One of the going lines for those opposing cannabis, is that it increases incidences of psychosis, like schizophrenia. Now, a new study greatly contradicts this, to the point of saying nearly the opposite. Why do such contradictory results exist, and should we be worried that cannabis increases the risk of psychosis?
This article is the express opinion of the writer.
New study on cannabis and psychosis
Psychosis definition according to the National Institute of Mental Health: “Psychosis refers to a collection of symptoms that affect the mind, where there has been some loss of contact with reality. During an episode of psychosis, a person’s thoughts and perceptions are disrupted and they may have difficulty recognizing what is real and what is not.” It is not more specific than this.
The study is called Early Detection and Intervention for the Prevention of Psychosis Program (EDIPPP), and was conducted on multiple sites with clinical trials. Eleven different universities took part in it. The goal was originally to show that using cannabis is dangerous for people with a higher risk of psychosis.
For the study 210 ‘clinically high risk’ patients who smoke cannabis, were followed for two years. This was not an adults only study, and the average age of participants was 16 years old. 81% were enrolled in school when the study started. 61% of subjects were white, and 42% of the test population was female. Researchers tracked medication taking, brain function, and other observed behaviors to gather data. This was on on-site study.
According to the study data, not only was cannabis not related to an increase in psychotic onset; but the data indicates it didn’t affect general brain function negatively, or produce clinical symptoms. Quite the opposite, actually. Those who used cannabis were found to have higher functioning brains, with a greater capacity through time, for sociability. According to the team, “CHR youth who continuously used cannabis had higher neurocognition and social functioning over time, and decreased medication usage, relative to non-users..”
This study goes in contrast to many others, like this one out of Denmark; which leaves us with the notion that from 1995-2010, problematic marijuana use with schizophrenia increased from 2% to 4%. This study only used medical files, however, and spoke to no participants. Much like many investigations of this nature, it means study investigators had 0% control over information collection, and all information was collected for other purposes.
The new study doesn’t simply assess previously collected information with a hope of drawing some connection to make headlines. It’s a developed study that used participants who signed releases to be in it. The Denmark study, in comparison, suffers from a lack of contact with participants, while also seeking to measure a specific condition, which isn’t technically measurable. Perhaps the Denmark study, and others of its kind, are some of the better examples of how research and headlines are used to sway our opinions, even when based on nothing.
Why this is silly
We don’t question whether alcohol causes health damage, or whether opioids do. We’re all pretty okay with the line that they do, because we see it in real life. Especially with alcohol, which much like cannabis, has been used throughout recorded history, in some capacity. We know it causes severe issues from all this time, yet this same information can’t be said distinctively for cannabis. It’s questioned, and argued over, yet after all these years, there’s no obvious answer. Or, at least, there’s no obvious answer that it causes damage.
Natural medicine traditions have reported on the properties of different plants for thousands of years. And to be clear, they often speak of cannabis having somewhat psychotic effects. But its never spoken about as a lasting condition; and we’re all aware that when on a drug, we are supposed to experience something. Yet, somehow, despite it being the most widely used drug outside of alcohol, and with thousands of years of accumulated experience showing no lasting damage…
Can you see where I’m going with this? We’ve had thousands of years with weed collectively, and somehow no one was categorically worried about lasting damage in other cultures. Yet today, all of a sudden, it causes psychosis? Forget that the government regulates synthetic opioids that take out close to 100,000 people yearly in the US alone. It’s obviously the psychosis of cannabis – which no one ever sees beyond someone currently high – as the thing to worry about.
If weed were really a problem in this way, it would be reflected in all those ancient texts as possibly causing some form of long-term craziness. It would be seen regularly in society, considering how prevalent weed use is. Now think to yourself if you know even one person who went crazy because of smoking weed.
Beyond these points of logic, there’s the idea that the research world is an incredibly competitive place, wherein some must continue to publish findings to keep their positions. That’s a lot of pressure. Maybe enough to encourage some to put out sub-par efforts just to keep up. To give an idea of just how silly the world of research is getting, check out this article recently published in the Guardian, which attacks the topic of research retractions.
In 2022, for example, a massive 5,500 retractions had to be made for published scientific research. There is so much research published yearly, that this accounted for only one in 1,000. However, back in the year 2000, there were only 40 retractions, for comparison. Its best to remember that these are the ones that got challenged in some way; plenty of research that desperately needs to get retracted, doesn’t get enough exposure or heat for that to happen. Meaning those results stand. Some estimate that at least 100,000 studies should get retracted yearly, or more.
The issue with measuring psychosis
Psychotic issues like schizophrenia, are psychotic issues because a doctor defines them that way. There is no medical definition for any of these conditions, regardless of how many the DSM talks about, or how much you don’t like that sentence. This is not opinion. Not a single one has a definable and testable ability, and this is understood in the medical world, even if its flubbed a bit for consumers. So if the right person says you have one of these disorders, then voila, you do. If they don’t, then its just your friends speculating you’re crazy, according to today’s psychiatric process.
We’ve all seen some crazy people in life. There are definitely people with a screw loose, for whatever reason its like that. Maybe they were born with issues, maybe they got hit in the head, or were highly abused, or exposed to chemicals. Regardless of why a person ends up as the ‘crazy person,’ we know there is some line somewhere, and that past a point, we can see it. It’s not about one specific behavior either, but often a pattern of behaviors, which is indeed what the therapists look for.
When it comes to diagnosis, different doctors often give different ones for the same person. It happens all the time; and the only thing the doctors have in common is some kind of degree. Now consider how often doctors disagree and argue over different topics. The whole reason we develop tests when possible, is to give a clarified answer; so the right treatment measure is taken, and opinion is taken out.
If you have a broken arm, it comes up in an X-ray. If you have diabetes, it shows in your insulin levels. If you have a tumor, that can be biopsied to understand the cancer better. A virus can be detected, as can bacterial and fungal infections, as well as a host of other medical issues. These are all done through medical diagnoses, which define something that can be measured. No psychiatric issue comes with this kind of test, which means 100% of diagnoses are personal opinion. This is not debatable. Those personal opinions might (or might not) be based in education, but they are still personal.
Beyond what this means to shoving psych meds down people’s throats, it comes with another negative implication. If we can’t really measure these things in a definable way, how can any aggregated research mean anything? Since there is no definable test, and the doctor is such an important figure in each diagnosis; we’d have to know each doctor, to understand what they were responding to in each case. Any aggregated research is just a piling up of opinions, for which we have no idea what spawned them in the doctor’s mind.
Conclusion
While I hope this recent study works to get some reality back into a horribly demented research world; I have doubts. I expect as different forces fight to keep things illegal, we’ll hear much more in the future about this cannabis psychosis that no one actually sees.
Welcome everyone! Cool that you’re here! We appreciate you making your way to Cannadelics.com; where we report on the goings-on in the cannabis and psychedelics spaces. Come around regularly to get all the updates; and check out the Cannadelics Weekly Newsletter. It’s got some great product promos, along with the news.
In the news today regarding the famous canal – but what about Panama and marijuana?
Panama is the only place in the world where the sun rises in the Pacific Ocean and sets in the Atlantic Ocean. It is slightly smaller than South Carolina but has more bird species than the continental United States. It’s also home to many natural attractions, including whitewater rafting, snorkeling, and birding. Long a friend, it was the first Latin American country to use the US dollar as its currency. Now it is the news with the new administration. Considering the talk here, what about Panama and cannabis?
The economy of Panama is based mainly on the tourism and services sector, which accounts for nearly 80% of its GDP and accounts for most of its foreign income. Services include banking, commerce, insurance, container ports, and flagship registry, medical and health. Enjoy a significant number of travelers who enjoy adventure, outdoor activities and chilling, the country’s stance on marijuana is evolving.
Panama has made significant strides in the realm of cannabis, particularly regarding its medical use. In 2021, Panama became the first Central American nation to legalize medical cannabis when President Laurentino Cortizo signed Law 242, allowing for the medicinal and therapeutic use of cannabis and its derivatives. This law was a response to growing demands from patients suffering from various medical conditions, including epilepsy and chronic pain, who had previously resorted to smuggling cannabis products due to a lack of legal options
In September 2022, the Panamanian government established regulations to support the implementation of Law 242. These regulations created a National Directorate for the Monitoring of Activities Related to Medical Cannabis, which operates under the Ministry of Public Security. This body is responsible for overseeing the cultivation, production, and distribution of medical cannabis products, ensuring patient data protection and product traceability from cultivation to sale. The Ministry of Health (MOH) is tasked with issuing licenses for manufacturing and commercializing cannabis products, with an initial cap on manufacturing licenses set at seven for the first five years. Regulations aim to ensure that all medical cannabis produced in Panama adheres to strict quality standards.
The government envisions creating a robust local industry that not only meets domestic needs but also positions Panama as a potential hub for international medical cannabis trade. While they are making advancements in medical cannabis regulation, recreational use remains illegal in Panama. The law against recreational cannabis is often unenforced, leading to a culture where its use is tolerated among the youth. Both the public and tourist find it an easy atmosphere.
Panama has one of the fastest growing economies in Latin America and has as stable government. Like the United States, it is a republic and engages the public. They have evaluated cannabis as a benefits and have moved to integrating into their healthcare.
They are more popular than dating apps and are consider a best friend – but are they really there when you need them emotionally?
They are man’s best friend with 38% of Canadians and roughly 50% of Americans having a dog. In the US more men have dogs and in Canada more woman have the furry companion. While they are fun, loving and play, does your dog really care when you are sad? Dogs have long been known as loyal companions, but recent research suggests that their emotional intelligence may run deeper than mere companionship; they can actually empathize with their owners’ feelings, particularly during times of distress.
A study published in the journal Learning & Behavior explored how dogs respond to their owners’ emotional states. Researchers found that dogs not only recognize when their owners are upset but also take action to provide comfort. In the experiment, 34 dog-owner pairs were observed in a controlled setting where owners either cried or hummed a cheerful tune. The results showed that while the dogs opened a door to reach their owners at similar rates, those who heard crying did so significantly faster—averaging just 23 seconds compared to 96 seconds for the humming group. This indicates that dogs are more inclined to respond quickly when they perceive their owner is in distress.
Interestingly, the study also noted physiological responses in dogs when their owners cried. Dogs that opened the door displayed lower stress levels than those who did not, suggesting that while they were affected by the owner’s crying, they were not overwhelmed by it. Conversely, dogs who showed high levels of stress likely cared deeply but were too anxious to act. This highlights a range of emotional responses among dogs, similar to human reactions.
The bond between dogs and their owners plays a crucial role in these empathetic behaviors. Dogs with stronger attachments to their owners exhibited quicker responses to distress signals. This bond is essential as it fosters a mutual understanding of emotions, allowing dogs to act on their instincts to comfort their human companions. As research continues to unfold, it becomes increasingly clear that our canine companions are not just pets; they are emotionally attuned partners capable of providing significant comfort during our most challenging moments.
MLK shared a vision about building a fabric of society, including everyone and working together. Can this happen with the marijuana industry?
The swearing in a new president always gives hope. The cannabis industry has seen 3 presidents, none who have helped move the industry truly forward. The public has had a change of heart and now almost 90% believe it should be legal in some form. The major medical associations and federal agencies (aside from the Drug Enforcement Adminstration) believe it has medical value. And yet, our older, white politicians see it for something it is not. Thousands of mom and pop business are hoping for a change to help them on their ladder to the American dreams. And tens of millions are turning to marijuana to not only solve medical problems, but to wean themselves off the more dangerous alcohol. Here is a look at Martin Luther King and cannabis.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is widely recognized for his pivotal role in the American civil rights movement, advocating for racial equality and justice. Although he did not publicly address cannabis use during his lifetime, his principles resonate deeply with contemporary discussions surrounding marijuana legalization and the broader implications of drug policy on social justice.
The prohibition of cannabis in the United States has roots in racial discrimination and social control. The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, which effectively criminalized marijuana, was influenced by prejudiced attitudes towards minority communities, particularly targeting Mexican immigrants. This historical context is crucial when examining how the “War on Drugs” has disproportionately affected people of color, echoing the systemic injustices that King fought against.
Many scholars and activists argue if King were alive today, he would likely advocate for an end to the War on Drugs, recognizing it as a continuation of racial oppression. Michelle Alexander, in her influential work “The New Jim Crow,” highlights how the drug war has perpetuated cycles of racial injustice and mass incarceration. Statistics reveal that Black individuals are arrested for cannabis offenses at rates significantly higher than their white counterparts, despite similar usage rates. This disparity aligns with King’s vision of equality and justice for all.
As discussions around cannabis legalization continue to evolve, figures like Martin Luther King III emphasize the importance of equity in the cannabis industry. He advocates for creating opportunities for marginalized communities to participate in this burgeoning market. This aligns with King’s broader vision of building a “beloved community” where economic and social justice prevail.
A large portion of industry leaders who were involved in the incoming president’s campaign are hopeful. Millions of average people want it, millions more need it for medical issues, and thousands of small business owned by a variety of people want it, will this administration take the step forward?