I'm sorry about your brother, but I want to point out this is anecdotal. Can cannibals lead to psychosis in people who are prone to it genetically, or are people who start experiencing delusions, bipolar and schizo-effective conditions just likely to escape using alcohol and marijuana? The exact cause/effect conditions here are a big unknown.
> After adjusting for various confounding factors, no association between marijuana use and mood and anxiety disorders was found. The only significant associations were increased risk of alcohol use disorders, nicotine dependence, marijuana use disorder, and other drug use disorders.
It's pretty well established even in hardcore drug communities that drugs aren't for everybody and it's rarely ever the drug itself that caused it. Even without scientific evidence.
https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/mari...
Specifically, these peer reviewed science articles:
* https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22831980
There is a saying "even the devil can quote scripture."
http://www.mypsychiatrist.london/sites/default/files/publica...
I'm saying that the biases of the U.S. government, UK NIH, King's College London, and Palermo University, Italy (the other sponsor of the researchers) are likely to be largely uncorrelated when it comes to drugs. The U.K. does not have the U.S's history of criminalizing specific drugs (marijuana, heroin) simply because they are used by marginalized groups while legalizing others (nicotine, alcohol, caffeine) because they have powerful corporate interests backing them. They undoubtedly have other biases, but in a study of the genetic effects of THC on psychosis those are less likely to be relevant.
One way to minimize the effects of bias, despite its ubiquity, is to seek out multiple independent POVs. Each one of them is individually biased, but when you average them together you get something approximating the truth.
Ah, my naive little cultural hegemonist. Sounds like you've live all your life in America. Have a Coke, turn on some Hip Hop, and watch your Mickey Mouse.
> Variation at the rs2494732 locus of the AKT1 gene predicted acute psychotic response to cannabis along with dependence on the drug and baseline schizotypal symptoms.
If you take issue with the study, state why - don't ignorantly reject the results because you think the scientist's employer's name sounds biased.
Kinda like https://www.ready.gov/ for disasters... yes!
75% of the authors are affiliated with other institutions, only 3 are with the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
NIDA itself is well-grounded. There have been some instances where they take a more conservative stance given uncertainty in results, but this is still a national scientific institute - not DARE or the DoJ.
Finally, the paper is on PMC: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5426185/ - why do you disagree with their conclusion?
I am involved in a number of communities that engage intentionally, even sacramentally, with psychedelics. The amount of sheer bullshit they continue to promulgate on that matter, about which I consider myself advanced-lay to burgeoning-expert, is staggering, and is sufficient for me to be default skeptical of anything else they might have to say. When you lie to me about things I know something about, I'm obligated to trust the rest of your oeuvre somewhat less, aren't I?
Finally, I said nothing whatsoever about the conclusion of the paper under general discussion. In point of fact, I generally agree with it.
It's just disappointing when that happens, because I try to engage that way, and assume my comments will be treated the same.
EDIT: That said, I didn't exactly offer much in the way of argument there, did I?
Drugs should be guilty until proven innocent. Comments like these attempt to make them innocent until proven guilty. History has shown that there are very few "safe" recreational drugs.
This attitude is one of the reasons it was so hard for public opinion to change on tobacco usage.
"My mom died of cancer from smoking tobacco"
"Sorry about your mom, but I want to point out this is anecdotal. Can tobacco lead to cancer in people who are prone to it genetically? Or are people that are genetically prone to cancer drawn to tobacco? Or does it affect everyone? Lots of big unknowns here, so let's play it safe and not jump to any conclusions about the harm tobacco potentially may cause."
With tobacco use, there was a huge amount if money spent selling the public on the idea that it wasn't dangerous. In contrast, there has been a large amount of money spent selling the idea that marijuana is incredibly dangerous. More accurate conversations would be
"My mom died of lung cancer"
"I'm sorry to hear that, would you like one if my doctor recommended cigarettes? Marlboro published a study saying smoking helps grieving people with no side effects."
Compared to
"My mother has schizophrenia"
"It's her fault for smoking marijuana. At least they locked up your father for selling it."
> D.A.R.E. America's Commitment to Prevention In its 35 year history, D.A.R.E. America has constantly improved its science and evidence based education programs to provide students with the knowledge and tools they need to resist drugs, alcohol, and other high risk behaviors.
Alcohol gets classified as separate from drugs. Wouldn't want kids telling their parents to not do drugs, right? And if their parents drink, that would just signal drugs are OK... etc etc
For a meme war maybe, but for those of us who decide based on facts, their precise safety is unknown until proven otherwise.
> History has shown that there are very few "safe" recreational drugs.
What history is this, and for what specific definition of the word "safe"?
> This attitude is one of the reasons it was so hard for public opinion to change on tobacco usage.
Perhaps, but pardon me if that doesn't motivate me to hop on board the anti-science train.
A simple test to determine if a teenager who tries marijuana should be forced to stay away from it is whether they have an extreme reaction to it.
Then again, psychotropic drugs when you're already dealing with problematic brain chemistry probably isn't a great idea for anyone.
Taking ecstacy, for example, often involves staying up all night and dancing. I also feel terrible if I deprive myself of sleep without taking drugs, but I tend not to do that so often. So are the drugs dangerous, or are we just failing to construct heathy social norms around them?
But it's really complex.
People with schizophrenia smoke. They start smoking early, they smoke more frequently, and when they smoke they inhale deeper. EG, this, but there are lots of similar: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25991762/
It's hard to unpick the causal directions. But the precautionary principle is sound: there's not many benefits to children of smoking cannabis, so they should probably avoid it.
https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/substance-use-disorder/cann...
There are many diseases known to propagate via cannibalism, including ones with psychological symptoms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_(disease)
Your post annoys me because it might actually lead people astray. Please try not to talk about things you know little to nothing about.
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4988731/
I suspect lots of people around you do so without you knowing it; as it remains a federal crime and not protected from employment and other discrimination, many people are discreet about it and the non-discreet are not a representative subset of the using population.