The hidden mental health danger in today’s high-THC cannabis
-
It sure sounds like they’re just saying that cannabis helped people detect schizophrenia earlier than they normally would have. Which would strike me as a good thing…
Yall are sayin stuff like “learn about” and “detect” as if they got to just add that to their notes and continue on their day.
Going from “might develop schizophrenia some day” to “inpatient for an episode right now” is a big difference.
-
Yall are sayin stuff like “learn about” and “detect” as if they got to just add that to their notes and continue on their day.
Going from “might develop schizophrenia some day” to “inpatient for an episode right now” is a big difference.
Schizophrenia is better treated the earlier it is diagnosed. We are not talking about people who “might develop schizophrenia one day” but those who found out they had it as a result of this process perhaps earlier than they would have otherwise.
-
Making intelligent decisions when it comes to things you put inside you is a good starting point. It’s only easy to get “too high” if you’re ignorant… And if you’re doing drugs ignorantly ya dumb.
Sugar can kill you unlike cannabis.
That is straight up stupid. Sugar is not a drug. It might be addicting, but it’s not a drug. It doesn’t alter perception or act as a stimulant or sedative.
Sugar is in food. Added sugar can be bad for you. I’m talking about overdosing on THC. What the hell are you talking about?
I said THC is harmless, but it’s scary when you get too high and you come in talking about sugar. I think you’re high.
-
This is fear mongering disguised as “science”
A population-based retrospective cohort study of 9.8 million people in Ontario, Canada, found that people with an emergency department visit for cannabis use or cannabis-induced psychosis were at a 14.3-fold and 241.6-fold higher risk of developing a schizophrenia-spectrum disorder within 3 years than the general population, respectively.4
So another way to state this: people who are prone to mental health disorder are likely to LEARN ABOUT IT with cannabis, but it’s not causing healthy people to go crazy
Some prohibitionist jumped on this to spin it as propaganda
Some of us are more prone to mental health issues. Cannabis is a strong trigger. It is possible to go through life without triggers. THC is not something you need in your life unless prescribed for specific conditions.
I’m all for full legalisation but legal age for most substances should be simply higher because it’s way too risky and damaging before your brain fully develops, as evidenced by the this paper.
-
Some of us are more prone to mental health issues. Cannabis is a strong trigger. It is possible to go through life without triggers. THC is not something you need in your life unless prescribed for specific conditions.
I’m all for full legalisation but legal age for most substances should be simply higher because it’s way too risky and damaging before your brain fully develops, as evidenced by the this paper.
So to be clear: because some unknown small sliver of the population may have an issue with it, you want to bubble wrap all of society?
That sounds pretty conservative to me. Too much, even
-
That is straight up stupid. Sugar is not a drug. It might be addicting, but it’s not a drug. It doesn’t alter perception or act as a stimulant or sedative.
Sugar is in food. Added sugar can be bad for you. I’m talking about overdosing on THC. What the hell are you talking about?
I said THC is harmless, but it’s scary when you get too high and you come in talking about sugar. I think you’re high.
Yes it does act as a stimulant as well as being an energy source. Also saying it’s not a drug is a bit silly when it directly affects and triggers systems in the brain that modify the chemical balance as well.
-
Yes it does act as a stimulant as well as being an energy source. Also saying it’s not a drug is a bit silly when it directly affects and triggers systems in the brain that modify the chemical balance as well.
Why does everyone suddenly want to argue about fucking sugar?! I never mentioned sugar. I’m not talking about sugar. What the fuck!?
-
Schizophrenia is better treated the earlier it is diagnosed. We are not talking about people who “might develop schizophrenia one day” but those who found out they had it as a result of this process perhaps earlier than they would have otherwise.
I’m not sure that finding out by having an episode triggered that results in hospitalization is a good thing.
-
Why does everyone suddenly want to argue about fucking sugar?! I never mentioned sugar. I’m not talking about sugar. What the fuck!?
“That is straight up stupid. Sugar is not a drug. …”
This you?
-
It sure sounds like they’re just saying that cannabis helped people detect schizophrenia earlier than they normally would have. Which would strike me as a good thing…
Schizophrenia is a mental health disorder that can be triggered by psychoactive substances, trauma, or other significant events/life changes. Not everyone who has schizophrenia was guaranteed to get it, it’s just that some people have the potential for it. A psychotic episode (whether substance-induced or organic) is a common trigger to cause schizophrenia in someone that had the potential to develop the disorder.
If you have a family history of mental illnesses (particularly Schizophrenia and Bipolar disorder), significant THC use and substance-induced psychotic episodes can be the grain that tips the scale towards developing the disorder that may have otherwise been avoided.
(TL;DR: if Schizophrenia runs in your family, be exceedingly careful about what psychoactive substances you use.)
-
This is fear mongering disguised as “science”
A population-based retrospective cohort study of 9.8 million people in Ontario, Canada, found that people with an emergency department visit for cannabis use or cannabis-induced psychosis were at a 14.3-fold and 241.6-fold higher risk of developing a schizophrenia-spectrum disorder within 3 years than the general population, respectively.4
So another way to state this: people who are prone to mental health disorder are likely to LEARN ABOUT IT with cannabis, but it’s not causing healthy people to go crazy
Some prohibitionist jumped on this to spin it as propaganda
Copied from another reply:
Schizophrenia is a mental health disorder that can be triggered by psychoactive substances, trauma, or other significant events/life changes. Not everyone who has schizophrenia was guaranteed to get it, it’s just that some people have the potential for it. A psychotic episode (whether substance-induced or organic) is a common trigger to cause schizophrenia in someone that had the potential to develop the disorder.
If you have a family history of mental illnesses (particularly Schizophrenia and Bipolar disorder), significant THC use and substance-induced psychotic episodes can be the grain that tips the scale towards developing the disorder that may have otherwise been avoided.
(TL;DR: if Schizophrenia runs in your family, be exceedingly careful about what psychoactive substances you use.)
-
Some of us are more prone to mental health issues. Cannabis is a strong trigger. It is possible to go through life without triggers. THC is not something you need in your life unless prescribed for specific conditions.
I’m all for full legalisation but legal age for most substances should be simply higher because it’s way too risky and damaging before your brain fully develops, as evidenced by the this paper.
There is no age where the brain stops developing. The idea that the brain stops developing at age 25 is a myth. This myth comes brain studies that studied brain development…up to an age of 25. Pediatric studies of brain development don’t extend into far adulthood.
‘Your brain isn’t fully formed until you’re 25’: A neuroscientist demolishes the greatest mind myth | BBC Science Focus Magazine
Whether you are young or old, your brain is always changing.
BBC Science Focus Magazine (www.sciencefocus.com)
-
So to be clear: because some unknown small sliver of the population may have an issue with it, you want to bubble wrap all of society?
That sounds pretty conservative to me. Too much, even
Where are you getting your numbers on % of population at risk of psychosis and schizophrenia to call them unknown small sliver? Cannabis being harmful to people under 25 is well studied. Most neurodivergent folk are at risk and both things compound enough so that having this kind of legal age just make sense.
I consume plenty of weed myself but I’m for responsible and controlled use. I’m glad to piss off liberals and conservatives alike since I’m a leftie.
-
There is no age where the brain stops developing. The idea that the brain stops developing at age 25 is a myth. This myth comes brain studies that studied brain development…up to an age of 25. Pediatric studies of brain development don’t extend into far adulthood.
‘Your brain isn’t fully formed until you’re 25’: A neuroscientist demolishes the greatest mind myth | BBC Science Focus Magazine
Whether you are young or old, your brain is always changing.
BBC Science Focus Magazine (www.sciencefocus.com)
Please stop using blog posts pretending to be scientific research.
-
Please stop posting comments offering nothing of value.
-
Please stop posting comments offering nothing of value.
I’d rather add meta-comment in an effort to preserve quality of discussion. I’m seeing this everywhere - making a point by linking to a blog pretending to be a scientific paper. It has about as much value as a comment by anyone here. If I understand correctly it’s an attempt to add some kind of authority to your opinion but it’s just harmful to the way establishing truth works.
-
I’d rather add meta-comment in an effort to preserve quality of discussion. I’m seeing this everywhere - making a point by linking to a blog pretending to be a scientific paper. It has about as much value as a comment by anyone here. If I understand correctly it’s an attempt to add some kind of authority to your opinion but it’s just harmful to the way establishing truth works.
We’re talking on a casual forum. This isn’t an academic discussion. Blog posts are a lot more approachable than most journal articles. And blogs often contain references.
Not everything is a formal academic debate. Most things aren’t. Note, you didn’t reply to the parent commenter demanding that they provide journal articles for their point. You just saw something you didn’t like about my comment and decided to demand a journal article as a citation. Usually when people who aren’t participating come into a discussion to demand peer-reviewed sources, it’s done in bad faith. They demand high quality sources from one side while not extending the same requirement to the other.
Here’s another blog posts that address the original topic. You can look up the primary sources if you are so inclined.
So Your Brain Actually Isn’t “Fully Formed” at 25
Your brain keeps developing beyond 25! Neuroplasticity in your late 20s to 30s makes you adaptable, resilient, and primed for growth.
New Hope CG (www.newhopecg.net)
Or if you want to improve the quality of discussion, perhaps add your own sources instead of demanding others provide them.
And note, even you don’t provide academic sources for your claims. You claim you’re seeing blog posts linked everywhere, but where is your journal article defending this claim? Where is your paper performing a statistical analysis to prove that people are citing blog posts more frequently than in the past?
And I would argue that linking to a blog post is far from pointless. Blogs are less rigorous but far more approachable and digestible than journal articles. The real purpose of linking to them is so that a commenter doesn’t need to spend the time greatly elaborating a point that could be made simply by linking to a larger outside discussion. That has value. And a blog post certainly has more value than a random short Lemmy comment. At least if someone is taking the time to write a blog post dedicated to a single topic, it shows that they’ve put the time in to consider the subject.
-
Willie Nelson looks great and sounds great for his age, with a case study like that I’m not putting down the cannabis
-
THC is the least harmful, yet scariest drug I’ve ever taken.
EDIT: I’m pretty sure you people are all high. I never said pot was dangerous. In fact, I said the opposite. I was making a point that high doses of THC are terrifying.
Try salvia
-
We’re talking on a casual forum. This isn’t an academic discussion. Blog posts are a lot more approachable than most journal articles. And blogs often contain references.
Not everything is a formal academic debate. Most things aren’t. Note, you didn’t reply to the parent commenter demanding that they provide journal articles for their point. You just saw something you didn’t like about my comment and decided to demand a journal article as a citation. Usually when people who aren’t participating come into a discussion to demand peer-reviewed sources, it’s done in bad faith. They demand high quality sources from one side while not extending the same requirement to the other.
Here’s another blog posts that address the original topic. You can look up the primary sources if you are so inclined.
So Your Brain Actually Isn’t “Fully Formed” at 25
Your brain keeps developing beyond 25! Neuroplasticity in your late 20s to 30s makes you adaptable, resilient, and primed for growth.
New Hope CG (www.newhopecg.net)
Or if you want to improve the quality of discussion, perhaps add your own sources instead of demanding others provide them.
And note, even you don’t provide academic sources for your claims. You claim you’re seeing blog posts linked everywhere, but where is your journal article defending this claim? Where is your paper performing a statistical analysis to prove that people are citing blog posts more frequently than in the past?
And I would argue that linking to a blog post is far from pointless. Blogs are less rigorous but far more approachable and digestible than journal articles. The real purpose of linking to them is so that a commenter doesn’t need to spend the time greatly elaborating a point that could be made simply by linking to a larger outside discussion. That has value. And a blog post certainly has more value than a random short Lemmy comment. At least if someone is taking the time to write a blog post dedicated to a single topic, it shows that they’ve put the time in to consider the subject.
Truth isn’t different between serious and casual discussion and this is a serious topic.
If you want to cite a scientific paper then do it yourself and don’t ask others to fish them out of blogs you link to because too many times I’ve seen none included and nobody got time for that on a casual forum.
As to actual sources, I assumed I wouldn’t have to make as much of a strong point when talking about something that’s pretty much a scientific consensus. Where I live doctors won’t prescribe you medicinal weed if you’re under 25 usually too.
Going by casual wisdom, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence so I would expect the burden to be on the ones claiming that what I’m saying is bs but I guess it’s on me to bring back some reason here.
- Effects of Cannabis Use on Human Behavior, Including Cognition, Motivation, and Psychosis: A Review (closed access, SciDB mirror)
- Age-related differences in the impact of cannabis use on the brain and cognition: a systematic review
- Longitudinal study of risk factors predicting cannabis use disorder in UK young adults and adolescents
- The Effect of Age of Initiation of Cannabis Use on Psychosis, Depression, and Anxiety among Youth under 25 Years
