7 ms·
Large study finds link between cannabis use in teens and psychosis later
- moi2388 7mo agoWhat a strange study. Only less than 1% even developed these conditions. They excluded people with a mental health diagnosis, and their data for already having symptoms was having a diagnosis? Why do they assume this shows marihuana causes mental disorders, as opposed to being undiagnosed whilst already showing symptoms leads to self medication, for example? I’m sorry, but most psychology research is just so incredibly badly done.
- gtsop 7mo ago[dead]
- kjkjadksj 7mo agoThe experiment to get to the root of this is forbidden. They’d have to perform double blind (kind of a fools errand when being high is so obvious) experiment where they gave matched patients and controls either weed or placebo. Then they’d measure effects long term with enough of a sample size to overpower latent factors. But this study will never be approved for obvious reasons so we will never know one way or another.
- mrguyorama 7mo agoScience has to start somewhere. Actually proving a causation is hard and expensive and usually needs to be very targeted. You need these kind of feeler studies to find promising links to target for further research. This is why science is so much about standing on the shoulders of giants. It is wrong for journalists to report these low rigor, survey studies as the meaningful results they always seem to report, but for some reason Women's Health can keep saying "Chocolate causes cancer actually chocolate cures cancer actually chocolate has no effect on cancer actually...." for decades and people don't stop buying it and instead insist that the scientists are the ones lying
- ndr42 7mo ago"But by excluding teens who were already showing mental health symptoms, the new study points to a potential causal link between cannabis use and later mental health diagnoses. Additional research is needed to understand the link fully." Hm, but this does not exclude the possibility that the being prone to mental illness comes with a little bit higher tendency to consume cannabis...
- vforgione 7mo agoWhen I read this article the other day I had the exact same thought. Is this simply correlation, or is it causation? Is teenage usage an indicator of a possible underlying condition that hasn’t fully manifest? Is it an early form of self medication?
- M95D 7mo agoAnd the only way to tell is to randomly split teenagers into two groups: cannabis vs. control. But no parent would give consent, so we will never know.
- ctrl-j 7mo agoSimilarly, cigarettes also have a very strong correlation with schizophrenia. Completely non-causal, but it's hard to find a non-hospitalized schizophrenic who does not smoke.
- joquarky 7mo agoLet's not forget that many mental health "disorders" are just elaborate labels for having difficulty conforming to arbitrary cultural expectations.
- roughly 7mo agoUnless you blind this, I’m not sure it’s possible to get past the correlation or causation problem. Weed use is not yet so destigmatized for teens that usage itself is not a marker of deviance (in the math sense, not any kind of judgement).
- H8crilA 7mo agoI used to read forums for schizophrenics (self disorders fascinate me, look the term up if you want to understand schizophrenia), and it was the consensus there that out of all the recreational drugs cannabis caused the greatest deterioration in one's mental state. Those are generally fairly sick people, but I don't think one can just ignore this signal. I personally went catatonic once after consumption, and I'm not schizophrenic at all. And that was in Amsterdam, so it wasn't some trash spiced up by a 17-years old dealer with whatever he found in his grandma's medical cabinet.
- galleywest200 7mo ago> it was the consensus there that out of all the recreational drugs cannabis caused the greatest deterioration in one's mental state Methamphetamine and PCP might take issue with this statement.
- selectodude 7mo agoProblem with recreational marijuana is that it’s so insanely strong. It would be like giving a child 190 proof azeotropic grain alcohol and being shocked that they immediately vomit. I can’t smoke pot - it’s just too strong. I’ll admit to feeling a bit dumber and foggier after a few weeks of ingesting cannabis nightly though. That’s a real thing.
- something765478 7mo agoI've heard that the reason why marijuana is so strong is because it was illegal. The sellers wanted to have stronger weed to make it easier to transport; much like how during prohibition, people would prefer to import distilled alcohol, instead of beer.
- akramachamarei 7mo agoSame logic applies to explain the popularity of fentanyl.
- ProjectArcturis 7mo ago
- gtsop 7mo ago[dead]
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- smokel 7mo agoThe NPR article seems to confuse causation and correlation. The actual paper doesn't, and merely implies correlation. Which is fascinating (and well-known) and might still prove useful in one way or another. [1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama-health-forum/fullarticle/2845356 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama-health-forum/fullartic...
- anjel 7mo agoThe correlation used to cite heavy (daily repeated administration across the day; what the kids call "the chronic.") But now its just any degree of use. I should add that I happen to know of more than one heavy user who subsequently progressed to Schizophrenia or bipolar disorders so I don't personally doubt the cause and effect. But this blanket correlation seems to me to be overbroad.
- AngryData 7mo agoMarijuana certainly doesn't cause bipolar disorder, but it definitely can affect or potentially induce a manic state. Of course bipolar people are already known to self medicate heavily and use a lot more drugs in general, and drugs are not the only way for them to self induce mania.
- everdrive 7mo agoMarijuana legalization arguments were my first introduction to motivated reasoning. I was pretty inclined to agree that locking up non-violent drug offenders was a net-harm to society. But, the pro-legalization folks would argue patently crazy things: it cures cancer, the smoke isn't bad for you at all, there are no downsides! etc. It seemed obvious to me that you could make a more realistic argument and just stick to an argument which states that due to drunk driving and domestic abuse, marijuana is less harmful overall than alcohol, but is treated as more dangerous. (and yes, the other side was a bit crazy too. "When you buy weed you're supporting the same terrorism that happened on 9/11") Later research (such as this) has suggested a link between marijuana and psychosis, however the actual risk factors do seem difficult to nail down. (however, this is still a far cry from the claim that it's totally harmless) What I ultimately learned is that in a pitched political battle, people actually damage their credibility because they're afraid to cede _any_ ground to the opposition, even when that means making unrealistic claims. A centrist (or just someone who is undecided) is not really taken in as much by these extremist argument, and to their eyes it damages the credibility of one or both sides.
- leptons 7mo ago>But, the pro-legalization folks would argue patently crazy things: it cures cancer, the smoke isn't bad for you at all, there are no downsides! etc. Using the most anecdotally crazy people you met to suggest that the pro-legalization movement is crazy, is frankly, crazy. I'm very involved in legalization and I don't know anyone that is for legalization that thinks any of those things, never even heard anyone say such garbage. I think you may be cherry-picking the crazy here.
- bluGill 7mo agoI know that I too say and heard those arguments a lot. You do yourside a disservice by claiming it doesn't exist
- andrewflnr 7mo agoGood thing they didn't claim any such thing, then.
- jimnotgym 7mo agoAs well as the correlation/causation problem... From what I hear, cannabis on sale today is rather stronger than when I was young. That sounds bad to me. Curiously I see this as a pro-legalization arguement, if it were available in a shop I could select a mild flavour, rather than the skunk that the criminals grew, and is all that is on offer
- zug_zug 7mo agoI've heard that too but if you go to any dispensary you can get a gummy with an exact dosage of THC and CBD on the label. It's actually a much superior system now to backchannel dried flower.
- interestpiqued 7mo agoYeah but it’s hard to even find a 5mg these days. Most are 10 or 20 by me. Edibles aren’t immune from the increase in dosage. Edit: also these aren’t pharma companies. It may have gotten better but I think manufacturing consistency isn’t good either. Highest I’ve ever been was from a single “2.5 mg”
- direwolf20 7mo agoWhy not cut it in half?
- zug_zug 7mo agoYeah that's what I do and it works great for me
- interestpiqued 7mo agoYou can also smoke less. But doesn’t change the fact all weed products are increasing in concentration/amount
- aaomidi 7mo agoAnd in states like NY, 5mg is standard.
- dash2 7mo agoI’m in two minds about this, on the one hand I spent a week with acute psychosis after smoking weed when I was a teenager, so I really think people have to be more aware of the risks. On the other hand, I think it’s clear that this is not a perfect research design, and there are obvious possible confounds. What about legalisation as a natural experiment? Has anyone done diff-in-diffs of US states and simply looked at eg mental health diagnoses or hospital admissions?
- rdtsc 7mo agoFor what's it worth for an N=1 study I watched a relative's young family fall apart because of cannabis induced psychosis. They had two young kids, husband was smoking pot recreationally (not sure how long he was doing that) but at some point he started hearing aliens talking to him from the cracks in the wall. Naturally you can't just keep doing all the regular life and family stuff when you have more pressing issues like visitors from out of space in the walls talking about attacking earth. I am not saying anyone should or should not use these substances, but that was enough of a lesson for me to know never to touch that stuff.
- varispeed 7mo agoThere is no established causal link between the two. Cannabis is so ubiquitous that it is often the case that people with underlying psychiatric problems find it calms them and then blame cannabis for it if they get worse, because that's saving face in a twisted way. Link is not the same as "it causes it".
- rdtsc 7mo agoGood point, you may very well be right. But seeing how that tragedy unfolded was enough to convince me at least to never consider it, just in case there is a causal effect.
- pfannkuchen 7mo agoIn my subjective experience cannabis does tend to nudge some part of the brain into edit mode. What happens afterwords depends on the person. For me it upended a lot of my alignment with the contemporary consensus morality. Before marijuana I had a sense that the morality wasn’t actually well foundationed, or at least it was equivalent to a religion in that respect, but my mind seemed to avoid thinking about it too much. With marijuana my mind freely went there, and I think a lot of my prior beliefs about the world and social systems ended up being altered. I haven’t ended up with any diagnosed conditions, but it is inconvenient to have beliefs that are quite different from the societal default, even though in my case I do believe that my way of seeing morality is significantly more accurate on a technical basis than the consensus view. And I suspect this wouldn’t have happened without any marijuana. I can definitely see how someone with a less analytically oriented mindset could end up going off in weird directions and writing that as a legitimate belief while in edit mode. We definitely need studies to properly characterize what exactly this edit mode is, but I am not too skeptical about there being some kind of causal link between marijuana and going off the rails mentally, in some individuals and in some environmental conditions.
- zug_zug 7mo agoSo just for context "Based on data from 2023–2025, approximately 15% to 17% of American adults currently consume cannabis." - Gallup So though this may be technically true in some sense, it should also be understood that if cannabis had any major immediate drastic effects we would have noticed them decades ago. Perhaps weed, like alcohol, needs a legal minimum age of 21.
- intrasight 7mo ago> major immediate drastic effects Very few things in life pass that test, which is why we have research studies
- zug_zug 7mo agoRight we have studies, and they are 30 page documents that only academics read, and so they get poorly summarized by articles that try to make them sound more noteworthy than they are. Usually by saying "X linked to Y" without establishing causality or even if that link is a significant risk (is it a .1% increase in risk?) When it's a drug more than 10% of the US population uses, we can immediately say the risk increase can't really be that big or we'd have noticed it by now. Edit: after looking at the paper, it looks like among the weed group the prevalence is roughly twice as high -- so instead of 1/100 having psychotic issue it'd be 2/100... and again for people who used when they were 13-17 year olds, which is underage in every state. So you could frame that as doubling the risk OMG, or a 1 percentage point increase in risk, or it could all just be self-medicating, we really don't know much. Probably still safer than alcohol.
- intrasight 7mo ago> Probably still safer than alcohol I think it really depends upon how it's consumed
- in-silico 7mo ago> Perhaps weed, like alcohol, needs a legal minimum age of 21. Generally, it already does have a legal minimum age of 21.
- avoutos 7mo agoNot a skeptic, but I've seen these studies for a while. Do we have any idea what the mechanism could be?
- mentalgear 7mo agoSince when does NPR use generic buzzy words like "huge" in their title ?
- Animats 7mo agoFrom the article: "Teens who reported using cannabis had twice the risk of developing two serious mental illnesses: bipolar, which manifests as alternating episodes of depression and mania, and psychotic disorders, such as schizophrenia which involve a break with reality." That 2X factor is big. If it was something like 10% - 20%, it might be noise or some other factor, but that big a number is real.
- agentifysh 7mo agoI always see whenever a study mentions risks of cannabis, it's always met with "it only happens to those with innate tendencies" but then I ask them do they even understand what those effects are? Do we understand what schizophrenia and psychosis is, it's exact mechanisms? Western medicine can't even explain any of these ailments, where it comes from, how it happens, what triggers it but so many cannabis users shield and attack any new research or study that questions the risks of cannabis for the young. If it truly is harmless then are those same people suggesting that they light up a joint with their children ? Doctors hand out edibles when they catch a cold or can't sleep? While I do think there are deeply helpful properties of cannabis we are still early, new research is only beginning to come out as it gets scrutiny. It took us many decades to learn the harmful effects of tobacco while for a long time everybody just shrugged it off as conspiracy. It took heavy lobbying from those that stood to gain most to delay the truth of the product they were selling and a lot more political will from the other side to warn the public. Right now what worries me is the marriage of profiteering and political ideology that have neutralized the similar movement that existed around tobacco and alcohol in the Western hemisphere. Many see money to be made or their political statement that they will defend vigorously. The real risks that I see is raising the THC % content to extreme levels for chronic users who built a large tolerance through long term habitual use and claim they aren't addicted, proliferation of white/grey dispensaries that make it even more accessible to the young. This really needs to be addressed when we don't even understand the mechanisms or can reliably explain the after effects of those risks coming to fruition.
- cess11 7mo ago4000 out of 460000, that's about 0.8% or so? At the face of it, it doesn't seem a lot higher than the 3% lifetime risk of psychosis and whatever it is for bipolar disorder. To me it doesn't seem like they control much for confounding factors, or the possibility that young people who might develop psychiatric illness could also be more drug seeking or irresponsible in their drug use.
- extr 7mo agoPart of the issue with legal weed is it's much like if all alcohol was sold as minorly different varieties of Everclear at 150+ ABV, and brands primary boast was just how potent and alcoholic their mix is. It doesn't encourage appropriate usage and IIRC many of these cases of psychosis are from consuming high THC products 24/7 for weeks/months/years on end. If anyone is curious, check out brands like Rove, Dompen, Care By Design, which offer THC pens at very low dosage. They're frustratingly undermarketed and understocked, but as a CA resident I buy and use pens that are ~4% THC (rather than 90%+). A single puff occasionally after the kids go to sleep - the effect is marginally psychoactive, scratches the itch for "relaxation without impairment", helps me sleep restfully. Completely different experience to high THC products. If you compare the literal amount of THC consumed, it's an almost 20x reduction. It's literally the equivalent to having a half glass of wine instead of lining up 10 shots.
- bubblewand 7mo agoI use gummies, ~4-5mg THC (ideally with some of the other TH- chemicals in it), deliberately kept my tolerance low so it doesn’t get more expensive (and I almost only use it for sleep, purely “fun” use is maybe a couple days a year). Take in the evening, start an MST3K episode about an hour later, really enjoy the back half of it, go to bed and fall asleep instantly, wake up feeling like a million bucks. Perfect evening.
- tuesdaynight 7mo agoI see a lot of people using weed for better sleep, but isn't weed supposed to interfere with REM states? I thought that weed would have the opposite effect that you say. Do you dream if you use weed before bed?
- bubblewand 7mo agoIt’s a pretty low dose, doesn’t exactly send me into space—heavy users might need 10x or more that dose to even feel it—just enough to make my brain shut up so I can fall asleep. I think a lot of folks who have a bad time when they try it start at far too high a dose (I wouldn’t even start at 5mg, maybe shoot for like 2), I also don’t much enjoy being properly high, anything past what you’d call a heavyish buzz I find unpleasant (and my standard nighttime dose doesn’t even quite get me to the heavier end of a buzz, that’s more the 7-10mg range for me, though I’d caution that some gummies seem more potent and some nominal-5s do get me closer to that than others) I dunno about sleep quality effects, but it’s definitely better than even a couple beers (for me, these days) and it’s way better than lying awake until 3am… for the third night in a row. For most of the night it should be mostly worn-off, again, I’m not taking a ton and it takes longer to work through you in edible form than smoking, but we’re still talking less than half the night, especially as I usually time it so it hits just a little while before bed (I don’t want to get in bed without it having hit yet). I don’t remember having had dreams most nights anyway, so I don’t know about that. Even with some help I’m typically a bit under the low side of the amount of sleep I ought to be getting, over a week. Lucky if I break the eight-hour mark two days of the seven, usually in the 6.5-7.5 range the rest (I don’t take a gummy every single night, either, gotta keep that tolerance at bay). I think I dream (or, at least, remember it) more when I get the rare series of several days of 8+ hours, but I don’t track it so can’t say for sure, and yeah, no idea the effect of weed on that. I can vouch that at my dose level I get way better sleep than I did the one time I tried a prescription sleep aid, which was Lunesta. If I didn’t get a solid 9 hours on that I’d wake up feeling hung-over, weed doesn’t give me extra trouble like that if I fail to get a full 8+ hours. Hell, even a “good” night on lunesta didn’t leave me feeling awesome in the morning. Other downsides: it mixes worse with other things, had a glass of wine with dinner? Better think twice about the lunesta, at least according to the label. On some decongestant medicine (in addition to antibiotics) for a sinus infection, and the sinus infection is wrecking your ability to sleep so you could really use it? Might not be able to take it with the other stuff. Weed’s so much better for those cases especially, bump the dose slightly and nothing short of something that’s gonna hospitalize me will be able to keep me from sleeping, and it famously doesn’t interact badly with very many other drugs, so it removes the very worst thing about most common illnesses like that (for me, anyway) which is the extreme sleep disruption.
- observationist 7mo agoThey do not compare to the baseline population correctly. Roughly 1% of all people are susceptible to schizophrenia, and up to around 4% schizophrenia, extreme bipolar, and other conditions that can result in psychotic episodes or extreme outcomes. Drug use among vulnerable populations increases the risk of psychotic episodes, but does not increase the risk of developing those conditions. There is no difference in the rate of extreme psychological outcomes among drug users and non-drug users, and in fact, this study reinforces that observation - only 4,000 of 460,000 had those negative outcomes. Over the next 20 years, it's extrmeely likely that another 600-1000 will develop schizophrenia, even abstaining from drugs entirely. Drug use can trigger a psychotic episode and result in long term schizophrenia; by the time you turn 45, however, your odds of a schizophrenic break drop to almost 0. The worst part of drug use and mental health outcomes is that it can rob people of normal years of life, and rarely, result in schizophrenic or other psychotic conditions being triggered when they might never have been. However, this is not just marijuana or other illegal drugs, but alcohol, caffeine, trauma or intense stress, and even chronic health issues can have the same outcome. This study also fails to account for the confounding fact that people with mental health issues often pursue mind altering drugs in order to self medicate. People with bad conditions in life, especially younger, undergo extreme stress and are exposed to illicit substances much more readily than those in otherwise stable and healthy conditions. The results and methodology are flawed, and the conclusions being drawn have little to no relationship with reality. It comes down to susceptibility - genetics and health conditions play into this. Consult a doctor, and if you have risk factors, live your life accordingly. If you don't have risk factors for schizophrenia, drug use will not suddenly put you at risk of developing it. Marijuana or other recreational drug use will not cause you to have a psychotic episode. If you do have risk factors, then you're twice as likely to have an episode by using drugs or experiencing other triggers than otherwise. For those who are susceptible, your relative risk of psychotic episodes and mental breakdown double under mairjuana and other substance use. For those who are not susceptible, your absolute risk of psychotic episodes and mental breakdown remain near 0. Drugs don't induce these conditions (except in the case of extreme stimulant abuse, and possibly extreme psychedelics outcomes, although getting fried by psychedelics isn't really the same thing as psychosis. Lots of high function deadheads survived some truly harrowing levels of substance use and are best characterized as "weird".) It'd be nice if the media could distinguish between relative and absolute risk rates and communicate the difference effectively. It'd be even nicer if researchers and publishers didn't chase clickbaity results like this and mischaracterize things like relative and absolute risk for profit.
- MantisShrimp90 7mo agoI think this is a classic case of correlation does not imply causation. As someone that has known these people, and I does smoke as an adult, I would interpret that as people who are struggling with mental illness symptoms turn to weed as an outlet. Especially when we take it with the wider literature on drug abuse and mental illness any practitioner worth their salt knows mental illness makes drug abuse more likely and yes then the two affect one another which is why rehab is usually a big part of the hospitalization process. But what I don't want to see is more moral panic so we can renew the war on drugs which as always should really be the war on poverty and mental health issues.
- nyarlathotep_ 7mo agoIn my teens/20s, I would have advocated for legalization of marijuana and thought any argument against it was some antiquated, puritanical nonsense. In the decade+ since, there's no way I'd do so. I know three personal friends that are long time (allegedly not addicted) heavy marijuana users that all suffer from Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome to the extent that it's effected their daily lives substantially. Two of the aforementioned are roughly my age, and are half as bright as they were as teens. Neither of them can follow a train of thought particularly well and are difficult to hold conversations with. How much of this is attributable to how much more powerful "modern" strains (or whatever the geo-engineered differences are) is unknown, but I can't imagine it's not a factor. This is not the dopey "get stoned and play XBox and eat a whole pizza" stuff we had in the 00s. I'm sure there's plenty of counterexamples or something, but my perspective on this has completely changed, influenced by examples like this.
- ProjectArcturis 7mo agoDo you think their lives would be substantially better if they had been arrested and sentenced to lengthy prison terms? Alcohol can have a well-documented destructive effect on people's lives. Should it also be made illegal?
- handedness 7mo agoI don't know, but I think your comment would be substantially better without false dilemmas and manipulative appeals to emotion.
- tuesdaynight 7mo agoThey were both appealing to emotion, though.
- handedness 7mo agoArguably yes, arguably no. I don't know either of them and have never noticed comments by either until now, but it seems to me that one is speaking autobiographically, describing how their view changed after personal experience they detailed, while explicitly admitting the ultimate rational insufficiency of such a position, even stating there may be sufficient counterexamples to contradict their experience. If that's an appeal to emotion it's either a highly insidious or a pretty impotent one. It doesn't read either way to me, but in either case I'm content to give them the benefit of the doubt, based on the general tone of their comment. The other is simultaneously purely argumentative and fallacious in every regard, and lacks any evidence of even a shred of self-awareness, unlike its parent comment. It's shabby argumentative rhetoric lacking any insight or particular substance. There's a much better argument to be made from their viewpoint, but they didn't make anything resembling it. Their other comment in the thread is similar in tone and form. People expressing concerns about marijuana potency increasing over time were summarily 'refuted' as actually arguing for smoking more material to achieve the same high. It's very r/iamverysmart, and it also checks off another fallacy box. Like their other comment, there's a worthwhile point to be made there, but that wasn't it. Every useful argument has to acknowledge its own weakness (because every argument has one). One of them did, one of them didn't even attempt to. I care less about what particular positions people hold and a lot more about how they hold them. I'd rather read high-minded debate between people who've arrived at their opinions after grappling with contradiction, than pithy dismissals of worthwhile comments. And if one notes that I am guilty of the same, while fair, please consider that the comment to which I originally replied was far from worthwhile.
- treatsmokenjury 7mo agoHere's a study that somewhat contradicts this finding: "Study: Older Cannabis Users Have Larger Brains, Better Cognition" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46895950 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46895950 How to manage cognitive dissonance on this? How to avoid counterproductive black-and-white thinking? How to assess the relative strength of evidence of two or more scholarly articles about cannabis? What did they control for? Were they randomly assigned to treatment groups? Was it a triple-blind RCT: Randomized Controlled Trial? Which groups were masked? Does years of irrational persecution for cannabis compound to debilitating psychosis which indicates?