Registered user login:

An epidemic of cannabis use?

Raj Persaud

Published 03 September 2007

Dr Raj Persaud warns against the dangers of an epidemic of cannabis use - which he argues could have explosive effects on the nation's mental health

An enigma which frequently clouds the cannabis debate is - if it’s as dangerous as doctors and scientists claim - how come despite being possibly the most used illicit drug worldwide, the ill effects appear to affect so few?

For example surveys suggest that as many as one in four of those aged from the late teens to the early twenties in the UK admit to having smoked cannabis recently – yet the rate of schizophrenia remains relatively but stubbornly low in comparison – roughly one in a hundred.

Previously the debate over the dangers of cannabis had focused on other controversial areas such as how dependency inducing it was and what was the physical damage, but now psychiatrists in particular are concerned at the accumulating evidence cannabis produces devastating effects on mental health in the form of psychosis.

As far back as 2002 a large-scale study of more than 50,000 men conscripted into the Swedish army between 1969 and 1970 suggested that those who had used cannabis more than 50 times before the age of 18 years had an almost sevenfold increased risk of developing schizophrenia in later life. In a New Zealand study published at the same time, those who started cannabis use by age 15 years (but not those who started later) showed a fourfold increase in the risk of developing schizophrenia-like illness by age 26 years.

So one possible answer to the enigma of widespread use combined with apparently low incidence of mental health effects is that it could be the age at which you start smoking that is a crucial mediating factor. We know the adolescent brain is developing rapidly and could be particularly vulnerable to damage if psychoactive substances are imbibed during a ‘critical period’ or ‘window’ of brain development.

Another possible answer is that smoking cannabis if you are genetically predisposed to psychosis produces a very different mental health outcome compared to if you have a contrasting genetic template. The genes load the gun but it’s the cannabis which pulls the trigger. Given you don’t know your own genetic endowment (the blood test is only available at some specialist research centres including the Institute of Psychiatry in London), smoking cannabis is lot closer to playing Russian Roulette than many realise.

To summarise a wealth of data from all over the world: cannabis use, whatever your age of smoking, is associated with a general twofold increase in later schizophrenia, but adolescent-onset cannabis use is associated with a much higher risk.

Professor Robin Murray, from the Institute of Psychiatry, has recently attempted to simplify the statistics. In the most recent comprehensive review of the research he estimates that the elimination of cannabis use in the UK would reduce the incidence of schizophrenia by approximately 8 per cent.

That figure might dramatically change if cannabis use goes up, even more strikingly if it increases in the young. Ominously the number of cannabis users seeking treatment has doubled in the past 10 years in the UK.

Trends of cannabis use among adolescents indicate that use under the age of 16 years is a fairly new phenomenon that has appeared only since the early 1990s. One would therefore predict an increase in rates of schizophrenia in the general population over the next 10 years. Indeed, there is already some evidence that the incidence of schizophrenia is currently increasing in some areas of London, especially among young people, argues Professor Murray in his recent review.

But in a sense all the statistics or data in the world may make little difference to the cannabis debate for one key psychological reason – we have a natural human tendency to be poor at assessing risk when its presented to us in the form of numbers or data. Our brains are wired up much more to making decisions over risk in actual real world situations – we make assessments from our direct experience.

Few will directly experience psychosis either in themselves or others. Even those we are in daily contact with, friends and relatives, if they develop severe mental illness they may not advertise it. Part of the direct purpose of mental health services is to offer privacy and efficient treatment away from prying eyes – so the taboo surrounding the area conspires to ensure we are only dimly aware of the true mental health of our neighbours or colleagues.

The actual hazards of cannabis are therefore become difficult to engage with if we are using our direct experience particularly if that is of several acquaintances using the drug apparently without ill effect. Another intriguing social psychological effect comes into play here and that is our tendency to select our friends and acquaintances so that they in turn may assist us with choices we are already predisposed to take.

For example it was previously thought that peer pressure played a considerable role in determining which adolescents ended up taking drugs and which desisted successfully. Falling in with a ‘bad crowd’ could be fatal in this respect. Yet the latest research now suggests that actually the mechanism by which a drug abuse pathway in life is followed is more complicated than that. It turns out we appear to select our friends in a way that reflects our personality. So, for example, risk takers tend to choose other risk takers as friends, and it’s this interaction between them and our own predisposed personality, which results in the drug taking behaviour, amongst other outcomes.

So its not that we fall in with the wrong crowd – more that we choose the wrong crowd because at some level their choices appeal to us.

This has an important lesson for us – when we assess risk – as in say the cannabis debate – perhaps we should assess our social environment as well as its this direct experience – not the statistics – which will most influence us. Have we chosen to be surrounded by those whose own choices will merely reinforce our own?

Sometimes the best way to improve our decision-making is to actively seek out and experience those aspects of the debate we may tend to avoid because it may be inconvenient to our own accepted outlook. For this reason I just wish it was possible for more to experience my own ward at the Bethlem Royal and Maudsley NHS Hospitals Trust where cannabis abuse appears an epidemic and has lit a fuse the explosion from which, in the form of possibly dramatic higher rates of schizophrenia in the near future, could have massive fall out – affecting us all.

Dr Raj Persaud is Gresham Professor for Public Understanding of Psychiatry and Consultant Psychiatrist at The Maudsley Hospital in South London

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

6 comments from readers

Blatsby
03 September 2007 at 20:01

Second to alcohol, cannabis is said to be the most frequently misused substance among patients with schizophrenia.

In fact, even this statement is misleading. Nicotine is used by more schizophrenic people than either alcohol or cannabis.

I make this point because it's important that we approach the subject of reforming the cannabis laws in a rational manner.

Nobody is currently suggesting that alcohol is responsible for schizophrenia are they?

Professor Leslie Iverson, from the University of Oxford, said there was still no conclusive evidence that cannabis use causes psychotic illness. Yet there is conclusive evidence alcohol causes psychosis.

"Excessive alcohol use can cause temporary psychosis; chronic psychosis can result if the drinking is long-term."

http://www.merck.com/pubs/mmanual_ha/sec3/ch32/ch32d.html

"In the most serious cases an alcohol psychosis may develop. One of these psychoses is called delirium tremens, colloquially known as DT's. Initial symptoms include anxiety and insomnia, sometimes also withdrawal convulsions. As the patient's state deteriorates, his level of consciousness decreases, he becomes incoherent and loses the sense of time and place. He suffers from intense auditory, optical and tactile illusions as well as from delusions that feel very real to him. Restlessness, trembling and excessive activity of the sympathetic nervous system, e.g. sweating and palpitations, are also common. Many other conditions, like intracranial bleeding, may induce similar symptoms. "

http://www.paihdelinkki.fi/english/infobank/300_a_line/325e....

Professor David Nutt, head of psychopharmacology at the University of Bristol, said that cannabis was unquestionably harmful but very much less addictive or damaging than either alcohol or tobacco. All the studies have found is an association and it seems appropriate to warn members of the public about the possible risk; like smoking tobbacco for instance."

"The idea that reclassification upwards will do anything to reduce psychosis is naive and runs the risk of perversely inflicting even greater suffering - through increasing criminal sanctions - on vulnerable individuals already afflicted with mental illness."

"Their prediction that 14% of psychotic outcomes in young adults in the UK may be due to cannabis use is not supported by the fact that the incidence of schizophrenia has not shown any significant change in the past 30 years."

rob
03 September 2007 at 22:13

The idea of reclassifying cannabis is a disastrous idea and one which will not lower the amount of people using it. It will however imprison those who use it, brandishing them criminals when they are not more guilty of a crime than some one having a pint or smoking a cigarette to relax. These people are your son’s and daughters. People who work hard, pay for their choice of drug with their own money. Not money they have stolen off and old lady. People who cause no harm to others, unlike the abusive drunks who, whilst being loud and obnoxious, can be violent to.

I speak of someone who smoked cannabis for years in my youth, and while I was fully aware of its legal status, it never once stopped me smoking it. This was before it was downgraded to a class C drug and to reinstate it as a class B drug will act as no deterrent. Think I’m wrong? Consider how long cannabis has been illegal and think of how many people use it today. Despite whatever small risks are involved (and people please don’t believe what the daily mail tells you, these risks are so minute that there is more chance you will get hit by a car crossing the road stoned then get cannabis psychosis) people have a right to make a decision.

For me there is only 2 steps forward. Decriminalization or Full Legalization. Economically. Full legalization makes more sense to me. As anyone who has been keeping up to date on the cannabis debate will know; Skunk (the bud of a cannabis plant and the strongest form) is getting stronger and hashish (or resin as it is sometimes referred to) is getting weaker and is melted in with plastic bags, oil, blue tac and other materials to bump up its weight for a higher return. The effect of this:

Stronger skunk is more likely to increase the (already small) chance of getting Psychosis. As for the weakened hashish, with its plastic ingredients, well it doesn’t take a genius to figure out the harmful implications to physical health.

Legalization would allow the government to import quality hashish, made solely from the resin of the leaf. It could also have a grading system for Skunk and resin that users could consult and make up there own decisions into how strong they like their skunk. From experience I can tell you that sometimes you just want to relax with a gentle buzz at the end of the day, rather then being mashed off your face in the evening. When you buy skunk you get what your given. So if its strong, its strong and you have no choice.

Economically a tax would be declared on the drug, allowing the government to fill gaps in its spending and more money could go to the NHS, and money spent on those who do suffer as a result of smoking it could be helped with no financial burden on society. If this doesn’t make sense to you think of alcohol abuse and how much government money, your money is spent tackling an already legal, easy to buy drug.

It would have a world wide economical effect. Tourism to the UK for a start would be boosted as millions who fly to Amsterdam each weekend would no longer need to and people would be encouraged to travel here instead. The countries in which it is grown (developing countries also) would benefit, as they would have a readily available commodity to export.

Let us also not forget that it would hit the criminal world hard. Sure it wouldn’t wipe out all criminal activity associated with the cannabis trade. But no more so than people still sell foreign cigarettes. There are those who may say should we apply this to all drugs and the issue needs more debate than in these pages here but we need to look at each drug individually, and apart from opinions from closed minded individuals, there is no logical reason why cannabis should not be legalized.

My last thought on the matter is this. If the government is not going to legalize cannabis then they should outlaw alcohol and tobacco. The latter two together cause more misery, More illnesses, more suffering to users and their families, Cost the NHS more, Cost society more than cannabis ever has. And there both legal...

BillN
05 September 2007 at 09:39

I agree with both the above comments. Dr Persaud referes to what "doctors and scientists claim" giving a false impression of consensus among the scientific community. This is not the case, there are many scientists who do not share his view. The studies are few and weak and certainly do not support the strength of conviction that is expressed in public contribution to debate by certain psychiatrists.

When it comes to cannabis I feel Dr Persaud is less than rigourous in his views. In one of his TV appearanes he repeated to the audience the myth cannabis today is much stronger than it used to be. There is no factual basis to this and research by WHO and others have shown that cannabis today is not stronger than what was consumed in the past.

Dr Persaud refers to his clinical expereince " reason I just wish it was possible for more to experience my own ward at the Bethlem Royal and Maudsley NHS Hospitals" in a spurious way. It implies he has seen how cannabis causes psychosis first hand. But he can not simply "see" this. If we went on his ward, like any other, we would see that virtually all his patients smoke cigarettes, what would we conclude from that? The link has to be proven scientifically and can not simply be seen.

A friend of mine smoked cannabis for years, he had a short period of psychosis and was admitted to hospital. He had moved to a new town to follow his wife to her new job. He could not get work, their relationship deteriorated and became marked by constant arguments and stress. When he was admitted to hospital his wife said it was due tocannabis and said nothing of the other problems. It was duly noted as a case of cannabis psychosis. After 2 weeks he discharged himself, left his wife, got a job and continued to smoke cannabis. That was fifteen years ago. On record he is a case of cannabis psychosis but his problems seemed more related to his social situation. Fifteen years later still smoking cannabis and having a happy life he has never had any hint of psychosis again. When we consider the impecise nature of psychiatric diagnosis, the fact tha many families find cannabis psychosis a more acceptable explanation than other possible explanations, one wonders how many recorded cases of cannabis psychosis have any real scientific basis.

Admin
11 September 2007 at 12:48

From letters to the editor

Sent via email by Bruce Mirken, Director of Communications, Marijuana Policy Project

Raj Persaud's column, "An epidemic of cannabis use?" (Sept. 3) is puzzling on several levels. First, the British Crime Survey has documented a steady decline in adolescent cannabis use since 2001, and continuing since the 2004 reclassification of cannabis. Something that is in decline is, by definition, not an epidemic.

Second, Persaud states that use of cannabis before the age of 16 is a "fairly new phenomenon," and that this may explain the lack of apparent association between use rates and incidence of schizophrenia. This is certainly not the case in the U.S., where the government-sponsored National Survey on Drug Use and Health reported a peak in teen use of cannabis (known here as marijuana) in 1979, with an astonishing 14.2 percent of youths aged 12-17 reporting use in the past month. Since 1986, that figure has never exceeded 10 percent.

That immense wave of cannabis use by U.S. young people was not followed by any discernible increase in rates of schizophrenia or other mental illness -- an epidemiological pattern which has been seen all over the world. If there is a cause-and-effect relationship between cannabis and mental illness, the lack of a demonstrable effect anywhere in the world is very hard to explain.

mickquig
18 September 2007 at 16:26

Apart from the obvious gratification of sparking a spliff and the anaesthetizing prelude to a world of peace and harmony there leaves little else to be gained from the utilization of cannabis (delta-9-tetra-hydro-cannabinoids). The epistemophobic attitude of us fellow potheads is sheer ignorance . The knowledge which we inter day to day will ultimately be our demise unless there is a change in attitude and primarily our lifestyle.

chrisbx
27 September 2007 at 11:37

Once everyone gets use to the idea that regardless of laws or potential risks involved human beings will want to experiment with mind altering substances. It is a complete fantasy that the ‘world’ and people in it will live ‘drug free’. This is concept made by society that has no basis in reality or fact. We need to regulate the illegal drugs trade and accept that prohibition is the main cause for any issues surrounding drugs.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

You may enter up to 2000 characters (about 300-350 words)

Characters left:

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

About the writer

Raj Persaud

Dr Raj Persaud is Gresham Professor for Public Understanding of Psychiatry and Consultant Psychiatrist at The Maudsley Hospital in South London he is Editor of The Mind: A Users Guide published in collaboration with The Royal College of Psychiatrists

Read More

Vote!

Should the third runway at Heathrow go ahead?