med section

Post Reply New Topic

I think you miss Gwenevyn's point. It is one thing if advice is given between members, in an informal way. It could be a different matter if Alex set up a forum that implied approval of such advice. Maybe a forum could be set up, but its definition would have to be almost self-denying - "The unreliable medical advice forum" - "Come here if you want to talk about anything medical that WP cannot offer any approval of, and where we will likely have to regularly delete all threads, in order to avoid the possibility of prosecution".

Well, it's not illegal to discuss illegal substances and illegal drugs like weed is arguably less harmful than cigarette smoking and potentially more helpful to aspies. I think that discussing drug use is healthy and prevents misunderstanding.

Actually Alex, while not addictive, marijuana can cause psychosis with long term use, and smoking anything will still give you cancer.

Very rarely.

I have a paper. Hardcopy. If you want the reference, just ask and ye shall recieve.

Very dodgy ground, Quatermass.

You did say "cause". I very much doubt that people have been used in a full double-blind placebo study to establish whether cannabis use CAUSES psychosis.

Very likely there is a correlation between cannabis usage and manifest psychosis, but any causal link (either way round) would be conjecture.

It can trigger psychotic states following heavy consumption, and exacerbates previous conditions like schizophrenia. While there is no evidence to show that heavy cannabis use will lead to a persistent psychotic illness after abstinence, cannabis is associated with high rates of comorbidity for other psychiatric diagnises.

Johns, Andrew (2001), Psychiatric effects of cannabis, British Journal of Psychiatry, Volume 178, pages 116-122.

I get the feeling that that says almost exactly what I said.
"It can trigger psychotic states following heavy consumption," - sounds correct.
"and exacerbates previous conditions like schizophrenia" - I wonder how this can have been established, without recourse to highly unethical methods?
The second sentence states that there is no evidence for a causal link to psychosis, and I'll heartily agree with the comorbidity statement.
I've known heavy users. Their heavy use seems to me to be rooted in their other problems. I feel the causal link, if any, goes that way round. Take away, or at least ameliorate, their other problems, and their cannabis requirement declines.

In response to that, this paper appears to be a review of previous works. I would imagine that severity of schizophrenic symptoms would be established by medical records. There is more than one way to skin a rat. According to the paper, one study involved an interview of 83 patients, who reported lower anxiety and depression, but increased suspiciousness, not to mention varied effects on drive and hallucinations. Some other studies suggest that they affect the delusions and hallucinations.

Actually, I'm not sure that there is. The only ethical way, that has just occurred to me, would be to study people who were imprisoned versus those allowed free. I was thinking there that those in prison would no longer have access to drugs... but that doesn't seem to be borne out by real life. In fact, maybe the reverse is the case.

Oh yes! Been there, done that. Paranoia is just so much not fun. (While watching "One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest" in a cinema.)
I'm not being picky here, but I didn't know what it is saying, other than a couple of the obvious and indisputable effects of cannabis: loss of drive and mild hallucinations.

And again, I lose the sense of the sentence. What does the "they" refer to? I'm just not sure what it all means. Even substituting "effect" for "affect" doesn't get me a picture.
With "affect" it seems to say that the cannabis users fake their delusions and hallucinations.
Actually, with "effect" all I can come up with is the silly idea that the studies cause the d&h, which I know is not what is meant.
If the "they" was in fact as reference to general psychoactive substances, causing delusions and hallucinations would be the case, by definition.

Honest... I'm not being picky.

I certainly do have fairly strong feelings about drug usage, both legal and illegal. I don't recommend either. Thinking that cannabis is anything like as damaging a drug as alcohol is just unrealistic. I'd go so far as to say it is probably less damaging than caffeine (although I'd probably be on shaky ground there) (Oh dear - I seem to have make an obscure sort of pun - shaky/caffeine?).

Me - legalise cannabis, ban alcohol and nicotine.

Funny you should say that, but I am actually studying a prison population for my thesis. The data was already gathered by my supervisor.



A little paranoia is healthy, providing it doesn't lead to pre-emptive action.




Increasing the effects, lau.



Marijuana adversely affecting delusions and hallucinations, that is, making them worse.



Bull.



I'd certainly ban nicotine. But personally, I wouldn't want to see anyone driving under the influence of marijuana, and the psychoactive levels, to my knowledge, are less quantified than alcohol, making any 'safe' level dubious.

As for the pun.....hur hur hur.....

You have a good point there.

I've certainly driven while (slightly) high, drunk and tired. I've given up doing any of the three. One is encouraged to think of them as impairments in the order given, but I rate them in the reverse order.

In terms of accident rates, I forget the details, but I know it's a huge proportion that are directly attributed to tiredness.

Next comes alcohol, with a significant, but not as high as people as made to believe, figure.

I'm not even sure I've seen a figure for cannabis, or indeed any recreational drug, accident rates. Naturally, an additional problem here is that it is difficult to detect drug use.

Personally, the only time I came close to a real accident was travelling a 70mph while tired (eyes closed - all by themselves - opened, and I had drifted across lanes, with luckily no one else around. I was sensible enough to stop).

In the course of trying to find any hard figures, I was somewhat surprised by:

Percentage share of people who have used cannabis:
#1 New Zealand: 22.23%
#2 Australia: 17.93%
#3 United States: 12.3%
#4 United Kingdom: 9%
#5 Switzerland: 8.5%
#6 Ireland: 7.91%
...
#25 Sweden: 0.98%
#26 Japan: 0.05% (?)

Standard mandatory disclaimer: I'm not giving advice, recommendations, suggestions, encouragement, etc. My experiences are not to be taken as indicative of how anyone will experience things. Now that that's out of the way...

When I was still smoking, people wouldn't get in my car if I hadn't recently smoked. A couple of times, people actually asked me if I hadn't smoked recently if they were riding in my car, and if I said "no," they would indicate that they had figured as much, from how I was driving.

I used to be a bit more erratic of a driver, and some light smoking made me, for one, a lot more interested in the traffic laws. It also caused me to be more aware of other vehicles on the road, because I didn't want to hit any of them, or be hit by any of them. Pretty much all of that stereotypical paranoia focused on all the bad things that might happen while driving, causing me to drive in a way that would better prepare me if any of it might happen. Would I still do it these days? No, I haven't smoked marijuana in several months, and I don't have the slightest interest in the stuff anymore. Even less interested in smoking and then driving.

Tiredness, 18-19 hour drives from college to my parents' house on holidays were always a pain. By the end of it, I had to chain-smoke, alternate cold and hot from the air vents, and drink energy drinks like my life depended on it. Probably not the wisest choice, and certainly more dangerous than driving after smoking a bit.

Alcohol, just not worth it.

I'm not sure I'd really want to put them in any sort of order, because all of them really depend on how much of _____ you have had, or are. A glass of wine and a bottle of wine are going to be quite different, just as a single drag off of a joint will differ from consecutive bong rips, or missing a little sleep compared to being awake for 24+ hours.

As for the drugs / prescriptions deal

Experiences, with some level of detail past "DRUGS RULE!" or "DRUGS ARE BAD," or "This medication is perfect!" (or horrible,) might be a benefit. Any encouragement to use a drug, prescription or illicit, irresponsible to give to another member. If anything, even if the actions or opinions of someone's doctor seem questionable, or worse, best to suggest a second professional opinion.

Last edited by shadexiii on 27 Nov 2007, 11:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

I think the closing words from shade hit it well (even moreso before he edited it). Discussion about Drugs should be the main subject, although recommendation and going "Hai guyz try out theeze new drug i am using!!!1!!11!! !" or posting obscure methods and 'Things to do when all drugged up' should be greatly discouraged unless you're a well established member, or something like that(that stuff belongs on other, more freeform forums).

Never could get it to sound the way I liked. Kept hoping I'd have more time to work on it before someone else posted.

That (the stuff I put in bold) I don't fully agree with. It doesn't matter how long someone's been here, the only "good" advice to give on drugs would be to learn as much as possible before making a decision, and if you aren't 100% confident in your decision, go with not taking the drug rather than taking it. You can always change your mind later, but you can't un-take something. If someone really wants to find out how to find / use / make a specific drug, there's always google, and if they cannot find the information, they likely shouldn't even be considering the substance.

If anything, I guess the best way to put what I've been trying to get at is that, in terms of drugs and drug use, best to discuss the past rather than the future.

For medications, the best (though not always easiest) advice to give would be to talk more with their doctor, or, if that doctor doesn't seem to be right for the job, talking with another doctor.

If someone asks about how a medication should be taken, that sort of thing, if you've taken the medication yourself it is understandable that you would want to offer what you know of it, but even that, safest to add on "but still check with your doctor to make sure."