The Independent on Sunday has opted out of its 1997 decriminalize cannabis support campaign on account of new findings on “super strength skunk” that show a correlation between cannabis use and psychosis and schizophrenia. The IoS denounces that today’s availability and strength of the new drug variety is proportionately higher than 10 or 20 years ago. Assuming that cannabis is a causal factor for schizophrenia, Hickman and colleagues argue (Journal Addiction) that there will be an increase in the number of this mental illness if we let prevalence and incidence of cannabis use increase over time.
From a sociological point of view, if we take into account the flow and stock data Hickman’s thought experiment is based on, this increase of schizophrenia in the population groups is the most likely outcome, but here we should not forget the model is also based on assumptions. So far, the medical statement has not been faced yet with a situation where cannabis has been the cause of permanent brain damage or incurable schizophrenia, so it is rather difficult to say whether an increase in prevalence and incidence to new super strength skunk will necessarily mean an increase of incurable mental health problems.
Regarding the study of human flows or social sciences in general it is rather difficult to point out causal links. Association between variables does not necessarily mean some of them must be the cause or have a knock-on effect upon the rest. Other difficulty to pinpoint casual links shows its ugly face when not all the relevant variables are included in the sociological model. There seems to be a correlation between cannabis and the surge of violent crime but so far we have not a relevant study yet on cannabis resin use, as a likely variable operating on its own, and the incidence of violent crime.
Cambridge University Professor Peter Jones’ chart on cannabis use is withdrawal symptoms is rather surprising since an explanatory reduction to chemical compounds and the activity of the brain has not been possible yet in this sense. Even if we concede Professor Jones the occurrence of these variables, the account is still problematic as it cannot include those cases where withdrawal from this substance did not show withdrawal symptoms at all. In the Lancet report, cannabis appears as the third less addictive substance, only surpassed by steroids and LSD (1st and 2nd less addictive substances respectively).
Due to the chemical properties of THC, one of cannabis’ main active ingredients, since it remains in the body after a month of its ingestion, UN representative Antonio Maria Costa’s claim that users should be treated as those arrested for driving under the influence might seem to have some support. If not as dangerous as alcohol is, driving after its use is still just as problematic as driving while speaking on the phone. The medical establishment is aware of cases where studying or other tasks that require concentration have been achieved under the influence of cannabis resin, but there’s also an increment in the amount of time needed to fulfill those tasks as distraction and other factors are very likely to lead users away from it every now and again. This does not necessarily mean “distraction”, as a consequence of cannabis use, is a permanent damage difficult to avoid once it settles in since withdrawal from it always improves concentration levels, but it does underline the fact that laziness and apathy are always important factors that break in when users recur to it.
Even though THC lacks a nitrogen atom in its molecule it can be safely included in those psychotropic compounds’ list that build up upon benzene or indolic rings if we take on board the effect upon the body. The schizoid episodes to be found in cannabis users are of a lesser importance and intensity than those commonly associated with substances such as LSD but this can be explained just recurring to the way this substance breaks in into the body. An ingestion of cannabis resin, instead of its usual use in water pipes or rollups, would put users certainly closer to those psychotic episodes so characteristic, for instance, in indolic compounds. However, any psychiatrist or psychologist worth its salt knows how easy it is to get rid of these symptoms with proper psychological help in case there were not a latent physiological predisposition to develop schizophrenia or psychosis prior to cannabis use. And once the problem has been sorted, it is very unlikely users will go back to previous stages or positions.
Here it seems sensible to underline the importance of proper technical vocabulary to better give account for these social phenomena. There is of course a margin in everything to defend ones’ personal preferences or inclinations, but the data we draw our conclusions from must be accurate. The IoS states that super strength variety skunk is 10 times stronger than cannabis resin (25 for The Daily Mail, 19th March 2007), but this datum is not accurate at all. Cannabis resin is far stronger than cannabis itself since “resin” is one of cannabis’ by products. Even the oily stuff of regular plants will still yield the highest concentrations of THC as plant and resin work out on a ratio of 100kgms/1grm. Super strength skunk can only be stronger than cannabis resin if the latter means “adulterated resin”, which is still available today. The new variety of the plant’s higher concentration levels can be seen here as the user’s ultimate attempt to avoid cheat and provide with a better product for himself in a world dominated by gangs and criminal mafias. Super strength skunk seems to sell well because there is a social demand for it.
Correlations between higher concentrations of THC and addiction, even if these variables seem to go hand in hand, should not lead us to think there is a casual link between them. “Cannabis addiction” is a sociological term and it should not be used in medical explanations if its use beguiles readers into thinking there are physical and physiological factors that can give account for addiction itself in this sense. It is obvious social activities such as biting your fingers or gamming on line can be treated as addictions as well-and surely there are endogenous chemical compounds and molecules that must be involved in them (perhaps as a source of dopamine or other endorphins)-but all of these cases always present readers with weak individuals and soft characters, which exemplify extremes that cannot be helped or prevented with proper medical care.
2007-04-15
10:55:52
·
17 answers
·
asked by
george
3