To think that DP's two cannabis joints have changed him?

[quickqwik]

DP recently bought some "skunk" - a type of cannabis? anyway he's used it twice in the past few days (as far as I know) and all of a sudden is a miserable, temperamental twat wanting to argue with me all the time. This wouldn't be because of TWO episodes of cannabis surely?

I do remember though when we went to THailand he bought some there, got stoned and turned into arsehole of the year in one night which is why I'm wonderiing? I dont know much about it, can it do that in such small ammounts?

Can't really argue with that lurking. My view is probably clouded by my level of education on these things now, as a teenager I would have probably bought blutac dyed brown

Don't think it's going to be an issue for too long. I'd be surprised if we get to the end of the decade without major decriminalisation if not more.

Usually Lurking1

I'd be surprised if we get to the end of the decade without major decriminalisation if not more.

We live in hope . In other news, after a year of legal (not just decriminalised) cannabis in Colorado, absolutely none of the doomsayers predictions have come true. The only things that did come true was an overall fall in crime, and cannabis use in teenagers. Which I am sure we don't want to see repeated here.

No I didn't know that Lurking

But it makes a lot of sense.

U2TheEdge

once you realise "correlation is not causation", you can start some interesting research. There have been a few studies over the years which suggest that rather than cause mental health problems, peoples "addictions" are actually a crude form of self-medication. So it's not causes but actually leads to a predilection for . Good for science. Good for medicine. But bad for tabloid headlines.

I doubt that 2 joints would have caused any damage. I smoke every night to help me sleep.

also affects sexual performance in men - a lot according to a male friend, who tried it once and said never again for that reason. (the spirits willing but the flesh is .... not getting there)

Based on my own extensive field based research this is not strictly the case. Cocaine on the other hand ...

When read your post I wondered if perhaps your DP had bought the skunk to come down from coke. Sometimes coke can get people temporarily riled up.

My XH was the most sarcastic bastard after smoking spliffs.

After smoking dope for everyday for 43 years his brain is well and truly addled, his memory has been terrible for 20 years.

It affects different people in different ways.

My ds becomes a total arse when he's been smoking.

Lots of people turn into total arses when their inibitions are lowered. The same can be said of alcohol, amongst other things. This does not mean the alcohol or cannabis is the cause of them being a total arse, merely it allows their natural arseness to come out.

I remember watching a program a few years ago and they claimed that skunk was derived from female cannabis plants that had been grown in such a way that kept it in a fertile state for longer. The difference chemically was that there are 2 main mind affecting substances in cannabis, 1 that 'protects' the brain from the chemicals and one that can potentially harm it, in skunk the ratios of harmful vs protecting are wider apart than in 'standard' strength cannabis.

Is this not the case then?

From Royal College of Psychiatrists website:

Mental health problems

There is growing evidence that people with serious mental illness, including depression and psychosis, are more likely to use cannabis or have used it for long periods of time in the past. Regular use of the drug has appeared to double the risk of developing a psychotic episode or long-term schizophrenia. However, does cannabis cause depression and schizophrenia or do people with these disorders use it as a medication?

Over the past few years, research has strongly suggested that there is a clear link between early cannabis use and later mental health problems in those with a genetic vulnerability - and that there is a particular issue with the use of cannabis by adolescents.

Depression
A study following 1600 Australian school-children, aged 14 to 15 for seven years, found that while children who use cannabis regularly have a significantly higher risk of depression, the opposite was not the case - children who already suffered from depression were not more likely than anyone else to use cannabis. However, adolescents who used cannabis daily were five times more likely to develop depression and anxiety in later life.

Psychoses - schizophrenia and bipolar disorder
There is now sufficient evidence to show that those who use cannabis particularly at a younger age, such as around the age of 15, have a higher than average risk of developing a psychotic illness, such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.
These studies also show that the risk is dose-related. In other words, the more cannabis someone used, the more likely they were to develop a psychotic illness. Furthermore, a study in Australia recently showed that those who used cannabis could develop the illness about 2.70 years earlier than those who did not.

Why should teenagers be particularly vulnerable to the use of cannabis? It is thought that this has something to do with brain development. The brain is still developing in the teenage years – up to the age of around 20, in fact. A massive process of ‘neural pruning’ is going on. This is rather like streamlining a tangled jumble of circuits so they can work more effectively. Any experience, or substance, that affects this process has the potential to produce long-term psychological effects.

It is also known that not everyone who uses cannabis, even at a young age, develops a psychotic illness. The available research shows that those who have a family history of a psychotic illness, or those who have certain characteristics such as schizotypal personality, or possibly have certain types of genes, may increase the risk of developing a psychotic illness following the regular use of strong cannabis.

Sazzle41

does the RCoP provide links to the peer reviewed studies ?

That reads like a poor study, seeming to draw conclusions on causality that are unjustified.

grocklebox

That's why I asked for peer-reviewed sources. An awful lot of "studies" turn out to be cloaked agendas. And an awful lot of "facts" on websites come from other websites.

Any muppet with a copy of Excel can knock up a "study" showing anything they like. My weasel alert was triggered when I saw phrases like:

"There is growing evidence ..." (uncited)
"...research has strongly suggested ..." (uncited)
"There is now sufficient evidence ..." (uncited)
"It is also known ..." (is it ? By whom ?)
"The available research .." (uncited)

bear in mind the source for the above was a supposed professional bodies website, not some clickbait tabloid.

The last paragraph is a doozy. I read it that people who have a family history of psychosis are more likely to develop psychosis anyway. Note the "may" in the paragraph. I "may" buy a Ferrari tomorrow - if I win the lottery.

Bad science, bad science, bad science .

good cut and paste skills sazzle

Doesn't make it a consensus.

1. Do you know who the royal college of psychiatrists are and who they represent / are funded by

1. Do you know they produced a very similar report to on tobacco smokers which drew similar conclusions on mental health - you are more likely to suffer mental health issues if you smoke, doesn't make it the cause

I'm not saying you are wrong, nobody knows for sure, you may be right. But refencing the daily mirror and linking to one, non-peer reviewed think tank is not scientific evidence of anything. Scary how often people on here take one source as gospel

foslady

I remember watching a program a few years ago and they claimed that skunk was derived from female cannabis plants that had been grown in such a way that kept it in a fertile state for longer. The difference chemically was that there are 2 main mind affecting substances in cannabis, 1 that 'protects' the brain from the chemicals and one that can potentially harm it, in skunk the ratios of harmful vs protecting are wider apart than in 'standard' strength cannabis.

wow - you have actually stumbled across the kernel of truth. Wrapped up in a Fajita of FUD

1. Cannabis (like stinging nettles) comes in two distinct sexes. A female plant, and a male plant. It's the female that makes the psychoactive compounds that make up the drug cannabis. If a female plant becomes fertilised, it won't produce the drug, just seeds. So cannabis growers work very hard at ensuring they only grow females, and that their females do not become pollinated.

2. "skunk" was simply a strain grown in the 80s which was sickly-sweet smelling, and quite strong (not the strongest, but as I've said previously it's hard to write a scary headline about "Strawberry" or "Bubblegum - both of which can be way stronger than "skunk").

3. There are 2 main psychoactive parts to cannabis. Tetrahydrocannabinol - THC and cannabidiol - CBD. Current research suggests that THC can exacerbate psychosis, but - critically - CBD can prevent or reduce it.

4. In terms of "high", THC is what gives the "Wow I'm stoned" feeling, whereas CBD is more subtle and tends to act physically - the famous couchlock effect, where you really don't want to move.

Sadly, because all serious cannabis growing and consumption is carried out by criminal gangs, and cannabis is consumed by a youth who know no better, the past few years have seen selective breeding (as you would do with roses -NOT "genetic engineering") used to develop strains which are THC high/CBD low. So whereas before a joint might be seen as "self cancelling" it's possible that the drive for THC-high strains has caused problems.

Incidentally this is why it's not possible to "ban skunk" - something scientists know quite well - it would be like trying to ban a strain of wheat, or variety of tomato.

All of the above can be taken as a great advert for the war on drugs. It's lead to a complete dearth of information. No one willing to touch any research, and a generation more - not less - at risk from exposure to illegal drugs.

Incidentally the drive for high THC strains is an absolute nightmare for some medical users who prefer high CDB strains to reduce pain, muscle spasms and cramps.

Sativex - the cannabis medicine produced but unavailable in the UK - is a natural blend of cannabis to achieve a 50/50 THC/CBD ratio.

It's also worth noting that smoking cannabis is not the only way to ingest it. It's oil (not water) soluble, so can be used with oils or butters in cooking. Care is needed as it degrades at temperature. However, oral ingestion produces a whole different chain of metabolism, and therefore psychoactive effects. A lot of people who use cannabis to reduce pain and spasms will eat it.

We'll know a lot more in a few years time when medical researchers move out to Colorado or Washington.

Usually lurking, i am studying for a degree in Psychotherapy and quoted the Mirror article purely because i thought it was user friendly terminology but maybe got the paper wrong as cant find it now. I'll google again tonight.My mentor at Uni has years of experience in psychotherapy and specialises in teenage mental health, (he is head of teenage mental health for a very deprived London borough and has run teenage only mental health units for very seriously disturbed teens who were too violent for mixed units ). He is definitely of the opinion the cannabis has a large part in the mental health issues of teenagers & others , so be assured i am not basing my opinions on hot air. You can investigate the Psychiatrists site, it does have other info, i pasted it on purely as i thought it was a concise summary of current opinion on Cannabis in psychiatry.

This link is probably a better summary of current psychiatric opinion from Kings College London's Institute of Psychiatry and it has some info from recent studies. I could link to some very pertinent articles from psychiatric textbooks and journals but they arent very user friendly and you need to wade through a lot of psychiatric terminology and graphs/stats which this article sums up rather more neatly and concisely:

www.kcl.ac.uk/ioppn/about/difference/The-link-between-cannabis-and-psychosis.aspx

Sazzle41

many thanks for that link. I stopped reading at

Teenagers who smoke cannabis regularly and from an early age increase their chances of developing the symptoms of psychosis in adulthood, particularly if their choice of drug is the high potency variety, skunk ...

The authors may be experts in psychiatry. However they clearly know nothing about cannabis, or they would never have written that, since it patently isn't true. "Skunk" is not (as they stated) the high potency variety. It's a variety. And using a phrase like "high potency" without any indications of metrics or reference (how do you measure the "strength" of cannabis. Especially if you are "studying" it ?

Psychiatric terminology or not, I'd expect to see some pharmaceutical terminology setting out the parameters of the study. The striking lack of such numbers suggests the "study" is a collation of peoples opinions. Which I could get from the Daily Mail.

This isn't a person pop. Nor the scribblings of some evangelist. Just someone who is frustrated that scary headlines have been allowed to taint any investigation into therapeutic uses of cannabis.