Article on the effects of THC vs. CBD

[Staurm]

My question for you, Staurm, is this: Where was anyone, here or anyplace else, attributing the blame for most insanity to cannabis? Certainly not in any of the links here or subsequent conversations. And certainly not in any external sources I've read, either. What the original BBC article and the research reported above said was that THC isolates given to those test groups at King's College and Yale University provoked increased rates of schizophrenia and/or delusional reactions, particularly in people who were prone to those problems to begin with. And the study at the University of Cologne reported that the other active ingredient in cannabis, CBD (cannabadiol), seemed to suppress those reactions in its test subjects. That's it.

Hmmm I finished that post off rather quickly so I didn't express myself entirely accurately. I am not saying anyone is saying that, only that one would think that considering the amount of propaganda being bandied around based on tenuous scientific evidence linking cannabis with schitzophrenia.

I'm possibly in agreement with this research, and yourself, but only in the context of the bigger picture. This article provides some evidence to suggest that the reason, one of the reasons - diet and circumstances being two other important factors - people develop mental illness from using cannabis is down to poor quality of cannabis available on the streets - a direct result of the prohibition laws. Unfortunately most people reading this will not come to the same conclusion as myself, being already brainwashed somewhat by the general concensus of opinion.

I'm also suggesting that perhaps some of these distressing mental side effects, paranoia and delusions, could also be considered part of the healing process, an important part that perhaps people ought to go through and try to understand so that they can become more at one with themselves and the universe. It's medicine from a holistic, shamanic perspective, one that has parallels new and old. I not in any way suggesting that this new age old age treatment can work on everyone though, but certainly that it ought to be given more credit by the medical institutions.

I have experienced mild paranoia, delusions as a result of smoking cannabis in the past. But now I have a firm hold on it, I am an experienced smoker, and I understand myself and the universe better for it and I am more at peace with myself. I beleive that cannabis helped me go through a bad phase in my life, and possibly without it I might now be clinically depressed.

I'm possibly suggesting here that people who develop paranoia and delusions from smoking it may already be incubating deep mental issue within them that may or may not surface at some later time in their life anyway, possibly in a more ugly form. These issues ought to be addressed sooner rather than later, and to deny people the right to nurture their madness, something I beleive to be an important process of life and evolution, is more harmful than just allowing people the freedom to experiment with cannabis, self medicate, even if it does not work out for them in the long run it's better for society.

[GraziLovesMary]

Sooo... I just read all of these posts and THEN read the original BBC article. Nothing but suppositions, probabilities, assumed data, and claims with no reference to original data. Its the biggest load of bullocks Ive read today, congrats to the UK for being even more propogandist than the US.

However, he said: "If something has an active effect in inducing the symptoms of psychosis after one dose, then it would not be at all surprising if repeated use induced the chronic condition."

Well, professor Robin Murray... what a bold conclusion. This testing wouldnt possibly, by any chance, be funded by your government would it? Are you sure there is no bias here???? Government data is the least reliable of all. It is always motivated by its own means and ends, and will justify either of them any way it can. I understand this is run by a college, but... that rarely means anything at all. I want to see some raw data, some real test results.

They gave THC and CBD in pill form separately?? Cannabinidiol has been shown to have little to no effect if administered without THC. Even though they both attach to the CB2 receptors, the psychoactive properties of CBD which is to say, the body high, arent felt unless taken with THC as well. Many of the medical effects can still be beneficial without THC, but they arent going to achieve any accurate psychoactive predictions when taken separately.

This is why these tests all have the same results. They are designed and carried out by people who dont really have a clue what they are looking for. They are just trying to make an obscure connection, and simply look 30 years in the past and copy the format of all the drug testing they were doing then. They administered THC intraveneously???? Yeah I wonder why those first time users were feelin psychotic...

Back to the CBD, the researchers mentioned that since THC and CBD compete with each other biochemically (refering to the fact that they both attach to the CB2 receptors, one of the most populous receptors in our body), they cancel each other out. Not true. In fact, when they work in tandem, they magnify the effects of the other.

Heres another good laugh... going back to good ol Murphy..

Professor Robin Murray, a consultant psychiatrist at the Institute of Psychiatry, said the research provided the strongest evidence that cannabis had a significant impact on the brain.

He said proving a long-term effect was extremely difficult, as it was not ethical or feasible to stimulate long-term psychosis in volunteers.

However, he said: "If something has an active effect in inducing the symptoms of psychosis after one dose, then it would not be at all surprising if repeated use induced the chronic condition."

Ahh ok, lets completely violate the scientific process and make a long-term, essentially groundless, assumption based upon very short-term data.

Marjorie Wallace, of the mental health charity Sane, called the research a "significant contribution" to the understanding of the dangers of cannabis.

"Sane has been saying for years that there is a link between psychosis and the drug, particularly in its more potent forms.

"We strongly urge the government to heed the growing evidence and take urgent action to warn young people that some of them are risking lifelong mental illness - that they are playing Russian roulette with their minds."

Hey... lets add salt to the wound by making a very bold statement based upon a groundless assumption.

This shit makes me sick.

[Staurm]

Interesting and informative post.

I tell what made me sick the other day when I read it, the indepedent newspaper this year angered many people by apologising and retracting its stance on the legalisation of cannabis, after campaigning for many years.

Guess I'll just stick to the Guardian from now on.

[GraziLovesMary]

Thats a damn shame and Im sorry to hear that. It shows that they were most likely on a bandwagon in the first place, they just decided to switch to a more popular one when they came to a crossroads.

Have no fear though... when I rule the world, marijuana will be very legal.

[Staurm]

We already rule the world dude, our own world. I don't know why the independent back tracked, I only just read about it. I can only imagine it's because they were a bunch of clowns all along. Maybe it was a right wing conspiracy from the start. What better a platform to argue their case than a left wing newspaper. Its not unknown for them to use tactics like this.

[Delta9 UK]

We already rule the world dude, our own world. I don't know why the independent back tracked, I only just read about it. I can only imagine it's because they were a bunch of clowns all along. Maybe it was a right wing conspiracy from the start. What better a platform to argue their case than a left wing newspaper. Its not unknown for them to use tactics like this.

Meh, even if it's true - they would just call you paranoid

After all these years, with prohibition making big bank (prisons, police etc) and the government telling you it was 'evil on a stick' - they can't back-track now.

It's getting silly though in the UK with the press - it's almost as if they downed it to class "C" just so they could fucking demonize it some more.

@Birdgirl ~ I think you are totally right - we are more bitching about the press in the UK and the way these stories are handled, it's almost bizarre how one day - "Weed safer than alcohol - 120 year old Indian blunt smoker is proof" turns right into "Weed is 30x stronger than 1970's - 1 puff and you have Parkinsons"

I jest (somewhat) but we really do have headlines just like those

These idiots are giving mixed messages to impressionable people (no offence kids but - that's you) who will pretty much just stop beleiving the drivel their "media" feeds them as "news". With all this information / disinformation / opinion / lies - who knows what to beleive?

The end result - the british smoker rolls another soap-bar joint and smokes away ignorant of the whole shambling bloody wreck.

Prohibition sucks - but the media blows.

[GraziLovesMary]

We already rule the world dude, our own world.

See... Im all about the metaphorical ruling of our own world and everything... but when I say "rule the world" I mean: "Sit in a position of ultimate and supreme power over all of humanity, both earthbound and spacebound."

The only reason I feel it is necissary to go to such an extreme as far as influencing our species and our planet, is because humanity is lost. That is not to say every human being is equally as lost because trust me... that isnt the case. But even the most enlightened humans on this planet are still lost... we cannot know the truth yet, in our primitive state, but we can head in the right direction. Currently, this is not happening. A small minority heads towards the truth while the overwhelmingly vast majority pulls the rest of us in the wrong direction.

It is time to put a stop to this madness, and I have a plan. It will take years of planning before it can even be executed, and from the beginning of execution, til the day of reckoning will be many more years. But the plan is foolproof. And I will most definitely rule the world. But only to encourage and promote change towards a better future for the sake of preservation of our species.

[CannabisCrooz]

the fact that that the article is using extremely exagerated and false statements to make weed seem bad and dangerous makes me think the article is being written with a purpose, to make people think cannabis is dangerous. so why should i trust it


"Professor Murray also warned that the high potency cannabis now widely available weaker formulations of previowas likely to pose a much bigger risk to health than the significantly us years.
'It is similar to comparing the effect of drinking a glass of wine at the weekend with drinking a bottle of vodka every day.' "

thats enough to let me know these people either don't know what their talking about or their trying to get people more scared than they should be. sure cannabis may have some negative side affects but saying things like this just totally ruins the whole study for me, i know ^thats^ bullshit so why should i believe any of the rest of this crap. when an honest unbiased study comes out I will definately listen.

"Even at relatively low doses, they found 50% of healthy volunteers began to show symptoms of psychosis."
honestly it may fit the medical description of psychosis but i really get the feeling there trying to throw words like psychosis in there to scare people.

"Thousands are thought to be dependent on cannabis"
Small things like this in the article really just make me doubt its truth. There throwing an extremely negative light onto weed and its obvious (to me) their trying to make it seem as bad as possible to make there results seem as relevant as possible.


I read the article but did it anywhere give solid proof of long term damage, what it seemed like they were doing is
1) get someone high and record lower brain activity (expected since there fucking high)
2) and than from there assume that the lowered brain activity is permanent?

as one of my old teachers said "you cant polish shit and make it look nice"
this all seems to me like they didnt get any conclusive results but there trying to make it seem like a worthwhile discovery. I've never been told how cannabis effects the brain but when i read (in this article) it lowers brain activity in a part of the brain that controls inappropriate thoughts like paranoia i wasnt suprised at all, was anyone?
I didn't see any conclusive results about long term lowered brain activity, and that seems like it would be the most important discovery, something they would definately want to show off. but rather they just assumed it has long term affects?

this article didnt seem to give a solid answer so does anyone know if these tests actually showed conclusive results about long term brain affects?

i dunno i'm high and was high when i read it so i may be totally wrong and my long shpeel may be ridiculous hippy jibberish :hippy:
have fun

[GraziLovesMary]

the fact that that the article is using extremely exagerated and false statements to make weed seem bad and dangerous makes me think the article is being written with a purpose, to make people think cannabis is dangerous. so why should i trust it


"Professor Murray also warned that the high potency cannabis now widely available weaker formulations of previowas likely to pose a much bigger risk to health than the significantly us years.
'It is similar to comparing the effect of drinking a glass of wine at the weekend with drinking a bottle of vodka every day.' "

thats enough to let me know these people either don't know what their talking about or their trying to get people more scared than they should be. sure cannabis may have some negative side affects but saying things like this just totally ruins the whole study for me, i know ^thats^ bullshit so why should i believe any of the rest of this crap. when an honest unbiased study comes out I will definately listen.

"Even at relatively low doses, they found 50% of healthy volunteers began to show symptoms of psychosis."
honestly it may fit the medical description of psychosis but i really get the feeling there trying to throw words like psychosis in there to scare people.

"Thousands are thought to be dependent on cannabis"
Small things like this in the article really just make me doubt its truth. There throwing an extremely negative light onto weed and its obvious (to me) their trying to make it seem as bad as possible to make there results seem as relevant as possible.


I read the article but did it anywhere give solid proof of long term damage, what it seemed like they were doing is
1) get someone high and record lower brain activity (expected since there fucking high)
2) and than from there assume that the lowered brain activity is permanent?

as one of my old teachers said "you cant polish shit and make it look nice"
this all seems to me like they didnt get any conclusive results but there trying to make it seem like a worthwhile discovery. I've never been told how cannabis effects the brain but when i read (in this article) it lowers brain activity in a part of the brain that controls inappropriate thoughts like paranoia i wasnt suprised at all, was anyone?
I didn't see any conclusive results about long term lowered brain activity, and that seems like it would be the most important discovery, something they would definately want to show off. but rather they just assumed it has long term affects?

this article didnt seem to give a solid answer so does anyone know if these tests actually showed conclusive results about long term brain affects?

i dunno i'm high and was high when i read it so i may be totally wrong and my long shpeel may be ridiculous hippy jibberish :hippy:
have fun

lol no you are absolutely correct as I and others before me in this thread have stated. In more or less words, and while using "their" and "there" in place of the correct form of "they're" you said the same thing we have all been saying so fear not, your stoned ramblings were true enough.

[mfqr]

Now here's what I think of this article. I think they are twisting the real evidence. When they say that it causes "psychosis after a dose," just think that anybody there would believe it means that it causes psychosis even after the dose has worn off. But it's not being specific at all. Do they mean that psychosis was apparent during the time that the person was high, or after the effects wore off? But like I said, most people who read this wouldn't think of that. I just think it's the way they worded it (on purpose) is a mind-trick. They know that everyone will think they mean it can cause permanent psychosis. I cannot say whether it does or not afterwards for anybody that I know, but I'm sure there are those few out there who have had psychotic episodes after smoking cannabis (see what I mean when I say that? what I mean is a long-term psychosis, not temporary (as in during the time that one is high). Ever hear things when high, and then you find out that nothing had caused the sound, because the sound is not real? Well, that's very mild psychosis, and I believe it to be part of the high sometimes (in the real trippy sativa strains). But then again, I don't believe it to be harmful, or permanent.

I hope I made sense, because I'm stoned right now. But I have thought of this when I have not been stoned before.