UK: PROF NUTT CALLS FOR ROYAL COMMISSION TO EXPLORE CANNABIS

[Kingdoc]

Kingdoc, Scotland is on the short list of places I want to visit.

If you like history/statues + old buildings & stuff you will love it,Just dont forget your wallet + your seal skins .

[Willjay]

Aww come on guys, don't you know anyone that smoked heaps of weed when they were in their young teens and now they're different? It's stupid that it's criminalised, but it's a fair call that when kids binge of weed it can change them permanently

I dont know anyone of that kind sorry......that doesnt mean they dont exist, I just say, if this was a real problem I would have seen much more people

I agree that children should not, smoke, drink, run in gangs, have sex, or even too much suger, after all they are children.

However prohibition is not the answer. During the prohibition of alcahol in the USA 1919-1933 they had to close schools becouse too many children were showing up drunk.

When a child becomes an adult is diffrent in many cultures, but you have to teach them how to party properly. In my home town, witch is a collage town, kid's are droped of at collage and for the first time in there lives the have no parents hovering over them, and they also have no clue on how to party, they end up busted, sick, and broken those first couple of months.

So teach your children well...

[Prestoned]

they advertise meat which involves farming and killing animals

If theres a way to eat meat without farming & killing animals then please let us know.

Hydroponic beef plants perhaps?

[mark the martian]

Or things that aren't meat

[Boner]

they advertise meat which involves farming and killing animals

If theres a way to eat meat without farming & killing animals then please let us know.

Hydroponic beef plants perhaps?

Or things that aren't meat

Whats the point in that?

[mark the martian]

[Prestoned]

MOO!

[Sir Niall of Essex-sire]

we all know, its no argument for weed being illegal,just because some people will get shizophrenia....I dont know anyone who this happened to as well

I dont buy this, anecdotal evidence isnt good enough when it comes to mental health dangers. They need to promote the studies showing no link. Or leave legalisation alone.

[mark the martian]

It's also just grasping at straws, I don't see any (even) anecdotal evidence showing this to be at all common

[echc1]

cannabis never affected my mental health.........i was crazy before i started toking!

[Ingwey Gooblebogger]

I dont buy this, anecdotal evidence isnt good enough when it comes to mental health dangers. They need to promote the studies showing no link. Or leave legalisation alone

Sir Niall, if you meant that there should be no legalisation of cannabis, until it can be proven that no causal linkage be show between cannabis usage and mental illenss, then I’ll address your quote with two points:
(otherwise ignore the two points immediately below)

1) Agreed. Scientific evidence is required. However, all reputable science has shown that no such causal link exists between cannabis use and mental illness. In this case, the problem with proving a negative, is that all methodologically sound good studies will show no link exists. Hence, the burden of proof lies with those trying to prove such a causal linkage exists between cannabis use and mental health damage. So far, NONE has been proven.

2) If the requirement for legalisation, of any substance, was to show no causal link between mental illness (or any other kind of illness) and that substance, then booze, tobacco, prescription drugs, non-prescription drugs, health substances, fast food, sweets, doughnuts, and so on would be illegal. That bar is way too high and it would be nearly impossible to criminalise all the substances mentioned previously. Prhohibition has been shown, time and again, to not work!


Since Professor Robin Murray‘s study is not yet published, I have not yet read it. Thus, currently, I can not give an informed opinion of it.

ASIDE
Most studies of this sort are, in my opinion as a research scientist, usually seriously flawed in terms of methodology. Unfortunately, these studies are also often funded by state agencies that, in many cases, have been taken over by political hacks instead of scientists. Hence, their agenda gets hijacked from being scientific research centres into being propaganda centres. (cf any studies done by the American NIMH or NIH, under the neo-cons. Under George Bush, these agencies only got funding for research that towed the government’s line. Naysayers were fired or blackballed. The Nutt firing, worried me that British research will soon follow the American path.)

I have not posted in a while, because I am crazy busy, but when I see shit like "cannabis makes you crazy" (Jesus we have gone back to the "Reffer Madness" propaganda of the 1930's amd 1940's) it should be refuted.

However, I will not have time to reply to this post.

I will not go into a detailed critique of Murray‘s study when it comes out, nor will I do so here, but I will leave you with some food for thought. (I am, and will be, for the next 10 months kookoo busy = very little time online and even less time to do thorough peer reviewing of research.)

If Murray‘s methodology consisted of
A) Separating participants into two camps:
1) a group of psychiatric patients (or those who have had a psychotic event) and
2) a control group (i.e. never had psychiatric care nor psychotic episodes),
B) then examining their historic cannabis use (including, the quantities) and comparing between the groups.
C) Then drawing conclusions regarding any causality, due to cannabis, from these steps

Then, from a statistical validity point of view, the study is completely bogus!

This is due to huge flaws in the methodology.

Some issues to consider are the following:
1) These groups have NOT been randomly selected. This would is a big NO-NO in research methodology.

2) Each groups’ members could have consumed a wide variety of substances other than (or including) cannabis. How do they account for the amount and effects of alcohol and other licit and illicit drugs consumed by the members?

3) There is no doubt* that psychiatric patients “self-medicate”, with both alcohol and drugs.
Hence it is NOT uncommon to see both higher rates of alcoholism and drug abuse in psychiatric patients. However, these folks are using substances AFTER they had mental illness. Nothing can be concluded about the causal attribution of those substances..
(*Anyone who has worked with either addicts or psychiatric patients or both will confirm this. As will the research in the respectable journals.)

Many times a persons will have been mentally ill for some time, but be “below that radar” because they have not yet a reported psychotic event. So, they continue to drink/toke/use other substances, until one day…BANG their illness has progressed to the point where they do have a psychotic event.

The emergency staff/psychiatrist/researcher might, then, wrongly, conclude that the illness was caused by the substance, since this patient had no history of mental illness before known substance use. (The patient simply had no REPORTED history of mental illness, but they were ill for months or years and it took time for their illness to erupt into a big enough event to be on the radar.

This also illustrates another problem associated with lumping the study participants into the two groups, as above. If a person with mild (or non-reported) mental illness, such as depression is put into the control group, then what happens if/when an illness occurs? Also if this person’s illness never gets reported and they have a low or no cannabis use for the duration of the study, then this person would be counted as a non-user with no mental illness. Obviously, this is incorrect!

4) Correlation does NOT IMPLY causation!!!!
Simply because a correlation (or “pattern” ) can be found among two or more variables does NOT mean that one causes the other. Nor would it tell you the direction of that relationship. (That is it, if there is a correlation between A and B, it does not imply that A causes B, nor that B causes A).
REMEMBER this Mantra every time you read about correlations:

Correlation does NOT IMPLY causation!!!!

Now consider the following:
If they did a longitudinal study which divided the participants into two groups
1) that used cannabis, and
2) that did not use cannabis
And then followed these groups for many years (after all this is a longitudinal study) and compared levels of psychotic events/psychiatric illness.

Then, this methodology would also present some big challenges, in addition to some of the same ones mentioned above.

Consider a member of group 2) (non cannabis users) who, at the outset of the study, had never used cannabis. What if, at say 5 years into the study they decide to try cannabis? Do you eliminate them from the study? Do you move them into the other group? Both of those options really cast doubt on any validity of the research.

When Murray‘s study is published, I hope that someone else on this board, with sufficient knowledge of both statistical and research methodology will crtique the study and post their opinions of it.

- Later

[Sir Niall of Essex-sire]

I simply meant, a bunch of stoners sitting around saying ' I dont know anyone who's gone mad smoking weed ' isnt good enough for legalisation. The studies showing no link between cannabis and mental illness's should be pushed into the public eye, either that or leave the legalisation push alone until we have people like in the states who are serious about it and manage to get such info out there.

I accept what you say, but i think you misunderstood me, i wasnt implying Murrys study is valid. Im just saying because we love to toke, dont let that blind you to studies. If a study shows it causes mental illness, its worth exaiming not just shrugging off a study. Everything requires thought, its important not to accept propaganda from both sides of the coin.

[mark the martian]

They don't need to legalise it for me to enjoy it, so all is good

[Pauli Wallnuts]

for centuries afghans have said that smoking raw cannabis (weed) can make your mind as well as your lungs sick, thats why they only smoke hash, dont know if theres any truth 2it, personally i stopped smoking in the u.k in 2005, id been smoking for about 9years non stop everyday, it did start to make me slightly paranoid, but the way i see it is that paranoia was always inside me & excessive smoking brought it to the surface, still whenever i go dam im bang on it straight away

[Ingwey Gooblebogger]

It turns out that I have some time, so I can reply....

I simply meant, a bunch of stoners sitting around saying ' I dont know anyone who's gone mad smoking weed ' isnt good enough for legalisation. The studies showing no link between cannabis and mental illness's should be pushed into the public eye, either that or leave the legalisation push alone until we have people like in the states who are serious about it and manage to get such info out there.

Agreed re the anecdotal evidence. However, the anectdotal evidence is usually the other way around. That is, it is of the form "...I knew a guy who's cousin's sister knew a girl who's uncle went mad and he smoked cannabis, so cannabis made him mad."

Unfortunately, often the evidence used in those papers is also of the anecdotal variety, but in a "tarted up" form, so that unless the reader is sophisticated in research methodology it might pass as respectable data.

I accept what you say, but i think you misunderstood me, i wasnt implying Murrys study is valid. Im just saying because we love to toke, dont let that blind you to studies. If a study shows it causes mental illness, its worth exaiming not just shrugging off a study. Everything requires thought, its important not to accept propaganda from both sides of the coin

Yes, I agree that his study should be examined and I agree with your views regarding propaganda. I can assure you that I would NEVER dismiss any research in such a manner.

I would not say any study is rubbish, simply because it disagees with my own preconceptions. (Nor would I blindly promote research simply beause it concurs with my views. Indeed, I am much harsher in my critiques of items which promote my own views!)

That would be the antithesis of the scienctific method. I would not employ dishonest techniques, simply because I disagree with the views/conclusions of the author(s). THAT would make me a hipocrite.

It takes a great deal of time, effort, and thought analysing research in an honest, scientifically valid, and thorough way. That is why I said that I will not have the time to critique his study when it is published. Really, I do not have a week or two to devote to it, but I would welcome someone else's critique of it, provided that they have sufficient knowledge of research methodolgy, statistical analysis,and so on.

As a researcher/statistican/scientist, when I critique a paper/study/book/ect, I read it thoroughly to determine whether it has merit and not simply to rubbish the study. I examine the methodology, which test statistics were used, which conclusions were drawn, and so on.

Indeed, at first I go quite easy on them and try to give merit where it is due.

Proper research starts off with the belief that the researcher's own thesis has no merit (This is called the "Null Hypothesis") and then the researcher trys to overturn the null hypothesis, in favour of their own hypothesis (the Alternative Hypothesis) via the experiment/study. When the study is properly designed then this method can lead to valid results.

No study is perfect, but it is the researcher's duty to make their study as impervious to defeat as possible. My own view is that I try to make my studies "brickhouses" instead of "houses of cards". Hence, if you want to knock a good study you had better use an intellectual sledgehammer.

BUT, this means that you heavily criticise your own work and invite others to hammer it as well. If this is done at all stages of the research, and you are able to overcome the intial hammering by fixing any potential flaws (or as many as feasibly possible) then it makes for some good research.

Even when the research is valid, there can still be some debate about it, since one study's results do not necessarily mean that they can be repeated. But, once repeated results can be obtained time and again, then that gives the ideas much more credence.

THat's my 2 centivos worth.