alcohol via vomiting.

Re:Correlation not cause (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about 2 years ago | (#42399017)

Why would they be scared of it? Legalization would mean they can monopolize on it. You'll see all sorts of patents on marijuana like with food crops.

Re:Correlation not cause (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | about 2 years ago | (#42399191)

You think big pharma would get to it before Monsanto or Phillip-Morris? I'm pretty sure either one of them would be all over it long before big pharma got there.

Re:Correlation not cause (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42398923)

Marijuana/Cannabis is not for everyone, alcohol is not for everyone, we all have personal preferences.

I know cannabis has helped keep me sane. I've found it far more beneficial than the concoction of of man-made, side-effect heavy, possibly lethal pharmaceuticals that the doctor would prefer I took daily.

Re:Correlation not cause (0, Flamebait)

Carewolf (581105) | about 2 years ago | (#42399167)

Which is more likely: 1) People with psychological issues seek pharmaceutical drugs to help them stay calm and not screw up their lives even though they are hearing voices and other psychotic issues.
2) Drugs cause the problems - but no one ever noticed before.

2b) Marijuana causes the problem - and everybody has already noticed this before?

The connection has been known as long as Marijuana has been forbidden, it is reason it is forbidden in the first place. If they could manage to prove the correlation worked the other way it would remove the main reason doctors still recommend not to legalize it completely. This has not been proven so far everything points to 1) or both like this one.

Re:Correlation not cause (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42399213)

Indeed your right, they knew it back then. Marijuana makes black men look twice at white women, what more do you need to know?

Re:Correlation not cause (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42399445)

The reason marijuana was forbidden was because the government needed a reason to employ all the now useless enforcement agents after prohibition was lifted.

Re:Correlation not cause (1)

caluml (551744) | about 2 years ago | (#42399421)

What happens when you do do something that strains your kidneys?

Inconclusive conclusion (4, Insightful)

tverbeek (457094) | about 2 years ago | (#42398843)

So the only clear conclusion is that we need further study. Which will be made more difficult by the criminalization of the substance in so many jurisdictions where that research could be performed.

Re:Inconclusive conclusion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42398921)

It's only illegal because there is so much money to made from the illegal trade. A legal trade would kill profits.

Re:Inconclusive conclusion (1)

jamstar7 (694492) | about 2 years ago | (#42399195)

It's only illegal because there is so much money to made from the illegal trade. A legal trade would kill profits.

Not to mention the money to be made on the 'legal' side of the street with larger police budgets, more private prisons, the billions of dollars spent in the 'War On Drugs' that the US has clearly lost. It's in their self-interest to keep grass illegal, that's how they make a living.

Re:Inconclusive conclusion (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#42399585)

US didn't loose becasue there was no clearly defined Win.
It's just a pointless circle of action.

Re:Inconclusive conclusion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42398943)

So the only clear conclusion is that we need further study. Which will be made more difficult by the criminalization of the substance in so many jurisdictions where that research could be performed.

I'm actually in favour of free pot use (at home), but your argument is not one.

Should we allow heavy metal paint on baby toys to be able to test its effects on mental health?

Re:Inconclusive conclusion (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 2 years ago | (#42399131)

I don't see where he made any such argument. He merely said it would be more difficult to study since it's criminalized.

Re:Inconclusive conclusion (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 2 years ago | (#42399277)

Why only at home? Or do you think the only way to ingest cannabis is by smoking it?

We conclude erroneus (253617) = fatass (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42399555)

"Oh... to eat pizza again..." by erroneus (253617) on Saturday December 22, @05:20PM (#42371769) from http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3335159&cid=42371769 [slashdot.org] since that disgusting fatbody pig's an obese swine with no dick!

Psychotic for Pizza perhaps? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42398847)

Erroneus knows "Oh... to eat pizza again..." by erroneus (253617) on Saturday December 22, @05:20PM (#42371769) from http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3335159&cid=42371769 [slashdot.org] since that disgusting fatbody pig's an obese swine with no dick!

Re:Psychotic for Pizza perhaps? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42398895)

APK, you closet fag, you sure do have vendetta's against people. Being able to keep track of every single post you make is psychosis at its finest.

Re:Psychotic for Pizza perhaps? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42399023)

erroneus you prove the article's point! apk isn't here. Seeing things again due to your pizza craving addiction fatass? Listen. Run to pizza hut, go get yer fix, eat pizza (lmao) like here http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3341329&cid=42396495 [slashdot.org]

Re:Psychotic for Pizza perhaps? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42399119)

I'm not erroneous, and you're definitely APK. You just never label your flat out trolling posts. Still, you're pretty psychotic. Smoke some weed and mellow out, the article suggests you're prone to it anyway.

Re:Psychotic for Pizza perhaps? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42399301)

Riiiiggggttt. Sure you're not. This is erroneus attempting blackmail though http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2261720&cid=36545928 [slashdot.org]

So weed is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42398859)

....bi-psyecksual?

STILL doesn't prove causation! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42398879)

"The researchers wanted to examine what caused the relationship — was marijuana use leading to psychosis, or did those suffering from psychosis have a higher tendency to seek out marijuana?"

Just because one event happens after the other doesn't prove ANY causation in this case - even the summary lifted from the article clearly points this out, and in fact the author of the article makes no claims as to cause.

And calling it a "bidirectional link" is mostly pointless, it's only "bidirectional" in temporal sequence. It's still completely possible that it is totally unidirectional in cause and effect, ie. as one of the quotes at the end states, increased usage may just be a risk factor for existing (possibly undiagnosed) psychosis with genetic basis.

Re:STILL doesn't prove causation! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42399201)

There are many existing studies that have already proven several things about marijuana use:

1. Smoking (anything) raises your risk of oral and lung cancers, including marijuana.
2. Marijuana lowers IQ in developing brains, e.g. children and adolescents. If you've seen the kind of permanent damage neurons experience after smoking marijuana, this is hardly surprising.
3. Marijuana causes psychosis in healthy people and worsens it in those with existing conditions.
4. Marijuana is addictive. It's a hotly debated point but the fact is that many people really struggle to stop using it and relapse.

Denying or arguing any of these points would seem fruitless in light of medical evidence, yet people insist on claiming marijuana has no side effects and is completely harmless. That's a great pipe dream, but we'd have to assume it is literally the perfect drug and works in a way that no other drug has ever done. Sadly, that's just not the case. Like any other drug it has its pros and cons.

Marijuana advocates reject all criticism, and assume all scientific studies are somehow flawed or are the result of anti-marijuana conspiracies. To them marijuana _has_ to be the perfect drug, even if reality contradicts that viewpoint. Sounds crazy, but it's roughly what you'd expect from people who are no longer living in our reality.

It's not like it's a new drug or small sample size (2)

Rougement (975188) | about 2 years ago | (#42398929)

Given humans have been using weed for millennia and it's used recreationally all over the world, surely this means something? Even anecdotally, most people would know of several cases of hospitalization/institutionalization due to cannabis use if this drug was a real threat.

Re:It's not like it's a new drug or small sample s (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42399085)

Yes, I'm sure this also applies to alcohol and tobacco, which have also been used recreationally and which have no known harmful side effects or permanent medical issues associated with their consumption either.

Re:It's not like it's a new drug or small sample s (2)

Rougement (975188) | about 2 years ago | (#42399153)

Disingenuous. This is a study of cannabis and psychosis. Tobacco has other harmful effects but nothing I'm aware of that can harm mental health. Alcohol on moderation has been proven time and time again to be safe, or even beneficial. You might as well advocate banning aspirin. I've heard that if it's not used in moderation it's a stone cold killer.

Re:It's not like it's a new drug or small sample s (3, Informative)

Dahamma (304068) | about 2 years ago | (#42399189)

Ironically your sarcasm just makes his point stronger.

His argument not only applies to but is based on the comparison to alcohol and tobacco, which have many well-proven side effects and long term medical issues. As he pointed out, Marijuana on the other hand does not have such clearly proven effects, and certainly none as serious as liver disease or lung cancer.

Re:It's not like it's a new drug or small sample s (0, Flamebait)

iceperson (582205) | about 2 years ago | (#42399227)

The strains of weed being sold today are very different than what was used even 50 years ago.

Re:It's not like it's a new drug or small sample s (3, Interesting)

gl4ss (559668) | about 2 years ago | (#42399367)

well, there's plenty of cases where people blame weed for stupid shit they've done - so you'd have no trouble finding institutionalized people who would claim their cannabis use caused them to become institutionalized and well, you'll find plenty of people who were institutionalized to jail for it of course too - though strictly speaking in those cases it's the law and other people who have caused them to be institutionalized and isolated(again compounding possible mental locks and general unhappiness with life).

just as there's plenty of cases where people blame alcohol for the stupid shit they've done. AA is full of them.

still, if an alcie goes to doctor because of anger issues/unstability(that they blame on drinking) around here it's quite usual they're given diazepam. which would be all good if they weren't unstable alcoholics and the pams just enhance that. giving them a bag of weed would be much better, at least if someone is going too deep with weed they're not 99.99% of time going to hurt anyone, themselves or others, except through inactivity. someone with anger issues gets alcohol+diazepam psychosis and someone is going to get hurt - via physical assault.

this study doesn't really surprise me at all though, it's even on the "no shit sherlock" level, it's so blatantly obvious. still, it's nice that they bothered to make a real study about that unhappy people seek a fix.

I don't drink anymore due to health issues(pancreatitis is a bitch that wont let her eye off you) and would be very glad if they legalized weed around here. Sure, it might make you spend a lot of time thinking with yourself and laughing at stupid shit along the way but quite frankly what's so bad about that?

Psychosis as a term is so fucking all over the place that it's almost useless as a word too, since it can mean fucking anything - even me wanting to emphasize things with "fucking" is a form of psychosis if you ask the right idiot. basically most weedsters use psychosis as a word for being bored nowadays(they're out of weed it's "psychosis", they got some good weed but nothing fun to do while smoking it and it's psychosis again! they smoke enough that they're practically sleeping and that too then is psychosis.) - it's so fucked up thanks to the prohibitionists. hell, even being drunk is "psychosis" nowadays, fucking pansies.

Not related to TFA (1)

BlackPignouf (1017012) | about 2 years ago | (#42398965)

It's not exactly related to TFA, but my girlfriend has been diagnosed with post-partum psychosis a year ago.
She's been treated with many different medications that didn't work that well.
The end result is that she's been in a clinic for 9 months out of 12, and I've been a solo dad meanwhile.
She often looks like a zombie, and still hear voices even though she's under heavy medication.

Any advice from a fellow geek?
Any happy-ending related story?

Re:Not related to TFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42399063)

Unfortunately, I have no good advice for you but wish I you strength and lots of good luck.

Re:Not related to TFA (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42399347)

Coming from somebody who suffers from schizophrenia, I'll tell you the drugs never helped kill the voices or the thoughts of paranoia. They worked as a tranquilizer, I was taking Clozapine in the end (all the milder drugs did nothing for me and in many cases made it worse). The only thing that helped was learning to cope with the voices and paranoid thoughts, and put them where they appropriately belong (in the garbage). Lots and lots of therapy.

The unfortunate reality is I lost about 6 years of my life learning to deal with it, 3 of those years spent in a hospital. I've been off drugs for several years now, I still struggle from time to time, but I'm able to actually live my life without losing control of my emotions, and I'm able to hold a steady job. The unfortunate reality is you'll be dealing with this for many years if she has any serious psychiatric problems. Patience and being her rock is all you can do, and encourage her to seek help.

Re:Not related to TFA (4, Insightful)

ewieling (90662) | about 2 years ago | (#42399353)

LSD with her therapist present or MDMA with her therapist and the kid present. Marijuana is not the only currently illegal drug with serious medical uses.

http://www.maps.org/

Re:Not related to TFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42399417)

If you're in the US or have a healthcare system similar to ours you should get a second opinion. Find a Midwives practice(make sure they have a Phd/medical license etc) near you, call them and make a cosulatation appointment to explain everything that has happened since your wife gave birth. Get a mental health referal from them for a therapist(also phd licensed etc.) to help your girlfriend get to the root of her problem. This should be someone completly unrelated to her current providers, let her go in with a clean slate and bring all her prescriptions with their dosege instruction for an audit. Often clinics focus on treating symptoms since thats how the medical machine makes all it's money, 9 months out of 12 is a good customer.

Re:Not related to TFA (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42399435)

take your broken genetics and place them into the bath tub, let the warm water wash over you and your defective spawn as you slowly and peaceful cleanse this world of your broken lineage.

And Merry Christmas!

Positive feedback loop (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 years ago | (#42398999)

So, does that mean that there is a positive feedback loop? Sounds like a rather disconcerting notion for any person concerned.

A crappy study is a good argument for decrim. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42399019)

I think it is safe to say that there are probably a number of health consequences related to marijuana consumption that are not known or well understood at this point. Undoubtedly, some of them will be negative. Unfortunately, the laws today make it impossible for us to truly learn what those consequences might be.

As long simple posession can result in incarceration, possible loss of job, possible loss of driver's license, etc. you will never get a quality sample for epidemiological studies. As long as marijuana remains on Schedule 1, it will be incredibly difficult to perform modern physiological research where people consume marijuana under controlled laboratory conditions. If we want to honestly advise the public of the real consequences of marijuana consumption, the only solution is to remove the barriers to scientific research.

But this study was done in the Netherlands.... (3, Insightful)

m.shenhav (948505) | about 2 years ago | (#42399081)

..... where weed IS decriminalized.

Re:But this study was done in the Netherlands.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42399263)

Growing for sale is still illegal. Its a weird kind of situation where the weed is bought illegally and sold legally. Much like medicinal marijuana. As a result you have no idea how it was grown or what might have been sprayed on it or used as fertilizer.

Growing your own is the only way to know for sure.

REEFER MADNESS!!!1!! (1)

John Hasler (414242) | about 2 years ago | (#42399083)

n/t

XKCD (1)

stms (1132653) | about 2 years ago | (#42399087)

So you're saying Psychosis causes marijuana to grow? This is going to do wonders for the grow op I have in my basement [xkcd.com] .

One Result (1)

SmaryJerry (2759091) | about 2 years ago | (#42399113)

I think the only result that you can derive from that is that people like try marijuana around ages 16 to 19..

Re:One Result (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#42399507)

No...
Why to they try it? how does it effect other aspects of their life. Those are the questions.

Confounders (1)

Harvey Manfrenjenson (1610637) | about 2 years ago | (#42399123)

Wonder if they corrected for SES (socio-economic status). The common causative link may just be chronic unemployment, and growing up in a neighborhood where there is a lot of chronic unemployment and drug use.

Wonder if they corrected for IQ. In my experience, people are often labeled 'psychotic', 'schizophrenic', 'schizoaffective' or whatnot when their main problem is borderline mental retardation. (Mild MR leads to a lot of things that are almost indistinguishable from "schizophrenia". That gives you an idea of the sorry state of our diagnostic system.)

Wonder how well they corrected for concurrent use of other drugs (especially alcohol and cocaine), both in the subjects and in their biological mothers.

Point is, the devil's in the details here. Those details will only be in the journal article (NOT in the article Slashdot posted). I'm too lazy to look it up. Has anyone in this thread looked at it?

Paranoia (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42399143)

Well as a long time user, I can confirm it gives me bad paranoia & shitty social interaction. I'm socially retarded when I'm stoned, unless it's with people I've known for years. I hadn't even touched another person in years until I started drinking beer again. Beer makes you way more social but ultra stupid too.

I don't get it, after blazing I feel much more relaxed but I can't concentrate on talking to people at all. My mind freezes up and I draw a complete blank. Really shitty relationships but still, if more people smoked herb, there would be a lot less anger in the world.

Get a life. (-1, Troll)

FyberOptic (813904) | about 2 years ago | (#42399171)

What's wrong with Slashdot these days? Are we just going to keep putting every marijuana-related story on the website now? Give me a fucking break. This has absolutely nothing to do with technology.

Take your drug garbage to Gawker where it belongs.

Re:Get a life. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42399397)

This is science. They've looked for a link and found evidence there might well be one. Interesting to see genuine science on something US law considers a highly dangerous substance. This helps one decide whether to consider something good or bad.

They keep trying and trying and... (3, Insightful)

future assassin (639396) | about 2 years ago | (#42399233)

yet none of them has found any serious and life threatening illnesses caused by weed smoking/eating compared to alcohol, alcohol mixed with Tylenol, pharma drugs, side effects of chemical leeching out of every day plastics or even walking down the road and breaking a leg. YET they try and try and try and....

How about some food allergies http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db10.htm [cdc.gov] Peanuts can be deadly too..

Re:They keep trying and trying and... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42399251)

Try smoking some skunk sometime. It'll mess you up pretty good.

Re:They keep trying and trying and... (3, Funny)

future assassin (639396) | about 2 years ago | (#42399437)

Try smoking some skunk sometime. It'll mess you up pretty good.

Well yah I'm sure a skunk will mess you up if you try to light it on fire. They got claws and a nasty spray so not paper or vaporizer compatible.

What this cant be.. (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 2 years ago | (#42399283)

That people with issues seek out ways to numb themselves from them and not even know it?

Kidding aside, i'm impressed that they were not just doing a 'study' to push an agenda. that is far too common these days.

And another thing... (2, Insightful)

Harvey Manfrenjenson (1610637) | about 2 years ago | (#42399295)

Sorry for the double post, but I just thought of another important (to me, anyway) objection.

All the pot smokers in the study have one major attribute in common: They started their *regular* drug use *early*-- many of them at age 16 or before. Which frankly, is probably not the best thing for a developing brain. It's also a socioeconomic red flag that suggests a lot of confounders: these kids came from the wrong side of the tracks, they've had crappy and neglectful parenting, they've dropped out of school or are on the verge of doing so.

So it's not especially surprising or interesting to see correlations between early onset of drug use with 'psychosis' and other vague terms of mental disability. You'd expect to see a similar correlation between 'psychosis' and teenage onset of regular beer-drinking.

Re:And another thing... (2)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#42399489)

"is probably not the best thing for a developing brain"
speculation.
" It's also a socioeconomic red flag "
nope. But please, constinue with your wild ass statemnets based from 1950.

" these kids came from the wrong side of the tracks"
define wrong side of the tracks.

" they've had crappy and neglectful parenting"
Based on.. what? Oh right, the do pot therefore they were neglected and drop outs.

WTF?seriously, did you just crawl out of a rock from 1950? You sound like an episode of Batman.
"You can't blame them Robin, there parents are divorced, so there is no hope for them."

The other thing they have in common is that they are from a place were it's more socially acceptable to smoke pot.

Have you been reading the lies being spread from CALM?

Studies in the use of Marijuana have a tendency to support whatever the researcher was looking for. See Selection Bias.

Here is one of the best reviews of the literature to day:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2910149/ [nih.gov]

"So it's not especially surprising or interesting "
yes, it's not surprising your wrong assumption meet your conclusion.

Does marijuana make you libel and blackmail? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42399315)

Like erroneus attempted here http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2261720&cid=36545928 [slashdot.org]

They did not find evidence of both (3, Informative)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#42399341)

the data was inconclusive; which means exactly that.

Data's conclusive: erroneus (253617) = fatass (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42399589)

"Oh... to eat pizza again..." by erroneus (253617) on Saturday December 22, @05:20PM (#42371769) from http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3335159&cid=42371769 [slashdot.org] since that disgusting fatbody pig's an obese swine with no dick!

Learnings = People like Weed (1, Interesting)

ImLou (2756173) | about 2 years ago | (#42399391)

News just out - being normal leads to smoking weed, and some users who smoked weed turned out to be pretty normal people.

Marihuana can induce psychosis - Personal story (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42399405)

A childhood friend of mine came to visit, and travelled by plane to get there.
We smoked a very mild joint and he got absolutely mental.
* God complex,
* death threats
* kunalini syndrome - spiritual emergency type thing (wikipedia it)

Marihuana is not safe for people who are proned for mental illness (and you can't know until the shit hits the fan)

The police had to come and get him, he got that aggressive and totally disconnected to reality.

Kettles (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42399453)

Just to be on the safe side, I'm only using kettles from here on out.

Hmm (2)

Greyfox (87712) | about 2 years ago | (#42399477)

What if being a teenager causes marijuana use. Or maybe marijuana use causes being a teenager. Mmm no, given all the aging hippies in Boulder, I think we can rule out the latter...

Link between Pizza and Fatness (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42399493)

"Oh... to eat pizza again..." by erroneus (253617) on Saturday December 22, @05:20PM (#42371769) from http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3335159&cid=42371769 [slashdot.org] since that disgusting fatbody pig's an obese swine with no dick!

GET REAL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42399503)

this proved nothing, the only thing pot leads to is orange fingers from the cheetos

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?