This categorisation change isn’t intended to make weed more accessible but to make research on it easier. There’s tons of misconceptions that are being broken thanks to latest research, like there’s no medicinal use case in psychiatry* despite what smokers will tell you.
There’s tons of misconceptions that are being broken thanks to latest research, like there’s no medicinal use case in psychiatry* despite what smokers will tell you.
I don’t think that’s much of a misconception anymore, and I doubt most smokers would tell you that. It’s one of the reasons, I’m prescribed medical cannabis, in fact (to treat my anxiety and depression). it’s quite effective, especially when I have panic attacks. and I’d much rather be stoned than zonked out on benzos. at least I can function when I’m high. on benzos, I’m like a zombie.
Yeah, most of the anxiety I used to occasionally get from weed stemmed from it being illegal and potentially life ruining if I got caught. Turns out it’s pretty good for anxiety once that’s gone.
to start, this is a meta analysis of 54 studies. not a great start
second:
54 trials were identified for inclusion (2477 participants; 1713 [69%] males, 764 [31%] females; median age 33·3 years [IQR 28·1–38·05; ethnicity data not available). 24 (44%) of these trials had a high risk of bias, and the certainty of evidence for most outcomes was low. [emphasis added]
so, this is a huge red flag already. when almost half of the studies are categorized as “high bias” and have a low certainty of evidence, that’s pretty bad.
There was some evidence that cannabinoids can reduce symptoms of cannabis use disorder, insomnia, tic or Tourette’s syndrome, and autism spectrum disorder, but the quality of this evidence was generally low. Cannabinoids were associated with a greater risk of any adverse events but not of serious adverse events. Overall, there is a crucial need for more high-quality research. Given the scarcity of evidence, the routine use of cannabinoids for the treatment of mental disorders and SUDs is currently rarely justified.
so, the conclusions of this meta analysis is that many of the studies they reviewed were unreliable, biased crap and that they can’t really draw much of any conclusions from them as little reliable evidence was contained within except for the evidence that more, newer high-quality studies are obviously needed.
lol
thanks for the link to the study, though. it was very amusing
Yeah, a rando on Lemmy will know better that scientists publishing at The Lancet. You must be a true genius. I’m getting flashbacks to antivaxxers during the pandemic who presented exact same deluded image of their own capacity to know and understand every single area of science.
This categorisation change isn’t intended to make weed more accessible but to make research on it easier. There’s tons of misconceptions that are being broken thanks to latest research, like there’s no medicinal use case in psychiatry* despite what smokers will tell you.
* inconclusive for autistics though
I don’t think that’s much of a misconception anymore, and I doubt most smokers would tell you that. It’s one of the reasons, I’m prescribed medical cannabis, in fact (to treat my anxiety and depression). it’s quite effective, especially when I have panic attacks. and I’d much rather be stoned than zonked out on benzos. at least I can function when I’m high. on benzos, I’m like a zombie.
Yeah, most of the anxiety I used to occasionally get from weed stemmed from it being illegal and potentially life ruining if I got caught. Turns out it’s pretty good for anxiety once that’s gone.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(26)00015-5/fulltext
Fresh off the press, published by The Lancet.
to start, this is a meta analysis of 54 studies. not a great start
second:
so, this is a huge red flag already. when almost half of the studies are categorized as “high bias” and have a low certainty of evidence, that’s pretty bad.
so, the conclusions of this meta analysis is that many of the studies they reviewed were unreliable, biased crap and that they can’t really draw much of any conclusions from them as little reliable evidence was contained within except for the evidence that more, newer high-quality studies are obviously needed.
lol
thanks for the link to the study, though. it was very amusing
Yeah, a rando on Lemmy will know better that scientists publishing at The Lancet. You must be a true genius. I’m getting flashbacks to antivaxxers during the pandemic who presented exact same deluded image of their own capacity to know and understand every single area of science.
I’m not claiming to know better than anyone-- they said that, lol.
read it for yourself!
I’m not a psychiatrist or a psychiatry researcher. Are you?
I can read
But you can’t understand.