Having been around the cannabis scene since the 60’s, as far as I can see, the only worthwhile discussion on drugs is how to persuade the Americans to let the rest of the world legalise the whole lot, and use all the trillions of dollars saved to control quality and educate about the risks/treat the unfortunate few who react badly. (pauses for breath)

I am glad there is someone (or more) out there kicking the sloppy scientists and journalists etc. I just get fed up with the endless moralising and “wars on drugs” that achieve exactly nothing (or worse, act against their intentions), use up ridiculous amounts of money, criminalise whole sectors of society and cause endless suffering in poor countries.

Sorry, rant finished, great website Ben!

Though I seem to remember from Stats 101 that there’s a way around this – something about asking the subject to tick a box if they’ve either committed arson or they have a living grandmother. Since the latter can be predicted, you can extract the figure for the former.

Perhaps that is the case, but I do not recall such qualifications in the media storm surrounding this story (I was on the look out).

Somehow I don’t think using carefully worded language and qualified claims makes for headline grabbing news.

It is much easier to whip the masses into a frenzy than foster a culture based on reasoned debate.

The real elephant in the room is methamphetamine. There is ample literature that suggests the use of methamphetamine produces schizophrenia-like symptoms.

Surely it is reasonable to believe that many, if not most, crystal meth users would also use cannabis..

I would not be surprised if it was the cannabis users who also use metamphetamine that are responsible for the figures suggesting a link between cannabis and psychosis.

In my opinion, the scaremongering headlines do not establish whether it is cannabis itself or the user of other drugs which contribute to the development of psychosis.

Aiden Corvin has looked at tobacco and psychotic symptoms-
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/179/1/35

http://www.erowid.org/

It is possible to take on a large “hit” even with small quantities relatively weak strains of cannabis.

Indeed this is almost a national pastime for hard up students.

What do people thing bongs are for? esp. Bucket bongs made from 3litre coke bottles.

This makes different classifications for different “strains” of cannabis pointless.

I have read many references to canniboids.
Are there any accessible sources detailing a few of the Canniboids other than THC?

If our kindly site admin feels like replacing my:

[i]words words words words[/i]

..with proper italics, it would look a lot better.

Obviously a lot of the terminology is different. The counter-point is that they were probably the last (only?) survey of this ever done by an official without it being a football of some perceived moral agenda or agendas.

It would be hard to argue with the view that, since Anslinger’s and others’ drug crusade in the States in the 20s and 30s, it has been pretty much impossible to have any sort of reasoned public or political discussion of “drugs of abuse” in general, and cannabis in particular.

So partly the question to those with professional experience in the “substances” field was (rephrased slightly): if we replace the outdated terminology of the 1894 Indian Civil service report with modern versions of the same concepts, how well do we feel the conclusions stand up?

I have had a go below, though as I am not a medical doctor, let alone a psychiatrist, the terminology is likely wrong. Corrections welcomed.

“In respect to the alleged mental effects of the drugs, the Commission have come to the conclusion that the moderate use of hemp drugs [i]does not cause or exacerbate mental difficulties[/i]. It may indeed be accepted that in the case of people with [i]more severe problems within the neurotic disorder spectrum[/i], even moderate [i]regular[/i] [cannabis] use [i]has the potential to cause exacerbation, [since] regular use of any mind-altering substance (e.g. alcohol) has the potential to exacerbate underlying problems in such relatively vulnerable individuals[/i]. But putting aside these quite exceptional cases, the moderate use of these drugs does not [i]damage mental health[/i]. Excessive use [is different] since [i]this is more likely to show co-morbidity with mental disorders.”[/i]

Long time reader first time poster
I love your work Ben,
Keep it up!

Trouble is the definitions and diagnoses change and I don’t recognise some of the terms used in the Indian Civil Service article! (neurotic diathesesis? Sheer phlogiston!)

Would you take a century plus-old review of the harms of hemp especially seriously – where were the RCT’s?

But they do appear to be hitting the nail on the head “A little bit of what you fancy….” etc.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,2138349,00.html

- forming a sort of small oasis of sanity in a desert of fatuous pontificating.

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/07/31/lefthanded.html

http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/2007/07/more-shoddy-reefer-madness-reporting-of.html

As rs was sort of alluding to above, it seems to me that without detailed and accurate information on HOW MUCH cannabis the people in the studies get through the whole discussion is largely meaningless…

Also add the difficulty of controlling for “self-medication”, the problems of ruling out the (quite common) psychotic episodes that aren’t ultimately diagnosed as schizophrenia, and the “population factors” (dope smoking highest among adolescent males, earliest pyschotic episodes typical in the early 20s in men even if not smokers, etc etc)

…and you have a right mess.

I’m all for advising teenagers not to fry their brains daily with 2 hrs relentless toking on the hydroponic skunk, but the moral panic about the stuff is all too “reefer madness” for words.

My favourite isolated cannabis factoid is that the British Indian Civil Service compiled a seven volume, 3,281 page report on “Indian hemp” as far back as 1894.

http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/Library/effects.htm

Here is a quote:

“Mental Effects

In respect to the alleged mental effects of the drugs, the Commission have come to the conclusion that the moderate use of hemp drugs produces no injurious effects on the mind. It may indeed be accepted that in the case of specially marked neurotic diathesis, even the moderate use may produce mental injury. For the slightest mental stimulation or excitement may have that effect in such cases. But putting aside these quite exceptional cases, the moderate use of these drugs produces no mental injury. It is otherwise with the excessive use. Excessive use indicates and intensifies mental instability (1:264).”

Any comments from the pyschiatrists hereabouts as to whether we have notably changed this view (scientifically) in the last 113 years?