Young people, pregnant women and drivers should avoid cannabis – study

[Flamedodger]

Largest review of its kind says while cannabis-based medicines may help some people, drug is detrimental to others. 

Teenagers, young adults, pregnant women, drivers and mentally ill people should avoid cannabis, according to the largest ever health review of its kind. 
 

However, cannabidiol can help reduce seizures in epilepsy patients, and cannabis-based medicines may help with multiple sclerosis, chronic pain, inflammatory bowel disease and in palliative care.

The findings were based on an umbrella review conducted by an international expert team of gold standard studies on cannabis and health carried out over the last two decades. Umbrella reviews look at previous meta-analyses and provide a summary of evidence on a particular topic.

The in-depth evidence review of cannabis and health was published in the BMJ.

It found that while cannabis compounds could be helpful for people with certain medical conditions, taking the drug could be detrimental for other groups of people.

The experts, including researchers from the UK, analysed data from 101 meta-analyses on cannabis use. The studies were published from 2002 to 2022 and looked at the effects of different combinations of cannabis, cannabinoids and cannabis-based medicines on health.

The review of reviews concluded that cannabis use was linked to poor mental health and cognition. It increased the risk of car crashes among drivers and led to poor outcomes for babies when pregnant women used the drug.

The authors said that cannabis should be avoided among young people while their brains were still developing. They argued that most mental illnesses were first identified during teenage years and young adulthood. And this was also a period when “cognition is paramount for optimising academic performance and learning”.

However, they said cannabidiol was beneficial for people with epilepsy to help them avoid seizures.

Cannabis-based medicines could also help reduce chronic pain and could help reduce spasms among people with multiple sclerosis. It could also help reduce nausea and vomiting among patients with a range of conditions and help improve the sleep of cancer patients.

Cannabis-based medicines were also found to improve quality of life among patients with inflammatory bowel disease and were found to be effective in palliative care. But the authors stressed that the use of cannabis-based medicines were “not without adverse events”.

“Convincing or converging evidence recommends avoiding cannabis during adolescence and early adulthood in people prone to have or have mental health disorder, who are pregnant, and while driving,” they wrote.

“Cannabidiol is effective for epilepsy, notably in children, while other cannabinoids can be effective in use for multiple sclerosis, chronic pain, inflammatory bowel disease, and palliative care.”

It came as a separate study found that marijuana users had “significant levels” of metals in their blood and urine. For the study, published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, the blood and urine of 7,254 people in the US was analysed.

Academics from Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, who led the study, said marijuana could be an under-recognised source of lead and cadmium exposure among users.

Cannabis in general is not legal in the UK and it is known as a class B drug. But medicinal cannabis – or cannabis-based medicines – can be used.

Specialist doctors can prescribe medicinal cannabis for conditions such as severe epilepsy and for cancer patients suffering side-effects from certain drugs and patients with multiple sclerosis.

People can also purchase products such as CBD oil or hemp oil. However, the NHS website says “there’s no guarantee these are of good quality or provide any health benefits”.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/aug/30/young-people-pregnant-women-and-drivers-should-avoid-cannabis-study?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Edited August 31, 2023 by Flamedodger
Can’t remove formatting

[twigs]

39 minutes ago, Flamedodger said:

Cannabis in general is not legal in the UK and it is known as a class B drug. But medicinal cannabis – or cannabis-based medicines – can be used

 

so it’s only a potential problem to the population if the population are not buying it from them (dr’s)..as medicine?

 

that’s totally clear??  

 

thry never talk about psychosis anymore?  15 years ago the world youth was heading to the psycho wards..what happened there?  

 

 

[stu914]

1 hour ago, Flamedodger said:

review of reviews

 

WTF does this mean? I suppose they keep 'reviewing' until they come to the conclusion they want, not necessarily the actual truth...

[Pepe Ramon]

Just more bullshit propaganda.

 

Folks with mental health issues are going to have mental health issues regardless of what drugs they use.

 

IME using cannabis helped me find out about my mental health, a great man once said "When you smoke the herb, it reveals you to yourself"...

[Personunknown]

I'm pretty sure cannabis helps more people than it has negative effects on , some strains work for some other strains for others , high sat dom can worsen my axiety,but like pharma meds its trial n error till you get the best for you

[MidgeSmith]

I don't think the report is too far wrong in many ways apart from the bit about heavy metals in the blood, which I guess must be down to dodgy BM production methods  / maybe iffy PGRs?

The problem - in my opinion - comes by the deliberate use of ambiguous language. "Linked to" is another way of saying both "Used to treat" or "Caused by".  Which is intended, that's quite an important distinction and a deliberate attempt to mislead.

 

It's not good to have altered consciousness while driving, though many of us have the tail end as the remnants in our blood have a rather minor effect.  It is not good for young people to use drugs of any kind unless they have to, that is common sense, though I did from 13 and I'm not the highest achiever, I got my degree despite my brain clearly being addled to fuck with the demon weed, ran my own business for 20 years, built a house and so on.  Now I am on a very basic wage, but that's kind of due to a change in career direction.  I would still argue that I have been just as industrious as any of my normie peers, who have not done the things I have done, though they are generally paid more.

The Guardian is generally the most friendly paper towards weed, though they have one writer who consistently undoes their sensible commentary, his name escapes me.  What this piece does highlight, it apart from certain people in certain categories, weed is a very helpful and pleasant substance.

 

[gb1]

18 hours ago, twigs said:

 

so it’s only a potential problem to the population if the population are not buying it from them (dr’s)..as medicine?

 

that’s totally clear??  

 

 

its gets even worse..as its not considered meds here ..................only somthin to get high on 

so ya gotta buy gov grown shit if

ya don grow yer own,,................................................most are figuring that out ..

i think "cant pee" one of our large shit growers......................... is .40 per share lol 

[Crow River]

So, basically a literature review. The conclusions reached will depend on which exact studies were reviewed, and how the results are interpreted relative to other results. With this kind of exercise I always look to see if the author(s) have taken account of any views or evidence that contradicts their central thesis. Also whether any inherent bias creeps into their assumptions. From a brief read of the introduction to this study, the methodology seems sound. However I note this passage:

 

Quote

When two or more meta-analyses examined the same association, we selected only the one that included the largest number of studies. We excluded systematic reviews without a meta-analysis, meta-analyses of risk factors for cannabinoids use, meta-analyses of cross-sectional studies only, pooled analyses of studies identified without a systematic search, and individual studies.

 

So some studies that did not match what they were looking for were excluded. Fair enough. 

 

Then there's this:

 

Quote

The co-primary outcomes were the efficacy and safety of cannabinoids on target symptoms (eg seizures in epilepsy) in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. The secondary outcomes were any outcome reported in the meta-analyses of observational studies.

 

So they were specifically seeking evidence in studies related to targeting certain symptoms, only then taking account of any other outcomes from trials or studies. Which is fine, but it does frame this meta-analysis in terms of the medical outcomes first and foremost. 

 

As long as you view this study through the lens of medical practitioners looking to assess cannabis as the equivalent of a pharmaceutical product, it's all good. Unfortunately the Grauniad have picked up the safety warnings, tabloid style. Those caveats are only valid within the use of medical cannabis and related extracts (e.g. CBD) and it is not accurate to extrapolate the findings to "lifestyle" uses of cannabis. Also, the term "cannabis use disorder" is mentioned a couple of times in the introduction, implying that unregulated use without prior approval of medical professionals is somehow risky or suspect. That's a clear instance of bias, of which the numerous authors of the study seem blissfully unaware.

 

As the saying goes, "physician, heal thyself!"  

[Flamedodger]

@Crow River spot on, even the driving bit is spurious. Canada has not seen any significant rise in motor collisions and that’s a pretty big study 

[MidgeSmith]

5 hours ago, Crow River said:

So, basically a literature review. The conclusions reached will depend on which exact studies were reviewed, and how the results are interpreted relative to other results. With this kind of exercise I always look to see if the author(s) have taken account of any views or evidence that contradicts their central thesis. Also whether any inherent bias creeps into their assumptions. From a brief read of the introduction to this study, the methodology seems sound. However I note this passage:

 

 

So some studies that did not match what they were looking for were excluded. Fair enough. 

 

Then there's this:

 

 

So they were specifically seeking evidence in studies related to targeting certain symptoms, only then taking account of any other outcomes from trials or studies. Which is fine, but it does frame this meta-analysis in terms of the medical outcomes first and foremost. 

 

As long as you view this study through the lens of medical practitioners looking to assess cannabis as the equivalent of a pharmaceutical product, it's all good. Unfortunately the Grauniad have picked up the safety warnings, tabloid style. Those caveats are only valid within the use of medical cannabis and related extracts (e.g. CBD) and it is not accurate to extrapolate the findings to "lifestyle" uses of cannabis. Also, the term "cannabis use disorder" is mentioned a couple of times in the introduction, implying that unregulated use without prior approval of medical professionals is somehow risky or suspect. That's a clear instance of bias, of which the numerous authors of the study seem blissfully unaware.

 

As the saying goes, "physician, heal thyself!"  

Thorough as fuck, thanks for that analysis!  Next level