I just want to point out that they said twice as likely.
I'm pretty sure you either have a 1/1000 or a 1/500 (.1% or .2%) of getting it as you are. So, if this study is true, smoking all the pot you can will give you, at most, a 1/250 chance of getting it. Pretty slim odds. And they are very vague about who got what disease, so if you're paranoid (THEN YOU'RE PROBABLY PSYCHOTIC!), then you could ask yourself how many people actually got non-affective schizophrenia.
Schizophrenia is a pretty broad name for a disease, just like the common cold has well over a hundred causes. There are 3 main types of schizophrenia: paranoid, catatonic, and undifferentiated. Now, one or two more categories are started to be recognized as we learn more about schizo, but let's focus on the last one. Undifferentiated basically means "we don't know what the fuck this shit is." Saying someone has psychosis just means that they have hallucinated and have had delusions (usually delusions of grandeur).
I know I'm jumping all over the place here but I just got up, so go away. One more point I'd like to make is that one of the types of NAP that exist is brief psychotic disorder, which is what it sounds like. For a temporary time, usually with a known cause, someone has a psychotic episode. Let's say you smoke something crazy, you see/hear/smell/taste/feel something that doesn't actually exist, and you believe something that isn't true. You've had brief psychotic disorder! Doesn't that kind of sound like a really trippy high? Doesn't it sound like what people talk about on mescaline, LSD, or any other hard psychedelic?
Lastly, science doesn't rely on one study to make a conclusion. How many studies do they usually go through? It's in the hundreds or thousands before they accept a theory, usually. I think that these studies should continue to be done because I think this really is important research, but for now, ehhhhhhhhhh. Considering how I've never personally heard of anyone who has developed a serious psychosis due to marijuana as well as how broad schizophrenia and even broader NAP is, I'm gonna wait for a bunch of published studies that conclude pot causes bad diseases before I start to care.
There are also a few problems with this. They don't tell you how much the 65 people smoked daily, their method of ingestion, nor what specific disease they had and if they've gotten past it. Also, they even mention that it very well might be the psychotic tendencies that make people smoke the pot. The real conclusion might be "if you have psychosis, you're more likely to smoke pot" which is substantially different.
I'm not trying to belittle these studies; as I said, I think this is important work. But there have been many, many theories just like this about things causing other things that were eventually abandoned. Hell, in the middle ages, people ate off of lead plates. Whenever they ate sliced tomatoes, they noticed people died. They thought tomatoes were poisonous. We have a tendency to link things together that may or may not actually be related.
Edit: And I don't suggest that people totally ignore this article. Maybe just throw it in the back of your mind, be a little curious, and have a little healthy skepticism.
I'm pretty sure you either have a 1/1000 or a 1/500 (.1% or .2%) of getting it as you are. So, if this study is true, smoking all the pot you can will give you, at most, a 1/250 chance of getting it. Pretty slim odds. And they are very vague about who got what disease, so if you're paranoid (THEN YOU'RE PROBABLY PSYCHOTIC!), then you could ask yourself how many people actually got non-affective schizophrenia.
Schizophrenia is a pretty broad name for a disease, just like the common cold has well over a hundred causes. There are 3 main types of schizophrenia: paranoid, catatonic, and undifferentiated. Now, one or two more categories are started to be recognized as we learn more about schizo, but let's focus on the last one. Undifferentiated basically means "we don't know what the fuck this shit is." Saying someone has psychosis just means that they have hallucinated and have had delusions (usually delusions of grandeur).
I know I'm jumping all over the place here but I just got up, so go away. One more point I'd like to make is that one of the types of NAP that exist is brief psychotic disorder, which is what it sounds like. For a temporary time, usually with a known cause, someone has a psychotic episode. Let's say you smoke something crazy, you see/hear/smell/taste/feel something that doesn't actually exist, and you believe something that isn't true. You've had brief psychotic disorder! Doesn't that kind of sound like a really trippy high? Doesn't it sound like what people talk about on mescaline, LSD, or any other hard psychedelic?
Lastly, science doesn't rely on one study to make a conclusion. How many studies do they usually go through? It's in the hundreds or thousands before they accept a theory, usually. I think that these studies should continue to be done because I think this really is important research, but for now, ehhhhhhhhhh. Considering how I've never personally heard of anyone who has developed a serious psychosis due to marijuana as well as how broad schizophrenia and even broader NAP is, I'm gonna wait for a bunch of published studies that conclude pot causes bad diseases before I start to care.
There are also a few problems with this. They don't tell you how much the 65 people smoked daily, their method of ingestion, nor what specific disease they had and if they've gotten past it. Also, they even mention that it very well might be the psychotic tendencies that make people smoke the pot. The real conclusion might be "if you have psychosis, you're more likely to smoke pot" which is substantially different.
I'm not trying to belittle these studies; as I said, I think this is important work. But there have been many, many theories just like this about things causing other things that were eventually abandoned. Hell, in the middle ages, people ate off of lead plates. Whenever they ate sliced tomatoes, they noticed people died. They thought tomatoes were poisonous. We have a tendency to link things together that may or may not actually be related.
Edit: And I don't suggest that people totally ignore this article. Maybe just throw it in the back of your mind, be a little curious, and have a little healthy skepticism.
