40,000 Users Quit to Prevent One Case of Schizophrenia

0.0025% - That’s the chances of preventing one single case of schizophrenia when an average user ceases using cannabis. In other words, you would have to stop 40,000 average cannabis users to prevent one case of schizophrenia. For heavy users, it would require 7,800 of them to stop using cannabis to prevent one case of schizophrenia. That’s a rate of 0.013%. These are the latest findings from scientists in the UK.

Excuse my average intelligence and lack of science degree but shouldn’t facts like this remove the consideration of schizophrenia in determining drug policies regarding cannabis? Can the cannabis debate now exclude schizophrenia? Will governments and anti-drug crusaders suddenly drop their key argument against cannabis in light of the growing evidence? Or will this study simply be ignored as they hang on to public ignorance, parental fear and tenuous links that served them so well in the past? If we use history as a guide, the anti-cannabis zealots will ignore this new evidence for as long as possible and continue to skirt around the important issues. This will suit the government just fine considering we still have some politicians quoting that old, debunked Gateway Theory as a reason why they are going to tighten cannabis laws.

The chances are that you will not read about this result in any major newspaper or media outlet. It was only a few months ago that Keele university in the UK concluded that whilst cannabis use had increased by about 400% since the 1980s, cases of mental health disorders had not increased as well but actually decreased slightly. You may not remember this news because it was not reported by Australia’s MSM or by any major international media outlet that I noticed. No wonder the public is so ignorant about drugs when our major media organisations do not publish any information that might upset the anti-drug bandwagon. Add to that the reluctance of our politicians to use these findings in their policies and instead droning on with anti-drug rhetoric from the 80s.

New Study Suggests Minimal Relationship Between Cannabis and Schizophrenia or Psychosis
physorg.com
October 2009

Last year the UK government reclassified cannabis from a class C to a class B drug, partly out of concerns that cannabis, especially the more potent varieties, may increase the risk of schizophrenia in young people. But the evidence for the relationship between cannabis and schizophrenia or psychosis remains controversial. A new study has determined that it may be necessary to stop thousands of cannabis users in order to prevent a single case of schizophrenia.

Scientists from Bristol, Cambridge and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine took the latest information on numbers of cannabis users, the risk of developing schizophrenia, and the risk that cannabis use causes schizophrenia to estimate how many cannabis users may need to be stopped to prevent one case of schizophrenia.

The study found it would be necessary to stop 2800 heavy cannabis users in young men and over 5000 heavy cannabis users in young women to prevent a single case of schizophrenia. Among light cannabis users, those numbers rise to over 10,000 young men and nearly 30,000 young women to prevent one case of schizophrenia.

That's just part of the story. Interventions to prevent cannabis use typically do not succeed for every person who is treated. Depending on how effective an intervention is at preventing cannabis use, it would be necessary to treat even higher numbers of users to achieve the thousands of successful results necessary to prevent a very few cases of schizophrenia.

Matt Hickman, one of the authors of the report published last week in the scholarly journal Addiction, said that "preventing cannabis use is important for many reasons - including reducing tobacco and drug dependence and improving school performance. But our evidence suggests that focusing on schizophrenia may have been misguided. Our research cannot resolve the question whether cannabis causes schizophrenia, but does show that many people need to give up cannabis in order to have an impact on the number of people with schizophrenia. The likely impact of re-classifying cannabis in the UK on schizophrenia or psychosis incidence is very uncertain."

Cannabis, Schizophrenia and Psychosis - Myth Finally Proven

Cannabis does NOT cause schizophrenia or psychosis. I’ll repeat it for you, cannabis does NOT cause schizophrenia or psychosis.

A study from Keele University, Staffordshire. UK has compared figures between cannabis usage rates and cases of mental illness. The study showed that whilst cannabis use has increased dramatically, the level of mental illness has remained stable or even declined slightly. For a more robust explanation, visit UKCIA.

Well, what can I say but ... bprtttttttttttttttttttttttt [raspberry].

I have long asked the question ... where are the bodies? If cannabis was as bad as claimed, our hospital system would be over flowing with zonked out mental patients. I remember Michael Gormly of the Kings Cross Times first asking the question a while back and it’s simplistic logic got my attention. Where are the bodies? So simple but so telling. Thank you Michael ... you are 100% correct.

The hoax is over and there should be some really red faces. How many times did we hear this warning? Politicians, government backed doctors, drug warriors etc. all made it perfectly clear that they had irrefutable evidence that cannabis caused mental disorders like schizophrenia and psychosis. How truly embarrassing.

Is there going to be an apology to the millions who have suffered because of the cannabis hysteria from zealots? Will the UN update their position on cannabis? Are governments going to re-evalaluate their drug policies? Will Australia change their anti-cannabis advertisements?

How did it get to this, BTW? There was never conclusive evidence that cannabis caused permanent mental disorders but the authorities ignored this. They chose the popular position put forward by anti-drug crusaders without clarifying it first and played on the public’s ignorance. How much money has been wasted putting out this lie without sufficient evidence? How many resources have been squandered to push some theory that was never proven?

We can only wait and see what effects stem from this study. I doubt if it will even make most MSM pages and if it does, it will be buried deep between an article on a horse that dances and Lindsay Lohan’s new hairdresser. Remember that some groups are still claiming that the gateway theory is true and that Amotivational Syndrome exists. I also don’t see the government making a special announcement that they got it wrong or Miranda Devine running a correction in the Sydney Morning Herald. I especially doubt Drug Free Australia (DFA) or other anti-drug campaigners will change their rabid attacks but I am certain they will try to discredit the study using some bizarre logic. I fear that nothing much will really change for the next year or so but scientific facts are hard to argue with and thankfully, always win out in the end.

Assessing The Impact Of Cannabis Use On Trends In Diagnosed Schizophrenia In The United Kingdom From 1996 To 2005

PubMed
National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI)

Frisher M, Crome I, Martino O, Croft P.
Department of Medicines Management, Keele University, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, United Kingdom

A recent systematic review concluded that cannabis use increases risk of psychotic outcomes independently of confounding and transient intoxication effects. Furthermore, a model of the association between cannabis use and schizophrenia indicated that the incidence and prevalence of schizophrenia would increase from 1990 onwards. The model is based on three factors: a) increased relative risk of psychotic outcomes for frequent cannabis users compared to those who have never used cannabis between 1.8 and 3.1, b) a substantial rise in UK cannabis use from the mid-1970s and c) elevated risk of 20 years from first use of cannabis. This paper investigates whether this has occurred in the UK by examining trends in the annual prevalence and incidence of schizophrenia and psychoses, as measured by diagnosed cases from 1996 to 2005. Retrospective analysis of the General Practice Research Database (GPRD) was conducted for 183 practices in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The study cohort comprised almost 600,000 patients each year, representing approximately 2.3% of the UK population aged 16 to 44. Between 1996 and 2005 the incidence and prevalence of schizophrenia and psychoses were either stable or declining. Explanations other than a genuine stability or decline were considered, but appeared less plausible. In conclusion, this study did not find any evidence of increasing schizophrenia or psychoses in the general population from 1996 to 2005.

RELATED ARTICLES:
Cannabis And Mental Illness - The Keele Study
Study Debunks Claim That Pot Smoking Causes Mental Illness
New Study: Marijuana Doesn’t Increase Your Risk of Going Crazy
Chronic City: After Further Review, Smoking Pot Doesn't Make You Crazy -- Blimey!

Previous Articles Debunked
Cannabis Use And Risk Of Psychotic Or Affective Mental Health Outcomes: A Systematic Review
Effects of cannabis use on outcomes of psychotic disorders: systematic review
Are Smoking Pot and Psychosis Linked?

Smoking Ban - Putting the Boot into Mental Health Patients

Anti-Smoking groups are applauding the NSW government's decision to remove a smoking exemption for mental health facilities. The obvious question is, will it help patients? A third of mental health sufferers and two thirds of schizophrenics smoke but under the government plan, they have to quit or abstain while they are being treated. Is it really a good idea to put this extra unnecessary stress on people already confronting intense personal issues? Although nicotine is physically addictive, it also has a huge psychological dependancy that can make it extremely stressful to quit.

As a smoker I know about the compulsory need to reach for a cigarette regardless of the harms. Kicking nicotine addiction is simply not possible for many including myself especially during a time of stress. I don’t care how many anti-smoking groups or loud vocal nay-sayers harp on, I find it virtually impossible to quit. The idea of quitting whilst dealing with a major issue in my life is even more distant and I am sure this is the same for most long term smokers. And what bigger issue could one have to deal with than going to a psychiatric centre for a mental health problem? I could only imagine one worse scenario than having to deal with a mental health issue at a psychiatric hospital ... having to quit smoking as well.

Like most people, I understand the need for smoke free environments and designated outdoor smoking areas meet this need. But in a mindless and stupid attempt to appease anti-smoking groups, the NSW government has taken a Zero Tolerance approach and banned all smoking in mental health facilities. The alternatives ... quit smoking. This is just what someone needs whilst dealing with probably the biggest issue in their life. What a bunch of shit-for-brains.

It has been found, rather surprisingly, that nicotine has beneficial effects on brain function in schizophrenia (American Journal of Psychiatry, 1993;150(12):1856-61). Normally, people are able to adapt to background noise and disregard it, for example while having a conversation in a busy street. Recordings of brain activity show that this ability is impaired in people with schizophrenia, so they are more distracted by the surrounding environment. When they smoke, or use nicotine gum or patches, brain function normalises and they are less reactive to irrelevant sounds around them. When the nicotine is taken away, the problems return. -The Australian: Mentally Ill Smoke More And Quit Less.

Has anti-smoking hysteria gone too far? I remember when the idea of banning smoking in pubs was so far fetched, I just knew it couldn’t happen. It was the same when they first touted the idea of banning smoking in restaurants ... and offices ... and public transport ... and ... etc. So times change and we get used to it. I just want to know where the line is. 

In The Netherlands where you can buy and smoke cannabis in licensed coffee shops, they have banned tobacco smoking. Is this just anti-smoking fever gone mad or does it make sense? I’m still thinking about that one but what doesn’t make sense is removing designated outdoor smoking areas. Considering smoking is highly addictive, you would think the authorities would be more realistic. So what’s their solution ... more smoking bans. 

It’s obvious that the balance between the rights of a smoker being able to light up and the need to keep everyone else free from smoke is failing. This is especially true when anti-smoking zealots start to threaten the well being of people like they have with mental health patients. Can you see a pattern here? A group of fundamentalists with certain beliefs, forcing their views on the public through manipulation of the government. A group that is so desperate, they will ignore any harm caused by their suggestions and continue to ruthlessly push their agenda. A group that brushes off expert opinion and ignores the people they are supposed to be helping in favour of their own unqualified views. 

The common denominator is drugs and this time it’s nicotine. And their target is the patient being treated for mental health problems. The fundies just cannot let an opportunity pass to force some poor unwilling sucker to suffer like hell. The patient be damned. Who cares if they are treated successfully? Who cares if they check out because they can’t quit smoking? Who cares if it discourages patients from seeking medical help? At least they won’t smoke for a few days.

Tobacco Ban Leaves Mental Health Groups Fuming
Sydney Morning Herald
By Louise Hall - Health Reporter
March 2009

A BAN on smoking in all psychiatric facilities will go ahead despite vehement opposition from some members of the mental health community, who argue that strict anti-smoking rules will destabilise acutely ill patients and put staff at risk of violence.

NSW Health has ordered all facilities, including emergency psychiatric centres, to close designated outdoor smoking areas, confiscate tobacco products and supply free nicotine replacement therapy to staff and patients.

Anti-smoking groups say the department's decision to enforce its longstanding smoke-free policy in wards that had been granted an exemption will help to break down the "deep-rooted smoking culture" among mental health staff and patients.

The new guidelines will be implemented over at least six months to give workers, patients and visitors time to adjust and, ideally, to quit their habit, with the help of counselling and anti-smoking aids such as patches and pharmacotherapy. The director of NSW Health's Centre for Health Advancement, Liz Develin, acknowledged there was widespread hostility to the ban but said research in Britain, Canada and other Australian states showed careful planning and education can lower levels of patient distress.

About one-third of people with a mental illness smoke, rising to two-thirds for people with schizophrenia, compared to about 17 per cent of the general population.

"Some consumer groups see it as taking away a person's right but everyone has the right to be in a smoke-free environment," Ms Develin said.

The chief executive of the Cancer Council NSW, Andrew Penman, said arguments that people with psychiatric disorders smoke to self-medicate or relieve symptoms, stress and anxiety "are too easily used as excuses to justify inaction about smoking".

There was weak evidence that smoking improves the neurological functioning of people with schizophrenia, he said. But many of these patients want to quit and can quit to improve their overall wellbeing.

A spokesman for the Mental Health Council of Australia, Simon Tatz, said forcing a nicotine addict to endure withdrawal symptoms while battling an acute episode of mental illness may impose a disproportionate level of suffering on people who were already suffering enough.

"No one wants to defend smoking, but when you're dealing with people in extreme crisis, their mental health and wellbeing has to be the priority, not quitting smoking," Mr Tatz said.

Desley Casey, who has worked in the mental health field for 15 years and has been an acute psychiatric inpatient several times, said forcing people to quit when they are acutely unwell is inhumane and "goes against a patient's human rights".

She is concerned that some patients will not seek help or admit themselves to hospital if they know tobacco is banned.

Ms Casey disagreed that NSW Health had a duty of care to break the cycle of smoking and disadvantage. "Is it their duty of care to put someone through terrible nicotine withdrawal symptoms during psychosis?

"I'm a smoker and I would prefer to risk the dangers to my physical health than risk my mental health, which is far more precious to me."

Internal NSW Health documents show hospital administrators have expressed concerns that patients may abscond or become increasingly agitated or violent if not allowed to smoke.

But "in some circumstances smoking may be permitted on a case-by-case basis" if nicotine replacement therapy does not work or where "refusal may pose a significant risk of violence to a staff member, patient or another person", the draft guidelines outline.

The chief executive of the Richmond Fellowship of NSW, Fred Kong, said mental health workers often used tobacco to bond or develop relationships with patients, which could help their recovery. "I'm fearful that applying this sanction will interfere with the therapeutic relationship between staff and patients," Mr Kong said.

A review of 26 bans in psychiatric settings worldwide published in the Australian And New Zealand Journal Of Psychiatry in 2005 found there was "no increase in aggression, discharge against medical advice or increased use of as needed medication" linked to smoke-free policies.

Although there has recently been a big push to help psychiatric patients quit smoking whilst in medical care, searching through the internet I have found plenty of criticism of forced smoking bans. Most of it comes from doctors and those involved in the day-to-day operations who’s only concern is the well being of the patient. Being medical professionals, they obviously understand the danger of smoking but pragmatism wins out over the rigid dichotomy between anti-smoking rhetoric and the real world of mental health services. 

Although there is growing evidence that patients can quit smoking whilst keeping their place in treatment, there is equal opposition from those who work on the ground, doing the actual work. Treating a mental health patient is already extremely complex and unless we have perfected it recently then introducing additional, non related and non critical goals, cannot make the task easier. The losers are the patients and as usual, those who don’t easily adapt to a new system are merely statistics and left to fend for themselves.

Stopping Mentally Ill People From Smoking Is Cruel
Sydney Morning Herald - Opinion: Letters
By Dr Alvaro Manovel Randwick
March 2009

As a doctor I strongly support anti-smoking policies. But there are specific issues relating to mental health patients that make the move against smokers by NSW Health deplorable ("Tobacco ban leaves mental health groups fuming", March 19).

Mental health patients may be voluntary or involuntary. Voluntary patients may simply stroll off the hospital grounds to smoke. But involuntary patients are detained against their will in hospital under the Mental Health Act and are not allowed that liberty.

They are by definition so mentally disordered that the last resort of the act has been invoked because they may be a risk to themselves or others. These patients are frequently agitated and smoking is one method they use to calm down. In this state they lack the capacity to consider the benefit of stopping smoking, and this is clearly not the time in their lives to introduce intransigent non-smoking rules that only escalate their agitation.

In the past these patients were allowed to go outside to smoke escorted by security staff, but since the introduction of smoking bans they may no longer do so. In hospitals all over NSW these poor individuals are being physically restrained and given sedative drugs when their agitation escalates. This infringes the spirit of the Mental Health Act, which stipulates that it may be invoked to detain a person only when there is no less restrictive means of doing so. Clearly allowing them to smoke is far less restrictive than physical restraint and sedation.

We already make these patients suffer protracted stays in crowded emergency departments, due to the failure of NSW Health to provide beds for them. It is easy to imagine what effect this has on individuals who are at the lowest ebb of mental wellbeing. To add insult to injury they are now told that their last vestige of self control - to seek solace with a smoke - is being withheld, in what must seem an arbitrary and cruel act by their carers.

Doctors are placed in the unenviable position of choosing to restrain the individual or to let them out on their own, with the risk they may abscond and harm themselves. What a sad state we have sunk to.

Related articles: Mentally Ill Smoke More And Quit Less

Again ... Pot is Relatively Harmless

[Sigh] How many (real) studies do we have to have before the anti-cannabis morons go away? Below is another report that reinforces what we have known for 40 years or so - pot is relatively harmless. No amount of junk science, slandering or silly comments can change that. So why do the anti-cannabis crusaders persist? Why do they go on and on with unimportant, unreliable, non concluding theories or go to great lengths to find the smallest of loopholes to exploit. Only those with a set agenda or an ulterior motive would go to such extremes and frankly, it’s pathetic.

These people would have developed schizophrenia whether or not they used cannabis -Dr. Mikkel Arendt of Aarhus University in Risskov, Denmark

I don’t feel the need to try and explain to these people that they are wrong anymore. I’ve gone past that point as I am discovering more and more that these nay-sayers will never change their mind regardless of the evidence or truth. The difference is that the anti-cannabis crowd aren’t looking for the truth like scientists or the AOD industry, they are simply trying to discredit marijuana as dangerous so it becomes unacceptable. Whether it’s relatively safe or not doesn’t matter to the anti-cannabis zealots and they are just another step in the sinister history of trying to demonise marijuana. We need to ask ourselves one simple question. If cannabis is so dangerous, where are the bodies? Where are the millions of freaked out cannabis addicts who should be filling up our hospitals, rehabs and morgues? With so many smokers throughout the world , why hasn’t society been overrun with these damaged cannabis smokers? It only takes 5 minutes or so on the internet to find out that there are no recorded deaths due to cannabis use alone. It also becomes apparent that many normal and/or successful people have smoked cannabis recreationally without any negative consequences. What you won’t find is that cannabis is responsible for violent crimes. Unlike the legal drug alcohol, you won’t find cases of domestic violence because someone was high on dope or a fight broke out amongst a crowd of stoners. But beware, you will find many, many sensational headlines telling you that new research points to cannabis being more harmful than we first thought. Read them carefully and you see that the so called new evidence is not supported by most scientists or the research falls into the category of junk science. As a research expert said, 90% of new research is useless in the real world and research based on established evidence is much more likely to be conclusive. In other words, the dangers of cannabis has been shown to be minor for many years with thousands of reports proving that. The research used by the anti-cannabis crowd is often tricks of randomised statistics, shoddy research practices or taken out of context to shock the public. For example, you must of heard of that often used fallacy, “The cannabis of today is not what it was when our parents smoked it”. It’s bullshit. Apart from the contention that strong cannabis has always been available in the form of hash, it’s bullshit for the simple reason that people just take less of something that is stronger. If you are used to drinking 6 bottles of beer, do you drink 6 bottles of whisky if it available? No, of course not, you drink less to get the same effect. It is a vital part of their argument that alcohol can be moderated over a session of drinking but for some reason this is not so when it’s cannabis. And then there’s that long ago, dismissed gateway theory ... that is bullshit. The high levels of cannabis causing major psychosis is bullshit. It’s all bullshit. Yes there are dangers involved but they are minimal. Like all substances, some people are prone to have a reaction to cannabis and they should not participate. Common sense should prevail. The truth is simple, most cannabis smokers have no problems whatsoever and never will but there will always be a group of nutters who will try and deceive us into thinking otherwise. For those tired old moralists, read on and weep...

Pot-Induced Psychosis May Signal Schizophrenia By Anne Harding - Reuters November 2008 NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - People who have long-lasting psychotic episodes after smoking marijuana may be exhibiting early signs of schizophrenia, researchers reported Monday in the Archives of General Psychiatry. "Cannabis-induced psychosis," in which a person loses touch with reality and the symptoms persist for at least 48 hours, is an established psychiatric diagnosis, but it is controversial, Dr. Mikkel Arendt of Aarhus University in Risskov, Denmark, and colleagues note in their report. There has been little research on the condition, and doctors have a hard time distinguishing it from other psychiatric disorders or developing a specific list of symptoms by which to characterize it. In a previous study, Arendt and colleagues found that nearly half of people who had an episode of cannabis-induced psychosis went on to develop schizophrenia within the next six years. In the current study, the researchers looked at the genetic roots of both conditions by comparing the family histories of 609 people treated for cannabis-induced psychosis and 6,476 who had been treated for schizophrenia or a related psychiatric condition. They found that individuals treated for post-pot smoking psychotic episodes had the same likelihood of having a mother, sister or other "first-degree" relative with schizophrenia as did the individuals who had actually been treated for schizophrenia themselves. This suggests that cannabis-induced psychosis and schizophrenia are one and the same, the researchers note. "These people would have developed schizophrenia whether or not they used cannabis," Arendt explained in comments to Reuters Health. Based on the findings, the researcher says, "cannabis-induced psychosis is probably not a valid diagnosis. It should be considered schizophrenia." It's "very common" for people to have psychotic symptoms after using marijuana, such as hearing voices, feeling paranoid, or believing one has some type of special ability, Arendt said. But these symptoms typically last only an hour or two. "It's a very important distinction, this 48 hours criterion," he said. Other researchers have shown that pot smoking roughly doubles the risk of being diagnosed with schizophrenia, and that people who use marijuana and go on to develop schizophrenia become psychotic earlier than people with the illness who don't use cannabis, Arendt added. It's unclear whether smoking marijuana causes schizophrenia or not, but if it does, according to the researcher, it's likely a gradual process. Nevertheless, he said, "the consensus is pretty much you should not use cannabis if you want to avoid an increased risk of schizophrenia." Anyone who experiences an extended psychotic episode after using marijuana should get help, Arendt advised. These symptoms could represent an opportunity for early diagnosis and treatment of schizophrenia, he added, and the earlier people with this illness begin treatment, the better their prognosis. SOURCE: Archives of General Psychiatry, November 2008.

What About The Average Dope Smoker?

The National Cannabis Prevention and Information Centre (NCPIC) are really starting to gain a reputation as another bunch of quacks pushing their own brand of junk science onto the community. And The Australian is the perfect vehicle to publish their crap. As usual, these organisations rely on a tiny fraction of the group they target and somehow make them the representatives of the whole group. Why can’t some organisation come out with a rational, evidence based report that states the upside to cannabis use? Why the doom and gloom when we should be celebrating the fact that something as popular as cannabis is not damaging society like alcohol. Surely it’s good news that only a tiny percentage of cannabis users are harmed and it’s those who overuse the drug that have the problems. Just for once, I would love to see the headline, “Latest Research Shows Recreational Cannabis Use Is OK” with an explanation that heavy use, like heavy use of anything, will cause problems. I suppose that wouldn’t suit their agenda though or sell newspapers.

Depression, psychosis strike dope smokers The Australian September 2008 CANNABIS smokers are more likely to suffer depression, anxiety and psychosis than those people who take stimulants, according to Australian statistics suggesting the drug's toll on mental health has been underestimated. The impact of amphetamines on mental state is well known but a new national report shows dope smokers display higher rates of several psychological symptoms when visiting their doctor. Of patients who mentioned cannabis use to their GP, 48 per cent had a psychological problem, including 19 per cent with depression and 9 per cent with psychosis. Six per cent had anxiety. Only 31 per cent of stimulant users reported similar problems, with significantly lower rates of all conditions, according to the latest bulletin released by the National Cannabis Prevention and Information Centre in Sydney. Centre director Jan Copeland said the results confirmed the dangers of the drug, especially for the reported 300,000 Australians who smoked it daily. "It was unexpected, given what we hear about amphetamine-related psychotic symptoms, but it goes to show what a terrible impact cannabis is having on users," Professor Copeland said. "The delusions, hallucinations and paranoia can be very distressing and people are feeling it." The results, in data collected from 1000 randomly selected GPs, also revealed that mentioning cannabis use to a doctor was very rare, with the drug named in just 19,000 consultations nationwide each year. Users were more likely to be male, young, unemployed or on a low income and indigenous.

Reread the last paragraph:

The results, in data collected from 1000 randomly selected GPs, also revealed that mentioning cannabis use to a doctor was very rare, with the drug named in just 19,000 consultations nationwide each year. Users were more likely to be male, young, unemployed or on a low income and indigenous.

Have they even considered that patients don’t mention cannabis to their doctors because it isn’t a problem for them? Those that do mention cannabis probably do have a problem and require help but this just reinforces what many experts have been saying for years ... recreational cannabis use is relatively harmless. Even the director of NCPIC agrees:

As with most drugs, most people do not experience major problems with occasional cannabis use. But for those that use regularly or heavily, problems can be major and have a significant negative impact on their lives. -Professor Jan Copeland - National Cannabis Prevention and Information Centre (NCPIC)

And this from their website:

There are a range of health and social harms associated with cannabis use. Not everyone who uses the drug will experience great problems, but for those that do, cannabis can affect their life in a very negative way. -NCPIC website

I wonder why this quote isn’t a headline in the Murdoch papers? One of the great equalisers is the question:

Where are the bodies? -Michael Gormly - Kings Cross Times.

Yes, if cannabis is so dangerous and so many people smoke it world wide, why are the institutions not full of cannabis inflicted patients? There is a simple answer to this and one that is avoided at all costs by the anti-cannabis zealots. Answer: Recreational cannabis use is not harmful. The objectivity of research from NCPIC and co. needs to be examined for practicality in the real world. it seems there are daily reports coming out about the harms of cannabis but still that question cannot be answered ... where are the bodies? Norman Swan, host of The Health Report on the ABC probed into this issue indirectly and interviewed Professor John Ioannidis from Tufts University in Boston about his paper, 'Why Most Published Research Findings Are False'. One of the interesting conclusion was that if you have an agenda in mind, you can produce a lot of supporting statistics but when applied to the real world, they have no effect. The other interesting conclusion was that new, breakthrough research with no supporting history (i.e. most cannabis users get psychosis) is usually dismissed fairly quickly and cannot be proved in a clinical environment. On the other hand, research based on many prior reports (i.e. cannabis is fairly safe), has much more legitimacy because it has been proven in the physical world previously. We will continue to be bombarded with alarming new research from those with an agenda and media outlets like The Australian will continue to print them. In the end though, the truth always wins out. So once again, where are the bodies?

Related Links: 

All bloggers wrong, implies Copeland

NCPIC spouts more junk science

AMA Pushing Zero Tolerance (Ice - More Drug Myths Pt II)

UPDATE:

Ice - More Drug Myths Part II

AMA Pushing Zero Tolerance

I recently wrote an article, Ice - More Drug Myths about the hysteria surrounding ‘Ice’ and the non existent epidemic. The AMA has joined in with the hysteria and put out a position statement that is reminiscent of the sensationalist type stories usually left to the Daily Telegraph or the HeraldSun.

=====================================================================================

DIARY: Amphetamines and the stronger version, methamphetamines are dangerous, powerful drugs. Abusing them increases the chance of dependancy, psychosis and other mental health problems. Like all powerful drugs, some people will have problems with them and these are the people who are regularly used as an example of what may happen if you decide to partake. Yes, there are some sad tales of abuse and the safest way to deal with amphetamines and methamphetamines is simply not to take them. Like climbing a mountain, there are risks involved and you would take every precaution possible to reach the top safely. Fucked if I know why someone would want to climb a mountain but if you’re going to take drugs, you need to apply the same principles. Your activity can be dangerous but the experience for some is worth it. Of course this is the same with most drugs including alcohol and cannabis. The key here is abuse or taking anything in excess.

What is rarely told though, is that if taken in moderation, the long term effects of amphetamines are minimal. Also these drugs are usually taken because they are enjoyable. The MSM and those pushing the anti-drug agenda have led us all to believe that normal, everyday people don’t take drugs and are only taken by those who are damaged or have a death wish. This is simple not reality. The fact is that taking drugs can be fun and they are enjoyed by millions of people each week. Whether it’s morally right or not isn’t a concern to most people except those who don’t take them. Thieving, murder and assault are moral issues, not drug taking. If your drug taking doesn’t effect others, it’s really your choice and not moralists nor the government.

Speed and alcohol were my drugs of choice for many years before I became addicted to heroin. Out of all the people who I knew who took speed, I was the only one to have a problem. I had always been a big drinker since my early teens and speed allowed me to drink for days. I must admit, they were some of the best times I ever had. I met lots of great people, had lots of sex and partied hard. Overuse though took it’s toll and I moved interstate to escape the scene I was in. It was really hard to stop thinking of speed. Every weekend, I had great difficulty going out and was often bored because of not taking speed. After a year or two, I got back to normal and returned home but still alcohol played a big part in my socialising. Kicking any amphetamine type drug is hard and drawn out. Amphetamine dependancy is not like heroin addiction. You can go days or weeks without amphetamines but heroin withdrawal starts within hours. Although heroin/opiates are physically addictive, amphetamines are not. I didn't have any physical withdrawal symptoms at all when I stopped taking speed because I didn't use everyday but on weekends.

I was a weekend warrior where I had to have speed every weekend or I was bored out of mind. My usage increased after a while and I was ‘speeding’ from Friday night to Sunday morning. Sundays and increasingly, Mondays were a write-off. Luckily I earned a good wage but it still played havoc on my finances. The real killer was the bar priced drinks which I often shouted because of my speed induced friendliness and taking multiple taxis to the next phase of a speed/alcohol binge. Speed gave me confidence and I made friends very quickly which was exciting for a 21 year old. I had a great group of friends, a high powered job, went to clubs and parties every weekend and got more sex than Frank Sinatra ... it was wonderful. 

After quitting, I got used to not taking speed because my use revolved around the weekends. During the week, I was just another nobody, going to work, watching TV and following a losing football team. I went through stages of running or swimming where my main excess was cooking. I maybe went out once through the week, usually to a restaurant with friends and a good red wine or three. Weekends were usually boozy on Friday or Saturday night but I still had great fun. My favourite pastime was definitely an Asian restaurant with friends, drinking lots of red wine, smoking lots of cigarettes and talking shit. Then back to someone’s house for more drinking lots of red wine, smoking lots of cigarettes and talking shit. Though speed was on my mind, my use was limited to 3 or 4 weekends a year.

I don't get to use speed much anymore. First of all I rarely drink and the two go together for me. Secondly, speed is for partying and that is not part of my life anymore.

=====================================================================================

Australia in general has a checkered history with alarmist reporting concerning amphetamines and now the The Australian Medical Association (AMA) have joined in. Recently. a press conference was held for the ‘AMA's Position Statement on Methamphetamine’ and there were some remarkable comments made.

 They [ice users] can be quite violent and aggressive, they're threatening to the staff in the hospital and to other patients here.

-Dr Rosanna Capolingua. AMA President.

The AMA are recommending that special units be set up at hospitals to deal with ice users. Acknowledging the dangers of drugs is fine but shooting off media friendly and alarmist statements doesn’t help anyone. The whole event was a jumble of odd statistics and the familiar drug hysteria usually confined to Zero Tolerance weirdoes. Standard prohibitionist tactics like misused terminology and links to major mental health problems seem to be the new face of the AMA. 

Over three-quarters of ice users or methamphetamine users - so we'd be talking about speed as well here - actually develop serious mental health problems. Over three-quarters of those, so we're talking about depression and anxiety, lack of motivation, agitation and inability to concentrate.

We've seen the violence, we see it in emergency departments and we also see it out on the streets. Many stories in the news feature violent episodes associated with methamphetamine use, and of course three-out-of-ten methamphetamine users will also develop psychosis.

We're talking significant serious mental illness. These people are hurt and damaged by methamphetamine use; we have to encourage people not to use this drug and we have to help those that have been caught in its trap.

-Dr Rosanna Capolingua. AMA President.

This is just wrong. The term user is being blurred with someone who has a dependancy problem. 3 in 10 DEPENDANT USERS will have psychotic symptoms, not 3 in 10 users as stated. A huge difference. I would love to know where figures came from for the claim, three-quarters of methamphetamine will develop serious mental health issues. I have never heard this before.

The term ‘psychosis’ is also thrown around loosely and portrayed as some major flip out where the user turns into the Hulk. Most “psychotic episodes’ last for 2-3 hours and is more common than we think. 

Referencing the MSM as evidence of a epidemic is worrying when it’s coming from the president of the AMA. This is a tactic used by ultra conservative politicians or nutter organisations like Drug Free Australia (DFA) and is not acceptable coming from a so-called medical organisation. 

The Australian Injecting and Illicit Drug Users League (AIVL) welcomed the AMA's call for funding, but had some concerns. Annie Madden from AIVL rightly pointed out that violence from methamphetamines users is usually because of associated circumstances and most problems come from dependant users who are the minority.

“Most methamphetamine users do not become psychotic. There are some people who do, a minority who do, and that's usually related to extended periods of binge using, with people not sleeping, not eating - that sort of thing," 

"The vast majority of people use methamphetamine very occasionally recreationally, perhaps on the weekend or something, and they're not going to get to that point."

-Annie Madden. AIVL

The approach of the AMA is counter productive and will cause further alienation of dependant users. The main theme was the violence surrounding methamphetamine users. For medical body like the AMA to resort to junk science and using the MSM as a basis for their ‘evidence’ is worrying. Only this week, the AMA have put out a fear based brochure that flies in the face of scientific evidence. Yes there are dangers but statements giving the impression that cannabis is more dangerous than it really is, does not help the goal of reduced drug use. We, as a society are past that. The massive carnage to society caused by fear tactics and harsh policing does not work. We rely on organisations like the AMA to stick to medical facts, not do the job of the prohibitionists. There’s enough of those already.

New focus on cannabis dangers needed: AMA

ABC Website

The Australian Medical Association says there needs to be a new focus on alerting people to the dangers of cannabis. The AMA has launched a new brochure warning about the short and long-term effects of the drug. AMA president Dr Rosanna Capolingua says too many people still think of cannabis as a soft drug.

"Cannabis use is something that has increased in society overall over time and really there's been more and more evidence coming out of late of the effect of cannabis," she said.

"So with evidence around the mental health issues associated with cannabis, it's time to alert people."

"To alert young people in particular not to take up the use of drugs such as cannabis, and to certainly let people who use cannabis on a regular basis, or even sporadically, let them know what it is that it can do to them."

Back to methamphetamines. I had a look at a report from National Drug & Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC) regarding methamphetamines. It seems to contradict the severity of the methamphetamine problem or the ‘Ice Epidemic’ that the AMA has decided is worth losing their integrity about.

A report from National Drug & Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC)

Aggression and ice

Aggression is also one of the problems that people worry about when one of their friends or family use ice. The relationship between ice use and aggression is not straight-forward. Ice use can increase aggression, but not all users become aggressive when they take ice. It is not clear why some people are more prone to violent behaviour than others, but some of the things that probably play a role are: 

• Alcohol
• Withdrawal from drugs, especially heroin
• Barbiturate use
• Personality
• Not eating
• Certain medical conditions (E.G. diabetes, brain tumours) 
• Ice can also worsen someone’s response if they are angry for some other reason (e.g. fights over money or relationship problems), because of its adrenaline-like properties. 

Psychosis

Methamphetamine use can induce a brief psychosis consisting of paranoia and hallucinations, and can also worsen symptoms among people who have schizophrenia or other chronic psychotic disorders. Around three in ten dependent methamphetamine users will experience psychotic symptoms during a given year. Symptoms usually last up to 2-3 hours, but sometimes symptoms last longer and can lead to the person being hospitalised. 

Methamphetamine Use and Crime 

Types of Crime 

• Dealing drugs and theft are common crimes among regular methamphetamine users. Almost three-quarters have committed these types of crimes in their lifetime. 
• Thirty per cent of methamphetamine users report dealing drugs in the past month, and almost one in five committed a property crime during that time.
• Fraud and violent crime are less common among methamphetamine users than drug dealing and theft. 
• Just under one-third of methamphetamine users have committed these types of crimes in their lifetime, and less than one in ten have committed them in the past month. 
• Violent crime is no more common among methamphetamine users than among other heavy drug users. 
• Methamphetamine users who do commit violent crimes are likely to have a pre-existing tendency toward antisocial behaviour. 

Who commits crime? 

Methamphetamine users who are most likely to be involved in crime: 

• use methamphetamine heavily (i.e., at least several times a week) 
• use the more pure forms of ‘base’ methamphetamine and crystalline methamphetamine, or ‘ice’
• also use heroin and a range of other drugs – are younger drug users (late teens or twenties) 
• have a predisposition toward antisocial behaviour 

Reasons for crime 

• Crime among methamphetamine users can be due to a need to fund drug use, particularly in situations where the person is using a lot of methamphetamine (or other drugs) and they are on a low income. 
• A proportion of methamphetamine users also commit crimes because they have a predisposition to engage in crime, rather than because of their methamphetamine use. 

Information based on the findings from: 

McKetin, R., McLaren, J., and Kelly, E. (2005). The Sydney methamphetamine market: Patterns of supply, use, personal harms and social consequences. National Drug Law Enforcement Research Fund Monograph Series No. 13. Australasian Centre for Policing Research, Adelaide. 

Produced by the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, 2006. 

How Much Evidence Do We Need?

It seems every week there is more evidence that providing legal heroin to long term addicts is more effective than other treatments. The most recent study from Germany has again shown that addicts who have failed other programs respond much better to heroin assisted treatment. Germany is one of the growing number of countries who prescribe heroin to a small group of hard core addicts. This is in direct conflict with the UNODC who brandish the US influenced, prohibition policy that has caused of most of the world’s drug problems. This new study will send the Zero Tolerance nutters into a moral tail spin of mega proportions. 

Long-term effects of heroin-assisted treatment in Germany.

Aims: Trials in Switzerland, the Netherlands and Spain have found that heroin-assisted treatment (HAT) as maintenance treatment for opioid-dependent patients reduces illicit drug use. A German trial also found diamorphine treatment to be superior to methadone treatment. The present study describes the association between 2 years of heroin treatment and improvements in health and social stabilization, as well as illicit drug use. 

Design: A prospective cohort study design. 

Participants: A total of 515 patients were assigned to diamorphine treatment; 278 patients remained in the study treatment for the entire period of 24 months (54.8%). 

Measurements: The results on physical¹ and mental² health and illicit drug use³ were examined by repeated-measures analyses. 

Findings: Symptoms of physical⁴ and mental health⁵ improved during treatment. Street heroin use declined rapidly⁶, as did cocaine use⁷. 

Conclusions: HAT is associated with improvements in mental and physical health in the long term.

-Centre for Interdisciplinary Addiction Research of Hamburg University, CIAR, Hamburg, Germany.

Verthein U, Bonorden-Kleij K, Degkwitz P, Dilg C, Köhler WK, Passie T, Soyka M, Tanger S, Vogel M, Haasen C.

1. Opiate Treatment Index Health Symptoms Scale

2. Symptom Checklist 90-Revised Global Severity Index

3. number of days with drug use within the last month-European Addiction Severity Index

4. Pillai's trace = 0.837, df = 4, P <>

5. Pillai's trace = 0.450, df = 4, P <>

6. Pillai's trace = 0.836, df = 4, P <>

7. Pillai's trace = 0.280, df = 4, P <>