Tag Archives: Lancet

Lancet study: Insufficient evidence that medicinal cannabinoids improve mental health

30 Oct

The National Institute on Drug (NIH) Abuse article What is medical marijuana?

The term medical marijuana refers to using the whole, unprocessed marijuana plant or its basic extracts to treat symptoms of illness and other conditions. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not recognized or approved the marijuana plant as medicine.
However, scientific study of the chemicals in marijuana, called cannabinoids, has led to two FDA-approved medications that contain cannabinoid chemicals in pill form. Continued research may lead to more medications.
Because the marijuana plant contains chemicals that may help treat a range of illnesses and symptoms, many people argue that it should be legal for medical purposes. In fact, a growing number of states have legalized marijuana for medical use.
Why isn’t the marijuana plant an FDA-approved medicine?
The FDA requires carefully conducted studies (clinical trials) in hundreds to thousands of human subjects to determine the benefits and risks of a possible medication. So far, researchers haven’t conducted enough large-scale clinical trials that show that the benefits of the marijuana plant (as opposed to its cannabinoid ingredients) outweigh its risks in patients it’s meant to treat.
Read more about the various physical, mental, and behavioral effects of marijuana in our Marijuana DrugFacts.
Medical Marijuana Laws and Prescription Opioid Use Outcomes
A new study underscores the need for additional research on the effect of medical marijuana laws on opioid overdose deaths and cautions against drawing a causal connection between the two. Early research suggested that there may be a relationship between the availability of medical marijuana and opioid analgesic overdose mortality. In particular, a NIDA-funded study published in 2014 found that from 1999 to 2010, states with medical cannabis laws experienced slower rates of increase in opioid analgesic overdose death rates compared to states without such laws.1
A 2019 analysis, also funded by NIDA, re-examined this relationship using data through 2017. Similar to the findings reported previously, this research team found that opioid overdose mortality rates between 1999-2010 in states allowing medical marijuana use were 21% lower than expected. When the analysis was extended through 2017, however, they found that the trend reversed, such that states with medical cannabis laws experienced an overdose death rate 22.7% higher than expected.2 The investigators uncovered no evidence that either broader cannabis laws (those allowing recreational use) or more restrictive laws (those only permitting the use of marijuana with low tetrahydrocannabinol concentrations) were associated with changes in opioid overdose mortality rates.
These data, therefore, do not support the interpretation that access to cannabis reduces opioid overdose. Indeed, the authors note that neither study provides evidence of a causal relationship between marijuana access and opioid overdose deaths. Rather, they suggest that the associations are likely due to factors the researchers did not measure, and they caution against drawing conclusions on an individual level from ecological (population-level) data. Research is still needed on the potential medical benefits of cannabis or cannabinoids.
Read more in our Marijuana Research Report. https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/marijuana-safe-effective-medicine https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana-medicine

Resources:

Marijuana medical benefits – large review finds very few https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/marijuana-medical-benefits-large-review/

Marijuana and Cannabinoids | NCCIH
https://nccih.nih.gov/health/marijuana

Science Daily reported the Lancet study: Insufficient evidence that medicinal cannabinoids improve mental health:

Meta-analysis finds inadequate evidence that cannabinoids relieve depression, anxiety disorders, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, Tourette syndrome, post-traumatic stress disorder, or psychosis.
The most comprehensive analysis of medicinal cannabinoids and their impact on six mental health disorders — combining 83 studies including 3,000 people — suggests that the use of cannabinoids for mental health conditions cannot be justified based on the current evidence. This is due to a lack of evidence for their effectiveness, and because of the known risks of cannabinoids.
The new findings, published in The Lancet Psychiatry journal, find insufficient evidence medicinal cannabinoids improve disorders overall or their symptoms, although there is a very low quality evidence that pharmaceutical tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) may lead to a small improvement in symptoms of anxiety in individuals with other medical conditions, such as chronic pain or multiple sclerosis.
Medicinal cannabinoids include medicinal cannabis and pharmaceutical cannabinoids, and their synthetic derivatives, THC and cannabidiol (CBD). Around the world, these are increasingly being made available for medicinal purposes (e.g. in the United States, Australia, and Canada), including for the treatment of mental health disorders. However, there are concerns around the adverse effects of this availability, as there is a large body of evidence indicating that non-medicinal cannabis use can increase the occurrence of depression, anxiety, and psychotic symptoms.
Professor Louisa Degenhardt of the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC) at UNSW Sydney, Australia, and lead author of the study says: “Our findings have important implications in countries where cannabis and cannabinoids are being made available for medical use. There is a notable absence of high-quality evidence to properly assess the effectiveness and safety of medicinal cannabinoids compared with placebo, and until evidence from randomised controlled trials is available, clinical guidelines cannot be drawn up around their use in mental health disorders.”
She continues: “In countries where medicinal cannabinoids are already legal, doctors and patients must be aware of the limitations of existing evidence and the risks of cannabinoids. These must be weighed when considering use to treat symptoms of common mental health disorders. Those who decide to proceed should be carefully monitored for positive and negative mental health effects of using medicinal cannabinoids.”
This study follows The Lancet Series on Drug Use, which includes a paper on cannabis where the authors assess the current and possible future public health impacts of the legalisation of cannabis production, sale, and use in the Americas. They summarise the overall evidence on medicinal use of cannabinoids, regulation, and how medicinal use may have affected recreational use.
The authors set out to examine the available evidence for all types of medicinal cannabinoids. They included all study designs and investigated the impact on remission from and symptoms of six mental health disorders in adults: depression, anxiety, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Tourette syndrome, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and psychosis.
They included published and unpublished studies between 1980 and 2018 and included 83 eligible studies, 40 of which were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (the others were open-label trials, where participants knew which treatment they were taking). Of the 83 studies, 42 looked at depression (including 23 RCTs), 31 looked at anxiety (17 RCTs), eight looked at Tourette syndrome (two RCTs), three were on ADHD (one RCT), 12 were on PTSD (one RCT), and 11 were on psychosis (six RCTs).
In most RCTs examining depression and anxiety, the primary reason for cannabinoid use was for another medical condition such as chronic non-cancer pain or multiple sclerosis. In the studies looking at the other four disorders, the cannabinoid was used to treat the mental health disorder. Few randomised controlled trials examined the role of pharmaceutical CBD or medicinal cannabis; most looked at THC, with or without CBD.
The authors found that pharmaceutical THC (with or without CBD) improved anxiety symptoms among individuals with other medical conditions (seven studies of 252 people), though this may have been due to improvements in the primary medical condition. The authors suggest further research should explicitly study the effects of cannabinoids on anxiety and depression…. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191028213912.htm

Citation:

Insufficient evidence that medicinal cannabinoids improve mental health
Date: October 28, 2019
Source: The Lancet
Summary:
The most comprehensive analysis of medicinal cannabinoids and their impact on six mental health disorders — combining 83 studies including 3,000 people — suggests that the use of cannabinoids for mental health conditions cannot be justified based on the current evidence. This is due to a lack of evidence for their effectiveness, and because of the known risks of cannabinoids.

Journal Reference:
Nicola Black, Emily Stockings, Gabrielle Campbell, Lucy T Tran, Dino Zagic, Wayne D Hall, Michael Farrell, Louisa Degenhardt. Cannabinoids for the treatment of mental disorders and symptoms of mental disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet Psychiatry, 2019; DOI: 10.1016/S2215-0366(19)30401-8

Here is the press release from the Lancet:

NEWS RELEASE 28-OCT-2019

The Lancet Psychiatry: Insufficient evidence that medicinal cannabinoids improve mental health

Meta-analysis finds inadequate evidence that cannabinoids relieve depression, anxiety disorders, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, Tourette syndrome, post-traumatic stress disorder, or psychosis
THE LANCET
Meta-analysis finds inadequate evidence that cannabinoids relieve depression, anxiety disorders, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, Tourette syndrome, post-traumatic stress disorder, or psychosis.
The most comprehensive analysis of medicinal cannabinoids and their impact on six mental health disorders – combining 83 studies including 3,000 people – suggests that the use of cannabinoids for mental health conditions cannot be justified based on the current evidence. This is due to a lack of evidence for their effectiveness, and because of the known risks of cannabinoids.
The new findings, published in The Lancet Psychiatry journal, find insufficient evidence medicinal cannabinoids improve disorders overall or their symptoms, although there is a very low quality evidence that pharmaceutical tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) may lead to a small improvement in symptoms of anxiety in individuals with other medical conditions, such as chronic pain or multiple sclerosis.
Medicinal cannabinoids include medicinal cannabis and pharmaceutical cannabinoids, and their synthetic derivatives, THC and cannabidiol (CBD). Around the world, these are increasingly being made available for medicinal purposes (e.g. in the United States, Australia, and Canada), including for the treatment of mental health disorders. However, there are concerns around the adverse effects of this availability, as there is a large body of evidence indicating that non-medicinal cannabis use can increase the occurrence of depression, anxiety, and psychotic symptoms.
Professor Louisa Degenhardt of the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC) at UNSW Sydney, Australia, and lead author of the study says: “Our findings have important implications in countries where cannabis and cannabinoids are being made available for medical use. There is a notable absence of high-quality evidence to properly assess the effectiveness and safety of medicinal cannabinoids compared with placebo, and until evidence from randomised controlled trials is available, clinical guidelines cannot be drawn up around their use in mental health disorders.” [1]
She continues: “In countries where medicinal cannabinoids are already legal, doctors and patients must be aware of the limitations of existing evidence and the risks of cannabinoids. These must be weighed when considering use to treat symptoms of common mental health disorders. Those who decide to proceed should be carefully monitored for positive and negative mental health effects of using medicinal cannabinoids.” [1]
This study follows The Lancet Series on Drug Use, which includes a paper on cannabis where the authors assess the current and possible future public health impacts of the legalisation of cannabis production, sale, and use in the Americas. They summarise the overall evidence on medicinal use of cannabinoids, regulation, and how medicinal use may have affected recreational use. [2]
The authors set out to examine the available evidence for all types of medicinal cannabinoids. They included all study designs and investigated the impact on remission from and symptoms of six mental health disorders in adults: depression, anxiety, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Tourette syndrome, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and psychosis.
They included published and unpublished studies between 1980 and 2018 and included 83 eligible studies, 40 of which were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (the others were open-label trials, where participants knew which treatment they were taking). Of the 83 studies, 42 looked at depression (including 23 RCTs), 31 looked at anxiety (17 RCTs), eight looked at Tourette syndrome (two RCTs), three were on ADHD (one RCT), 12 were on PTSD (one RCT), and 11 were on psychosis (six RCTs).
In most RCTs examining depression and anxiety, the primary reason for cannabinoid use was for another medical condition such as chronic non-cancer pain or multiple sclerosis. In the studies looking at the other four disorders, the cannabinoid was used to treat the mental health disorder. Few randomised controlled trials examined the role of pharmaceutical CBD or medicinal cannabis; most looked at THC, with or without CBD.
The authors found that pharmaceutical THC (with or without CBD) improved anxiety symptoms among individuals with other medical conditions (seven studies of 252 people), though this may have been due to improvements in the primary medical condition. The authors suggest further research should explicitly study the effects of cannabinoids on anxiety and depression.
Pharmaceutical THC (with or without CBD) worsened negative symptoms of psychosis (one study, 24 people) and did not significantly affect any other primary outcomes for the mental health disorders examined. It also increased the number of people who had adverse events (ten studies; 1,495 people) and withdrawals due to adverse events (11 studies; 1,621 people) compared with placebo across all mental health disorders examined.
The study highlights the limited evidence and the low quality of the evidence that exists around using cannabinoids for treatment of mental health conditions. There is a need for high-quality research to understand the effects of different cannabinoids on a range of outcomes for people with mental health disorders.
Professor Degenhardt says: “Cannabinoids are often advocated as a treatment for various mental health conditions. Countries that allow medicinal cannabinoid use will probably see increased demand for such use. Clinicians and consumers need to be aware of the low quality and quantity of evidence for the effectiveness of medicinal cannabinoids in treating mental health disorders and the potential risk of adverse events. Given the likely interest but scant evidence to guide patient and clinician decisions around cannabinoids for mental health, there is an urgent need for randomised controlled trials to inform whether there are benefits of cannabinoids for these indications.” [1]
The authors highlight that their analysis and conclusions are limited by the small amount of available data, small study sizes, and the differences in findings between small studies. There is no recommended approach for addressing these issues in systematic reviews, but they tried to minimise them by keeping the focus of the review narrow. They also note that most studies are based on pharmaceutical cannabinoids, rather than medicinal cannabis, but plant products are most often used by those taking cannabinoids for medicinal purposes in the USA.
In a related Comment article, Professor Deepak Cyril D’Souza of Yale University School of Medicine, USA, says: “The process of drug development in modern medicine is to first demonstrate efficacy and safety in clinical trials before using the drug clinically. With cannabinoids, it seems that the cart (use) is before the horse (evidence). For cannabinoids to be used in the treatment of psychiatric disorders they should be tested in RCTs and subjected to the same regulatory approval process as other prescription medications.”
###
NOTES TO EDITORS
This study was funded by Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration, the Commonwealth Department of Health, Australia, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and the US National Institutes of Health. It was conducted by researchers from the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, UNSW, the University of Brisbane, Australia and King’s College London, UK.
The labels have been added to this press release as part of a project run by the Academy of Medical Sciences seeking to improve the communication of evidence. For more information, please see: http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/AMS-press-release-labelling-system-GUIDANCE.pdf if you have any questions or feedback, please contact The Lancet press office pressoffice@lancet.com
[1] Quote direct from author and cannot be found in the text of the Article.
[2] Paper available here (begins page 29): http://www.thelancet-press.com/embargo/EMBARGOED-druguseseries.pdf
A press release for this report is also available.
Peer-reviewed / Meta-analysis / People
Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.

The Centers for Disease Control and Addiction wrote in Marijuana: How Can It Affect Your Health?

Marijuana is the most commonly used illegal drug in the United States, with 37.6 million users in the past year,1 and marijuana use may have a wide range of health effects on the body and brain. Click on the sections below to learn more about how marijuana use can affect your health.
ADDICTION
About 1 in 10 marijuana users will become addicted. For people who begin using before the age of 18, that number rises to 1 in 6. 1-3
Some of the signs that someone might be addicted include:
• Unsuccessful efforts to quit using marijuana.
• Giving up important activities with friends and family in favor of using marijuana.
• Using marijuana even when it is known that it causes problems fulfilling everyday jobs at home, school or work.4
People who are addicted to marijuana may also be at a higher risk of other negative consequences of using the drug, such as problems with attention, memory, and learning. Some people who are addicted need to smoke more and more marijuana to get the same high. It is also important to be aware that the amount of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in marijuana (i.e., marijuana potency or strength) has increased over the past few decades. The higher the THC content, the stronger the effects on the brain. In addition, some methods of using marijuana (e.g., dabbing, edibles) may deliver very high levels of THC to the user.5 Researchers do not yet know the full extent of the consequences when the body and brain (especially the developing brain) are exposed to high concentrations of THC or how recent increases in potency affect the risk of someone becoming addicted. 5
References
1. Lopez-Quintero, C, et al. (2011). Probability and predictors of transition from first use to dependence on nicotine, alcohol, cannabis, and cocaine: results of the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC). Drug Alcohol Depend. 115(1-2): p. 120-30.
2. Hall, W, Degenhardt L. (2009). Adverse health effects of non-medical cannabis use. Lancet. 374(9698): p. 1383-91.
3. Budney, AJ, Sargent JD, and Lee, DC. (2015). Vaping cannabis (marijuana): parallel concerns to e-cigs? Addiction. 110(11): p. 1699-704.
4. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.
5. National Institute on Drug Abuse. Is marijuana addictive?external icon (2017) Rockville, MD: National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse.
BRAIN HEALTH
Marijuana use directly affects the brain — specifically the parts of the brain responsible for memory, learning, attention, decision making, coordination, emotions, and reaction time.1
What are the short-term effects of marijuana on the brain?
Heavy users of marijuana can have short-term problems with attention, memory, and learning, which can affect relationships and mood.
What are the long-term effects of marijuana on the brain?
Marijuana also affects brain development. When marijuana users begin using as teenagers, the drug may reduce attention, memory, and learning functions and affect how the brain builds connections between the areas necessary for these functions.
Marijuana’s effects on these abilities may last a long time or even be permanent. This means that someone who uses marijuana may not do as well in school and may have trouble remembering things. 1-3
The impact depends on many factors and is different for each person. It also depends on the amount of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in marijuana (i.e., marijuana potency or strength), how often it is used, the age of first use, and whether other substances (e.g., tobacco and alcohol) are used at the same time.
Marijuana and the developing brain
Developing brains, like those in babies, children, and teenagers are especially susceptible to the hurtful effects of marijuana. Although scientists are still learning about these effects of marijuana on the developing brain, studies show that marijuana use by mothers during pregnancy may be linked to problems with attention, memory, problem-solving skills, and behavior problems in their children. 3-7
References
1. Batalla A, Bhattacharyya S, Yücel M, et al. (2013). Structural and functional imaging studies in chronic cannabis users: a systematic review of adolescent and adult findings. PloS One. 8(2):e55821. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0055821.
2. Filbey, FM, et al., Long-term effects of marijuana use on the brain. (2014) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 111(47): p. 16913-8.
3. Goldschmidt, L, et al. (2002). Richardson, Effects of prenatal marijuana exposure on child behavior problems at age 10. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 22(3): p. 325-36.
4. Fried, PA, Watkinson, B, and Gray, R. Differential effects on cognitive functioning in 9- to 12-year olds prenatally exposed to cigarettes and marihuana. Neurotoxicol Teratol, 1998. 20(3): p. 293-306.
5. Leech, SL, et al., (1999). Prenatal substance exposure: effects on attention and impulsivity of 6-year-olds. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 21(2): p. 109-18.
6. Goldschmidt, L, et al., (2008) Prenatal marijuana exposure and intelligence test performance at age 6. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 47(3): p. 254-63.
7. El Marroun, H, et al., (2011). Intrauterine cannabis exposure leads to more aggressive behavior and attention problems in 18-month-old girls. Drug Alcohol Depend. 118(2-3): p. 470-4.
CANCER
Marijuana and cannabinoids (the active chemicals in marijuana that cause drug-like effects throughout the body, including the central nervous system and the immune system). The main active cannabinoid in marijuana is delta-9-THC. Another active cannabinoid is cannabidiol (CBD), which may relieve pain and lower inflammation without causing the “high” of delta-9-THC. Although marijuana and cannabinoids have been studied with respect to managing side effects of cancer and cancer therapies, there are no ongoing clinical trials of marijuana or cannabinoids in treating cancer in people.9 Studies so far have not shown that cannabinoids help control or cure the disease.2 And like many other drugs, marijuana can cause side effects and complications.
Relying on marijuana alone as treatment or for managing side effects while avoiding or delaying conventional medical care for cancer may have serious health consequences.2
How can marijuana affect symptoms of cancer?
Studies of man-made forms of the chemicals found in the marijuana plant can be helpful in treating nausea and vomiting from cancer chemotherapy.1 Studies have found that marijuana can be helpful in treating neuropathic pain (pain caused by damaged nerves).1
At this time, there is not enough evidence to recommend that patients inhale or ingest marijuana as a treatment for cancer-related symptoms or side effects of cancer therapy.
Is there a link between marijuana and cancer?
Smoked marijuana delivers THC and other cannabinoids to the body, but it also delivers harmful substances to users and those close by, including many of the same substances found in tobacco smoke, which are harmful to the lungs and cardiovascular system.3
Researchers have found limited evidence of an association between current, frequent, or chronic marijuana smoking and testicular cancer (non-seminoma-type).4
Because marijuana plants come in different strains with different levels of active chemicals, it can make each user’s experience very hard to predict. More research is needed to understand the full impact of marijuana use on cancer.
References
1. National Academies of Sciences E, and Medicine. (2017). The health effects of cannabis and cannabinoids: Current state of evidence and recommendations for researchexternal icon. Washington, D.C.
2. National Cancer Institute. (2017). Cannabis and Cannabinoids (PDQ®)–Patient Versionexternal icon. Rockville, MD: National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute.
3. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2014). The Health Consequences of Smoking: 50 Years of Progress. A Report of the Surgeon General pdf icon[PDF – 36MB]external icon. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health.
4. Gurney, J, et al. (2015). Cannabis exposure and risk of testicular cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cancer. 15: p. 897.
CHRONIC PAIN
Even though pain management is one of the most common reasons people use medical marijuana in the U.S., there is limited evidence that marijuana works to treat most types of chronic pain.
A few studies have found that marijuana can be helpful in treating neuropathic pain (pain caused by damaged nerves). 1 However, more research is needed to know if marijuana is any better or any worse than other options for managing chronic pain.
References
1. National Academies of Sciences E, and Medicine. (2017). The health effects of cannabis and cannabinoids: Current state of evidence and recommendations for researchexternal icon. Washington, D.C.
HEART HEALTH
Using marijuana makes the heart beat faster.1 It could also lead to increased risk of stroke and heart disease. 2-6 However, most of the scientific studies linking marijuana to heart attacks and strokes are based on reports from people who smoked it. Smoked marijuana delivers THC and other cannabinoids to the body, but it also delivers harmful substances to users and those close by, including many of the same substances found in tobacco smoke, which are harmful to the lungs and cardiovascular system. 3 So it’s hard to separate the effects of the compounds in marijuana on the cardiovascular system from the hazards posed by the irritants and other chemicals contained in the smoke. More research is needed to understand the full impact of marijuana use on the circulatory system to determine if marijuana use leads to higher risk of death from these causes.
References
1. Sidney, S. (2002) Cardiovascular consequences of marijuana use. J Clin Pharmacol. 42(11 Suppl): p. 64S-70S.
2. Wolff, V, et al. (2013). Cannabis-related stroke: myth or reality? Stroke. 44(2): p. 558-63.
3. Wolff, V, et al. (2015). Characteristics and Prognosis of Ischemic Stroke in Young Cannabis Users Compared With Non-Cannabis Users. J Am Coll Cardiol. 66(18): p. 2052-3.
4. Franz, CA and Frishman, WH. (2016) Marijuana Use and Cardiovascular Disease. Cardiol Rev. 24(4): p. 158-62.
5. Rumalla, K, Reddy, AY, and Mittal, MK. (2016). Recreational marijuana use and acute ischemic stroke: A population-based analysis of hospitalized patients in the United States. J Neurol Sci. 364: p. 191-6.
6. Rumalla, K, Reddy, AY, and Mittal, MK. (2016). Association of Recreational Marijuana Use with Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 25(2): p. 452-60.
LUNG HEALTH
How marijuana affects lung health is determined by how it’s consumed. In many cases, marijuana is smoked in the form hand-rolled cigarettes (joints), in pipes or water pipes (bongs), in bowls, or in blunts—emptied cigars that have been partly or completely refilled with marijuana. Smoked marijuana, in any form, can harm lung tissues and cause scarring and damage to small blood vessels. 1-2 Smoke from marijuana contains many of the same toxins, irritants, and carcinogens as tobacco smoke. 3 Smoking marijuana can also lead to a greater risk of bronchitis, cough, and phlegm production. 4-8 These symptoms generally improve when marijuana smokers quit.9-10
Secondhand marijuana smoke
The known health risks of secondhand exposure to cigarette smoke—to the heart or lungs, for instance—raise questions about whether secondhand exposure to marijuana smoke poses similar health risks. While there is very little data on the health consequences of breathing secondhand marijuana smoke, there is concern that it could cause harmful health effects, including among children.
Recent studies have found strong associations between those who said there was someone in the home who used marijuana or a caretaker who used marijuana and the child having detectable levels of THC — the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. 5,11 Children exposed to the psychoactive compounds in marijuana are potentially at risk for negative health effects, including developmental problems for babies whose mothers used marijuana while pregnant. 8 Other research shows that marijuana use during adolescence can impact the developing teenage brain and cause problems with attention, motivation, and memory.12
References
1. Tashkin, DP. (2013) Effects of marijuana smoking on the lung. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 10(3): p. 239-47.
2. Moir, D, et al. (2008). A comparison of mainstream and sidestream marijuana and tobacco cigarette smoke produced under two machine smoking conditions. Chem Res Toxicol. 21(2): p. 494-502.
3. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2014). The Health Consequences of Smoking: 50 Years of Progress. A Report of the Surgeon General pdf icon[PDF – 36MB]external icon. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health.
4. Aldington, S, et al., Effects of cannabis on pulmonary structure, function and symptoms. Thorax, 2007. 62(12): p. 1058-63.
5. Moore, C, et al. (2011). Cannabinoids in oral fluid following passive exposure to marijuana smoke. Forensic Sci Int. 212(1-3): p. 227-30.
6. Tan, WC, et al. (2009). Marijuana and chronic obstructive lung disease: a population-based study. CMAJ. 180(8): p. 814-20.
7. Taylor, DR, et al. (200). The respiratory effects of cannabis dependence in young adults. Addiction. 95(11): p. 1669-77.
8. National Academies of Sciences E, and Medicine. (2017). The health effects of cannabis and cannabinoids: Current state of evidence and recommendations for researchexternal icon. Washington, D.C.
9. Hancox, RJ, et al. (2015). Effects of quitting cannabis on respiratory symptoms. Eur Respir J, 2015. 46(1): p. 80-7.
10. Tashkin, DP, Simmons MS, and Tseng, CH. (2012). Impact of changes in regular use of marijuana and/or tobacco on chronic bronchitis. COPD. 9(4): p. 367-74.
11. Wilson KM, Torok MR, Wei B, et al. (2017). Detecting biomarkers of secondhand marijuana smoke in young children. Pediatr Res. 81:589–592.
12. Broyd, SJ, et al. (2016). Acute and Chronic Effects of Cannabinoids on Human Cognition-A Systematic Review. Biol Psychiatry. 79(7): p. 557-67.
MENTAL HEALTH
Marijuana use, especially frequent (daily or near daily) use and use in high doses, can cause disorientation, and sometimes cause unpleasant thoughts or feelings of anxiety and paranoia. 1
Marijuana users are significantly more likely than nonusers to develop temporary psychosis (not knowing what is real, hallucinations and paranoia) and long-lasting mental disorders, including schizophrenia (a type of mental illness where people might see or hear things that aren’t really there). 2
Marijuana use has also been linked to depression and anxiety, and suicide among teens. However, it is not known whether this is a causal relationship or simply an association.
References
1. National Academies of Sciences E, and Medicine. (2017). The health effects of cannabis and cannabinoids: Current state of evidence and recommendations for researchexternal icon. Washington, D.C.
2. Volkow ND, Swanson JM, Evins AE, et al. (2016). Effects of cannabis use on human behavior, including cognition, motivation, and psychosis: a review. JAMA Psychiatry. 73(3):292-297. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2015.3278.
POISONING
Edibles, or food and drink products infused with marijuana and eaten, have some different risks than smoking marijuana, including a greater risk of poisoning. Unlike smoked marijuana, edibles can:
• Take from 30 minutes to 2 hours to take effect. So some people eat too much, which can lead to poisoning and/or serious injury.
• Cause effects that last longer than expected depending on the amount, the last food eaten, and medications or alcohol used at the same time.
• Be very difficult to measure. The amount of THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, is very difficult to measure and is often unknown in edible products. Many users can be caught off-guard by the strength and long-lasting effects of edibles.
It is also important to remember that marijuana affects children differently than adults. Since marijuana has become legal in some states, children have accidentally eaten marijuana products that looked like candy and treats, which made them sick enough to need emergency medical care. 3
If you use marijuana products, keep them in childproof containers and out of the reach of children. For additional questions, you can contact your health care provider, your health department, the Poison Helplineexternal icon at 1-800-222-1222, or 911 if it’s an emergency.
RISK OF USING OTHER DRUGS
The concept of marijuana as a “gateway drug”—where using marijuana leads a person to use other drugs—generates a lot of disagreement. Researchers haven’t found a definite answer yet. 1-2 However, most people who use marijuana do not go on to use other, “harder” drugs. 1
It is important to remember that people of any age, sex, or economic status can become addicted to marijuana or other drugs. Things that can affect the likelihood of substance use include:
• Family history.
• Having another mental health illness (such as anxiety or depression).
• Peer pressure.
• Loneliness or social isolation.
• Lack of family involvement.
• Drug availability.
• Socioeconomic status. 2
References
1. National Institute on Drug Abuse. Is marijuana a gateway drug? (2017). Rockville, MD: National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse.
2. Robertson EB, David SL, Rao SA. (2003) Preventing Drug Use Among Children and Adolescents. A Research-Based Guide for Parents, Educators, and Community Leaders pdf icon[PDF-725KB]external icon. National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2nd edn. NIH Publication no. 04-4212 (A). Bethesda, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services.
3. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (2017) Monitoring Health Concerns Related to Marijuana in Colorado: 2016external icon.
Reference
1. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2017). Key substance use and mental health indicators in the United States: Results from the 2016 National Survey on Drug Use and Healthexternal icon. Rockville, MD: Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
2. Batalla A, Bhattacharyya S, Yücel M, et al. (2013). Structural and functional imaging studies in chronic cannabis users: a systematic review of adolescent and adult findings. PloS One. 8(2):e55821. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0055821. https://www.cdc.gov/marijuana/health-effects.html

THE JURY IS OUT ON THE MEDICAL USES OF MARIJUANA.

Where information leads to Hope. © Dr. Wilda.com

Dr. Wilda says this about that ©

Blogs by Dr. Wilda:

COMMENTS FROM AN OLD FART©
http://drwildaoldfart.wordpress.com/

Dr. Wilda Reviews ©
http://drwildareviews.wordpress.com/

Dr. Wilda ©
https://drwilda.com/

Lancet study: High intake of dietary fiber and whole grains associated with reduced risk of non-communicable diseases

16 Jan

The Mayo Clinic wrote in Dietary fiber: Essential for a healthy diet:

What is dietary fiber?
Dietary fiber, also known as roughage or bulk, includes the parts of plant foods your body can’t digest or absorb. Unlike other food components, such as fats, proteins or carbohydrates — which your body breaks down and absorbs — fiber isn’t digested by your body. Instead, it passes relatively intact through your stomach, small intestine and colon and out of your body.
Fiber is commonly classified as soluble, which dissolves in water, or insoluble, which doesn’t dissolve.
• Soluble fiber. This type of fiber dissolves in water to form a gel-like material. It can help lower blood cholesterol and glucose levels. Soluble fiber is found in oats, peas, beans, apples, citrus fruits, carrots, barley and psyllium.
• Insoluble fiber. This type of fiber promotes the movement of material through your digestive system and increases stool bulk, so it can be of benefit to those who struggle with constipation or irregular stools. Whole-wheat flour, wheat bran, nuts, beans and vegetables, such as cauliflower, green beans and potatoes, are good sources of insoluble fiber.
The amount of soluble and insoluble fiber varies in different plant foods. To receive the greatest health benefit, eat a wide variety of high-fiber foods.
Benefits of a high-fiber diet
A high-fiber diet:
• Normalizes bowel movements. Dietary fiber increases the weight and size of your stool and softens it. A bulky stool is easier to pass, decreasing your chance of constipation. If you have loose, watery stools, fiber may help to solidify the stool because it absorbs water and adds bulk to stool.
• Helps maintain bowel health. A high-fiber diet may lower your risk of developing hemorrhoids and small pouches in your colon (diverticular disease). Studies have also found that a high-fiber diet likely lowers the risk of colorectal cancer. Some fiber is fermented in the colon. Researchers are looking at how this may play a role in preventing diseases of the colon.
• Lowers cholesterol levels. Soluble fiber found in beans, oats, flaxseed and oat bran may help lower total blood cholesterol levels by lowering low-density lipoprotein, or “bad,” cholesterol levels. Studies also have shown that high-fiber foods may have other heart-health benefits, such as reducing blood pressure and inflammation.
• Helps control blood sugar levels. In people with diabetes, fiber — particularly soluble fiber — can slow the absorption of sugar and help improve blood sugar levels. A healthy diet that includes insoluble fiber may also reduce the risk of developing type 2 diabetes.
• Aids in achieving healthy weight. High-fiber foods tend to be more filling than low-fiber foods, so you’re likely to eat less and stay satisfied longer. And high-fiber foods tend to take longer to eat and to be less “energy dense,” which means they have fewer calories for the same volume of food.
• Helps you live longer. Studies suggest that increasing your dietary fiber intake — especially cereal fiber — is associated with a reduced risk of dying from cardiovascular disease and all cancers…. https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/fiber/art-20043983

See, Dietary fiber: Why do we need it? https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/146935.php

Science Daily reported: High intake of dietary fiber and whole grains associated with reduced risk of non-communicable diseases

People who eat higher levels of dietary fibre and whole grains have lower rates of non-communicable diseases compared with people who eat lesser amounts, while links for low glycaemic load and low glycaemic index diets are less clear. Observational studies and clinical trials conducted over nearly 40 years reveal the health benefits of eating at least 25g to 29g or more of dietary fibre a day, according to a series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in The Lancet.
The results suggest a 15-30% decrease in all-cause and cardiovascular related mortality when comparing people who eat the highest amount of fibre to those who eat the least. Eating fibre-rich foods also reduced incidence of coronary heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes and colorectal cancer by 16-24%. Per 1,000 participants, the impact translates into 13 fewer deaths and six fewer cases of coronary heart disease.
In addition, a meta-analysis of clinical trials suggested that increasing fibre intakes was associated with lower bodyweight and cholesterol, compared with lower intakes.
The study was commissioned by the World Health Organization to inform the development of new recommendations for optimal daily fibre intake and to determine which types of carbohydrate provide the best protection against non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and weight gain.
Most people worldwide consume less than 20 g of dietary fibre per day. In 2015, the UK Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition recommended an increase in dietary fibre intake to 30 g per day, but only 9% of UK adults manage to reach this target. In the US, fibre intake among adults averages 15 g a day. Rich sources of dietary fibre include whole grains, pulses, vegetables and fruit….
The researchers included 185 observational studies containing data that relate to 135 million person years and 58 clinical trials involving 4,635 adult participants. They focused on premature deaths from and incidence of coronary heart disease, cardiovascular disease and stroke, as well as incidence of type 2 diabetes, colorectal cancer and cancers associated with obesity: breast, endometrial, esophageal and prostate cancer. The authors only included studies with healthy participants, so the findings cannot be applied to people with existing chronic diseases.
For every 8g increase of dietary fibre eaten per day, total deaths and incidence of coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes and colorectal cancer decreased by 5-27%. Protection against stroke, and breast cancer also increased. Consuming 25g to 29g each day was adequate but the data suggest that higher intakes of dietary fibre could provide even greater protection.
For every 15g increase of whole grains eaten per day, total deaths and incidence of coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes and colorectal cancer decreased by 2-19%. Higher intakes of whole grains were associated with a 13-33% reduction in NCD risk — translating into 26 fewer deaths per 1,000 people from all-cause mortality and seven fewer cases of coronary heart disease per 1,000 people. The meta-analysis of clinical trials involving whole grains showed a reduction in bodyweight. Whole grains are high in dietary fibre, which could explain their beneficial effects.
The study also found that diets with a low glycaemic index and low glycaemic load provided limited support for protection against type 2 diabetes and stroke only. Foods with a low glycaemic index or low glycaemic load may also contain added sugars, saturated fats, and sodium. This may account for the links to health being less clear…. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/01/190110184737.htm

Citation:

High intake of dietary fiber and whole grains associated with reduced risk of non-communicable diseases
Date: January 10, 2019
Source: The Lancet
Summary:
Observational studies and clinical trials conducted over nearly 40 years reveal the health benefits of eating at least 25g to 29g or more of dietary fiber a day, according to a series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Andrew Reynolds et al, Carbohydrate quality and human health: a series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, The Lancet (2019). DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31809-9

Here is the press release from the Lancet:

The Lancet: High intake of dietary fiber and whole grains associated with reduced risk of non-communicable diseases
People who eat higher levels of dietary fiber and whole grains have lower rates of non-communicable diseases compared with people who eat lesser amounts, while links for low glycemic load and low glycemic index diets are less clear
THE LANCET
People who eat higher levels of dietary fibre and whole grains have lower rates of non-communicable diseases compared with people who eat lesser amounts, while links for low glycaemic load and low glycaemic index diets are less clear. Observational studies and clinical trials conducted over nearly 40 years reveal the health benefits of eating at least 25g to 29g or more of dietary fibre a day, according to a series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in The Lancet.
The results suggest a 15-30% decrease in all-cause and cardiovascular related mortality when comparing people who eat the highest amount of fibre to those who eat the least. Eating fibre-rich foods also reduced incidence of coronary heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes and colorectal cancer by 16-24%. Per 1,000 participants, the impact translates into 13 fewer deaths and six fewer cases of coronary heart disease.
In addition, a meta-analysis of clinical trials suggested that increasing fibre intakes was associated with lower bodyweight and cholesterol, compared with lower intakes.
The study was commissioned by the World Health Organization to inform the development of new recommendations for optimal daily fibre intake and to determine which types of carbohydrate provide the best protection against non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and weight gain.
Most people worldwide consume less than 20 g of dietary fibre per day. In 2015, the UK Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition recommended an increase in dietary fibre intake to 30 g per day [1], but only 9% of UK adults manage to reach this target. In the US, fibre intake among adults averages 15 g a day [2]. Rich sources of dietary fibre include whole grains, pulses, vegetables and fruit.
“Previous reviews and meta-analyses have usually examined a single indicator of carbohydrate quality and a limited number of diseases so it has not been possible to establish which foods to recommend for protecting against a range of conditions,” says corresponding author Professor Jim Mann, the University of Otago, New Zealand.
“Our findings provide convincing evidence for nutrition guidelines to focus on increasing dietary fibre and on replacing refined grains with whole grains. This reduces incidence risk and mortality from a broad range of important diseases.” [3]
The researchers included 185 observational studies containing data that relate to 135 million person years and 58 clinical trials involving 4,635 adult participants. They focused on premature deaths from and incidence of coronary heart disease, cardiovascular disease and stroke, as well as incidence of type 2 diabetes, colorectal cancer and cancers associated with obesity: breast, endometrial, oesophageal and prostate cancer. The authors only included studies with healthy participants, so the findings cannot be applied to people with existing chronic diseases.
For every 8g increase of dietary fibre eaten per day, total deaths and incidences of coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes and colorectal cancer decreased by 5-27%. Protection against stroke, and breast cancer also increased. Consuming 25g to 29g each day was adequate but the data suggest that higher intakes of dietary fibre could provide even greater protection.
For every 15g increase of whole grains eaten per day, total deaths and incidences of coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes and colorectal cancer decreased by 2-19%. Higher intakes of whole grains were associated with a 13-33% reduction in NCD risk – translating into 26 fewer deaths per 1,000 people from all-cause mortality and seven fewer cases of coronary heart disease per 1,000 people. The meta-analysis of clinical trials involving whole grains showed a reduction in bodyweight. Whole grains are high in dietary fibre, which could explain their beneficial effects.
The study also found that diets with a low glycaemic index and low glycaemic load provided limited support for protection against type 2 diabetes and stroke only. Foods with a low glycaemic index or low glycaemic load may also contain added sugars, saturated fats, and sodium. This may account for the links to health being less clear.
“The health benefits of fibre are supported by over 100 years of research into its chemistry, physical properties, physiology and effects on metabolism. Fibre-rich whole foods that require chewing and retain much of their structure in the gut increase satiety and help weight control and can favourably influence lipid and glucose levels. The breakdown of fibre in the large bowel by the resident bacteria has additional wide-ranging effects including protection from colorectal cancer.” says Professor Jim Mann. [3]
While their study did not show any risks associated with dietary fibre, the authors note that high intakes might have ill-effects for people with low iron or mineral levels, for whom high levels of whole grains can further reduce iron levels. They also note that the study mainly relates to naturally-occurring fibre rich foods rather than synthetic and extracted fibre, such as powders, that can be added to foods.
Commenting on the implications and limitations of the study, Professor Gary Frost, Imperial College London, UK, says, “[The authors] report findings from both prospective cohort studies and randomised controlled trials in tandem. This method enables us to understand how altering the quality of carbohydrate intake in randomised controlled trials affects non-communicable disease risk factors and how these changes in diet quality align with disease incidence in prospective cohort studies. This alignment is seen beautifully for dietary fibre intake, in which observational studies reveal a reduction in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, which is associated with a reduction in bodyweight, total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and systolic blood pressure reported in randomised controlled trials… There are some important considerations that arise from this Article. First, total carbohydrate intake was not considered in the systematic review and meta-analysis… Second, although the absence of association between glycaemic index and load with non-communicable disease and risk factors is consistent with another recent systematic review, caution is needed when interpreting these data, as the number of studies is small and findings are heterogeneous. Third, the absence of quantifiable and objective biomarkers for assessing carbohydrate intake means dietary research relies on self-reported intake, which is prone to error and misreporting. Improving the accuracy of dietary assessment is a priority area for nutrition research. The analyses presented by Reynolds and colleagues provides compelling evidence that dietary fibre and whole grain are major determinants of numerous health outcomes and should form part of public health policy.”
###
NOTES TO EDITORS
Peer-reviewed / Meta-analysis and systematic review / People
This study was funded by the Health Research Council of New Zealand, the WHO, the Riddet Centre of Research Excellence, the Healthier Lives National Science Challenge, the University of Otago, and the Otago Southland Diabetes Research Trust. It was conducted by researchers from the University of Otago, the Riddet Centre of Research Excellence, and the University of Dundee.
The labels have been added to this press release as part of a project run by the Academy of Medical Sciences seeking to improve the communication of evidence. For more information, please see: http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/AMS-press-release-labelling-system-GUIDANCE.pdf if you have any questions or feedback, please contact The Lancet press office pressoffice@lancet.com
[1] Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/445503/SACN_Carbohydrates_and_Health.pdf
[2] https://www.ucsfhealth.org/education/increasing_fiber_intake/
[3] Quote direct from author and cannot be found in the text of the Article.
Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.

Although, there are minimum suggested daily minimum requirements, one should not overdue the daily intake of fiber.

Lauretta Claussen wrote in the SFGATE article, What Is Maximum Fiber Intake Per Day?

Too Much Fiber
Though fiber is beneficial, there is some risk of negative side effects from eating too much. Excessive amounts of fiber can bind with certain minerals such as calcium, iron, zinc and magnesium, interfering with absorption, warns the University of Maryland Medical Center. However, there is no upper limit set for how much fiber one can safely consume daily. Achieving dangerous levels from food intake alone would be difficult, and would most likely come as a result of excessive fiber supplement use.
Intestinal Problems
Though it is difficult to eat too much fiber, there is a risk of intestinal side effects from eating too much fiber at one sitting. Stomach cramps, gas and bloating can all occur when a dramatic fiber intake occurs suddenly. Once the natural bacteria in the digestive system gets accustomed to a high-fiber diet, these symptoms will likely subside.
Recommended Levels
The average American diet contains far too little fiber. Older children and adults should consume 20 to 35 grams of fiber daily, though most only get approximately 10 to 15. If you find you need to increase your daily fiber, do so slowly– over six to eight weeks– in order to avoid side effects. Drinking at least eight glasses of water daily will also help reduce the risk of negative side effects…. https://healthyeating.sfgate.com/maximum-fiber-intake-per-day-7061.html

The key concept is moderation.

Resources:

Minimum Daily Fiber Requirements                               https://healthyeating.sfgate.com/minimum-daily-fiber-requirements-4436.html

Fiber: How Much Is Too Much?                                   https://www.everydayhealth.com/hs/guide-to-daily-fiber/too-much-fiber/

Where information leads to Hope. © Dr. Wilda.com

Dr. Wilda says this about that ©

Blogs by Dr. Wilda:

COMMENTS FROM AN OLD FART©
http://drwildaoldfart.wordpress.com/

Dr. Wilda Reviews ©
http://drwildareviews.wordpress.com/

Dr. Wilda ©
https://drwilda.com/

Lancet study: Parental provision of alcohol to teenagers does not reduce risks, compared to no supply, Australian study finds

28 Jan

Substance abuse is a serious problem for many young people. The Centers for Disease Control provide statistics about underage drinking in the Fact Sheet: Underage Drinking:

Underage Drinking
Alcohol use by persons under age 21 years is a major public health problem.1 Alcohol is the most commonly used and abused drug among youth in the United States, more than tobacco and illicit drugs. Although drinking by persons under the age of 21 is illegal, people aged 12 to 20 years drink 11% of all alcohol consumed in the United States.2 More than 90% of this alcohol is consumed in the form of binge drinks.2 On average, underage drinkers consume more drinks per drinking occasion than adult drinkers.3 In 2008, there were approximately 190,000 emergency rooms visits by persons under age 21 for injuries and other conditions linked to alcohol.4
Drinking Levels among Youth
The 2009 Youth Risk Behavior Survey5 found that among high school students, during the past 30 days
• 42% drank some amount of alcohol.
• 24% binge drank.
• 10% drove after drinking alcohol.
• 28% rode with a driver who had been drinking alcohol.
Other national surveys indicate
• In 2008 the National Survey on Drug Use and Health reported that 28% of youth aged 12 to 20 years drink alcohol and 19% reported binge drinking.6
• In 2009, the Monitoring the Future Survey reported that 37% of 8th graders and 72% of 12th graders had tried alcohol, and 15% of 8th graders and 44% of 12th graders drank during the past month.7
Consequences of Underage Drinking
Youth who drink alcohol1, 3, 8 are more likely to experience
• School problems, such as higher absence and poor or failing grades.
• Social problems, such as fighting and lack of participation in youth activities.
• Legal problems, such as arrest for driving or physically hurting someone while drunk.
• Physical problems, such as hangovers or illnesses.
• Unwanted, unplanned, and unprotected sexual activity.
• Disruption of normal growth and sexual development.
• Physical and sexual assault.
• Higher risk for suicide and homicide.
• Alcohol-related car crashes and other unintentional injuries, such as burns, falls, and drowning.
• Memory problems.
• Abuse of other drugs.
• Changes in brain development that may have life-long effects.
• Death from alcohol poisoning.
In general, the risk of youth experiencing these problems is greater for those who binge drink than for those who do not binge drink.8
Youth who start drinking before age 15 years are five times more likely to develop alcohol dependence or abuse later in life than those who begin drinking at or after age 21 years.9, 10 http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/underage-drinking.htm
See, Alcohol Use Among Adolescents and Young Adults http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh27-1/79-86.htm
https://drwilda.wordpress.com/2012/03/26/seattle-childrens-institute-study-supportive-middle-school-teachers-affect-a-kids-alcohol-use/

According to a Science Daily article, parents might want to think about the risks of providing alcohol to their underage children.

Science Daily reported in Parental provision of alcohol to teenagers does not reduce risks, compared to no supply, Australian study finds:

There is no evidence to support the practice of parents providing alcohol to their teenagers to protect them from alcohol-related risks during early adolescence, according to a prospective cohort study in Australia published in The Lancet Public Health journal.
The six year study of 1927 teenagers aged 12 to 18 and their parents found that there were no benefits or protective effects associated with giving teenagers alcohol when compared to teenagers who were not given alcohol. Instead, parental provision of alcohol was associated with increased likelihood of teenagers accessing alcohol through other sources, compared to teenagers not given any alcohol.
Alcohol consumption is the leading risk factor for death and disability in 15-24 year olds globally. Drinking during adolescence is of concern as this is when alcohol use disorders (ie, dependence on or abuse of alcohol) are most likely to develop….
The study recruited teenagers and their parents between 2010 and 2011 from secondary schools in Perth, Sydney and Hobart (Australia). The teenagers and their parents completed separate questionnaires every year from 2010 to 2016 including information about how teenagers accessed alcohol (from parents, other non-parental sources, or both), binge drinking levels (defined as drinking more than four drinks on a single occasion in the past year), experience of alcohol-related harm, and alcohol abuse symptoms. In the final two years, teenagers were also asked about symptoms of alcohol dependence and alcohol use disorder that could predict alcohol misuse problems in the future.
At the start of the study, the average age of the teenagers was 12.9 years old and by the end of the study the average age was 17.8 years old. The proportion of teenagers who accessed alcohol from their parents increased as the teenagers aged, from 15% (291/1910) at the start of the study to 57% (916/1618) at the end of the study, while the proportion with no access to alcohol reduced from 81% (1556/1910) teenagers to 21% (341/1618).
At the end of the study, 81% (632/784) of teenagers who accessed alcohol through their parents and others reported binge drinking, compared with 62% (224/361) of those who accessed it via other people only, and 25% (33/132) of teens who were given alcohol by their parents only. Similar trends were seen for alcohol-related harm, and for symptoms of possible future alcohol abuse, dependence and alcohol use disorders. The group of teenagers supplied with alcohol from both their parents and other sources were at the greatest risk of the five adverse outcomes, potentially as a result of their increased exposure…. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/01/180125161255.htm

Citation:

Parental provision of alcohol to teenagers does not reduce risks, compared to no supply, Australian study finds
Date: January 25, 2018
Source: The Lancet
Summary:
There is no evidence to support the practice of parents providing alcohol to their teenagers to protect them from alcohol-related risks during early adolescence, according to a prospective cohort study in Australia.
Journal References:
1. Richard P Mattick, Philip J Clare, Alexandra Aiken, Monika Wadolowski, Delyse Hutchinson, Jackob Najman, Tim Slade, Raimondo Bruno, Nyanda McBride, Kypros Kypri, Laura Vogl, Louisa Degenhardt. Association of parental supply of alcohol with adolescent drinking, alcohol-related harms, and alcohol use disorder symptoms: a prospective cohort study. The Lancet Public Health, 2018; DOI: 10.1016/S2468-2667(17)30240-2
2. Stuart A Kinner, Rohan Borschmann. Parental supply and alcohol-related harm in adolescence: emerging but incomplete evidence. The Lancet Public Health, 2018; DOI: 10.1016/S2468-2667(18)30006-9

Here is the abstract from the Lancet:

Association of parental supply of alcohol with adolescent drinking, alcohol-related harms, and alcohol use disorder symptoms: a prospective cohort study
Prof Richard P Mattick, PhD Correspondence information about the author Prof Richard P Mattick Email the author Prof Richard P Mattick
,
Philip J Clare, MBiostats
,
Alexandra Aiken, MPH
,
Monika Wadolowski, PhD
,
Delyse Hutchinson, PhD
,
Prof Jackob Najman, PhD
,
Tim Slade, PhD
,
Raimondo Bruno, PhD
,
Nyanda McBride, PhD
,
Prof Kypros Kypri, PhD
,
Laura Vogl, PhD
,
Prof Louisa Degenhardt, PhD
Published: 25 January 2018
Open Access
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(17)30240-2
|
Summary
Background
Some parents supply alcohol to their children, reportedly to reduce harm, yet longitudinal research on risks associated with such supply is compromised by short periods of observation and potential confounding. We aimed to investigate associations between parental supply and supply from other (non-parental) sources, with subsequent drinking outcomes over a 6-year period of adolescence, adjusting for child, parent, family, and peer variables.
Methods
We did this prospective cohort study using data from the Australian Parental Supply of Alcohol Longitudinal Study cohort of adolescents. Children in grade 7 (mean age 12 years), and their parents, were recruited between 2010 and 2011 from secondary schools in Sydney, Perth, and Hobart, Australia, and were surveyed annually between 2010 and 2016. We examined the association of exposure to parental supply and other sources of alcohol in 1 year with five outcomes in the subsequent year: binge drinking (more than four standard drinks on a drinking occasion); alcohol-related harms; and symptoms of alcohol abuse (as defined by Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition [DSM-IV]), alcohol dependence, and alcohol use disorder (as defined by DSM-5). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02280551.
Findings
Between September, 2010, and June, 2011, we recruited 1927 eligible parents and adolescents (mean age 12·9 years [SD 0·52]). Participants were followed up until 2016, during which time binge drinking and experience of alcohol-related harms increased. Adolescents who were supplied alcohol only by parents had higher odds of subsequent binge consumption (odds ratio [OR] 2·58, 95% CI 1·96–3·41; p<0·0001), alcohol-related harm (2·53, 1·99–3·24; p<0·0001), and symptoms of alcohol use disorder (2·51, 1·46–4·29; p=0·0008) than did those reporting no supply. Parental supply of alcohol was not significantly associated with the odds of reporting symptoms of either alcohol abuse or dependence, compared with no supply from any source. Supply from other sources was associated with significant risks of all adverse outcomes, compared with no supply, with an even greater increased risk of adverse outcomes.
Interpretation
Providing alcohol to children is associated with alcohol-related harms. There is no evidence to support the view that parental supply protects from adverse drinking outcomes by providing alcohol to their child. Parents should be advised that this practice is associated with risk, both directly and indirectly through increased access to alcohol from other sources.
Funding
Australian Research Council, Australian Rotary Health, Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education, National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre….. Continue Reading at http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(17)30240-2/fulltext

Assuming you are not one of those ill-advised parents who supply their child with alcohol or drugs like marijuana in an attempt to be hip or cool, suspicions that your child may have a substance abuse problem are a concern. Confirmation that your child has a substance abuse problem can be heartbreaking. Even children whose parents have seemingly done everything right can become involved with drugs. The best defense is knowledge about your child, your child’s friends, and your child’s activities. You need to be aware of what is influencing your child.
Our goal should be:

A Healthy Child In A Healthy Family Who Attends A Healthy School In A Healthy Neighborhood. ©

Related:

More school districts facing a financial crunch are considering school ads https://drwilda.wordpress.com/2012/06/04/more-school-districts-facing-a-financial-crunch-are-considering-school-ads/

Should there be advertising in schools? https://drwilda.wordpress.com/2011/11/10/should-there-be-advertising-in-schools/

Talking to your teen about risky behaviors https://drwilda.wordpress.com/2012/06/07/talking-to-your-teen-about-risky-behaviors/

Television cannot substitute for quality childcare https://drwilda.wordpress.com/2012/04/23/television-cannot-substitute-for-quality-childcare/

Where information leads to Hope. © Dr. Wilda.com

Dr. Wilda says this about that ©

Blogs by Dr. Wilda:

COMMENTS FROM AN OLD FART©
http://drwildaoldfart.wordpress.com/

Dr. Wilda Reviews ©
http://drwildareviews.wordpress.com/

Dr. Wilda ©
https://drwilda.com/

Australian study: Frequent marijuana use among those under 17 may result in lower educational achievement

23 Sep

Often children who evidence signs of a substance abuse problem come from homes where there is a substance abuse problem. That problem may be generational. eMedicineHealth lists some of the causes of substance abuse:

Substance Abuse Causes
Use and abuse of substances such as cigarettes, alcohol, and illegal drugs may begin in childhood or the teen years. Certain risk factors may increase someone’s likelihood to abuse substances.
Factors within a family that influence a child’s early development have been shown to be related to increased risk of drug abuse.
o Chaotic home environment
o Ineffective parenting
o Lack of nurturing and parental attachment
Factors related to a child’s socialization outside the family may also increase risk of drug abuse.
o Inappropriately aggressive or shy behavior in the classroom
o Poor social coping skills
o Poor school performance
o Association with a deviant peer group
o Perception of approval of drug use behavior http://www.emedicinehealth.com/substance_abuse/article_em.htm

Substance abuse is often a manifestation of other problems that child has either at home or poor social relations including low self-esteem. Dr. Alan Leshner summarizes the reasons children use drugs in why do Sally and Johnny use drugs? http://archives.drugabuse.gov/Published_Articles/Sally.html

Simon Makin reported in the Scientific American article, Does Marijuana Harm the Brain?

The Claim
Casual cannabis use harms young people’s brains.
The Facts
A study found differences in the brains of users and nonusers, but it did not establish that marijuana use caused the variations or that they had any functional significance.
The Details
Researchers at Northwestern University and Harvard Medical School conducted MRI scans of two groups of 20 young adults ages 18 to 25. One group reported using marijuana at least once a week, smoking 11 joints a week on average, whereas the other had used it less than five times total and not at all during the last year. Neither group had any psychiatric disorders, and the users were psychiatrically assessed as not dependent on the drug.
The study focused on two brain regions involved in processing rewards, the nucleus accumbens and the amygdala. These areas create pleasurable experiences of things such as food and sex, as well as the high associated with drugs, and have been shown to change in animals given THC, the main psychoactive component of cannabis.
The researchers found that cannabis users had more gray matter density in the left nucleus accumbens and left amygdala, as well as differences in the shape of the left nucleus accumbens and right amygdala. The left nucleus accumbens also tended to be slightly larger in users. They concluded that recreational cannabis use might be associated with abnormalities in the brain’s reward system. News reports have proclaimed that scientists have shown that even casual cannabis use harms young people’s brains.
The Caveats
The most obvious problem with leaping to that conclusion is that the scans were conducted at only one point. This approach can compare the two groups, but it cannot prove cannabis caused any differences between them—or even that the differences represent changes over time. They could be preexisting variations, or cannabis use and brain changes may both be related to a third factor, such as tobacco (although the study did attempt to take levels of smoking into account)…..
Reality Check—Cannabis use has been found to:
• Cause dependence, at some point in their lives, in about 9 percent of people who try it.
• Impair various aspects of cognitive function, particularly memory. Impairments can remain for several days. One study showed that performance returns to nonusers’ levels after 28 days of abstinence, but evidence is mixed about how long the impairments last.
• Potentially reduce the volume of the hippocampus, which is critical for memory—but only after heavy and prolonged use. The evidence linking cognitive impairments to specific brain changes is inconclusive, and the degree to which such changes are reversible is hotly debated. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-marijuana-harm-the-brain/

Science Daily reported a longitudinal study from Australia and New Zealand.

In Frequent cannabis use in adolescence linked with reduced educational attainment, other problems in young adults, Science Daily reported:

Individuals who are daily users of cannabis before age 17 are over 60% less likely to complete high school or obtain a degree compared to those who have never used the drug, new research published in The Lancet Psychiatry journal shows. The large meta-analysis also indicates that daily users of cannabis during adolescence are seven times more likely to attempt suicide, have an 18 times greater chance of cannabis dependence, and are eight times as likely to use other illicit drugs in later life.
“Our findings are particularly timely given that several US states and countries in Latin America have made moves to decriminalize or legalize cannabis, raising the possibility that the drug might become more accessible to young people”, says Richard Mattick, study author and Professor of Drug and Alcohol Studies at the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, in Australia.
Cannabis is the most widely used illicit drug globally and recent statistics have shown that in some countries adolescents are starting cannabis use at a younger age and more adolescents are using cannabis heavily. In England, 4% of 11-15 year olds report cannabis use in the past month, roughly 7% of US high-school seniors are daily or near-daily cannabis users, and in Australia, around 1% of 14-19 year olds are daily users of the drug, whilst 4% use weekly.
In this study, a team of Australian and New Zealand researchers combined individual-level data on up to 3765 participants who used cannabis from three large, long-running longitudinal studies to find out more about the link between the frequency of cannabis use before the age of 17 years (never, less than monthly, monthly or more, weekly or more, or daily) and seven developmental outcomes up to the age of 30 years (completing high school, obtaining a university degree, cannabis dependence, use of other illicit drugs, suicide attempt, depression, and welfare dependence)….
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140909192001.htm

Citation:

Frequent cannabis use in adolescence linked with reduced educational attainment, other problems in young adults
Date: September 9, 2014

Source: The Lancet
Summary:
Individuals who are daily users of cannabis before age 17 are over 60% less likely to complete high school or obtain a degree compared to those who have never used the drug, new research shows. The large meta-analysis also indicates that daily users of cannabis during adolescence are seven times more likely to attempt suicide, have an 18 times greater chance of cannabis dependence, and are eight times as likely to use other illicit drugs in later life.

Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved.
Young adult sequelae of adolescent cannabis use: an integrative analysis
Dr Edmund Silins PhD a Corresponding AuthorEmail Address, L John Horwood MSc c, Prof George C Patton MD d g, Prof David M Fergusson PhD c, Craig A Olsson PhD d e g h, Delyse M Hutchinson PhD a, Elizabeth Spry BA d, Prof John W Toumbourou PhD d e, Prof Louisa Degenhardt PhD a d f i, Wendy Swift PhD a, Carolyn Coffey PhD d, Robert J Tait PhD j k, Primrose Letcher PhD g, Prof Jan Copeland PhD b, Richard P Mattick PhD a, for the Cannabis Cohorts Research Consortium†

Summary

Background

Debate continues about the consequences of adolescent cannabis use. Existing data are limited in statistical power to examine rarer outcomes and less common, heavier patterns of cannabis use than those already investigated; furthermore, evidence has a piecemeal approach to reporting of young adult sequelae. We aimed to provide a broad picture of the psychosocial sequelae of adolescent cannabis use.
Methods

We integrated participant-level data from three large, long-running longitudinal studies from Australia and New Zealand: the Australian Temperament Project, the Christchurch Health and Development Study, and the Victorian Adolescent Health Cohort Study. We investigated the association between the maximum frequency of cannabis use before age 17 years (never, less than monthly, monthly or more, weekly or more, or daily) and seven developmental outcomes assessed up to age 30 years (high-school completion, attainment of university degree, cannabis dependence, use of other illicit drugs, suicide attempt, depression, and welfare dependence). The number of participants varied by outcome (N=2537 to N=3765).

Findings

We recorded clear and consistent associations and dose-response relations between the frequency of adolescent cannabis use and all adverse young adult outcomes. After covariate adjustment, compared with individuals who had never used cannabis, those who were daily users before age 17 years had clear reductions in the odds of high-school completion (adjusted odds ratio 0•37, 95% CI 0•20—0•66) and degree attainment (0•38, 0•22—0•66), and substantially increased odds of later cannabis dependence (17•95, 9•44—34•12), use of other illicit drugs (7•80, 4•46—13•63), and suicide attempt (6•83, 2•04—22•90).

Interpretation

Adverse sequelae of adolescent cannabis use are wide ranging and extend into young adulthood. Prevention or delay of cannabis use in adolescence is likely to have broad health and social benefits. Efforts to reform cannabis legislation should be carefully assessed to ensure they reduce adolescent cannabis use and prevent potentially adverse developmental effects.

Funding

Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council.
Young adult sequelae of adolescent cannabis use: an integrative analysis : The Lancet Psychiatry National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, UNSW Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Young adult sequelae of adolescent cannabis use: an integrative analysis : The Lancet Psychiatry
Young adult sequelae of adolescent cannabis use: an integrative analysis. By – Dr Edmund Silins PhD, L John Horwood MSc, Prof George C Patton MD, Prof David M Fergusson PhD, Craig A Olsson PhD, Del…
View on http://www.thelancet.com
b National Cannabis Prevention and Information Centre, UNSW Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia
c Christchurch Health and Development Study, Department of Psychological Medicine, University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand
d Centre for Adolescent Health, Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
e School of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia
f School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
g Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
h Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
i Department of Global Health, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
j National Drug Research Institute, Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia
k Centre for Research on Ageing Health and Wellbeing, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia
Corresponding Author Information Correspondence to: Dr Edmund Silins, National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, UNSW Australia, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
† Other members listed at end of paper

What Steps Should a Parent Take?

The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) has a series of questions parents should ask http://www.getsmartaboutdrugs.com/content/default.aspx?pud=a8bcb6ee-523a-4909-9d76-928d956f3f91
If you suspect that your child has a substance abuse problem, you will have to seek help of some type. You will need a plan of action. The Partnership for a Drug Free America lists 7 Steps to Take and each step is explained at the site. http://www.drugfree.org/intervene
If your child has a substance abuse problem, both you and your child will need help. “One day at a time” is a famous recovery affirmation which you and your child will live the meaning. The road to recovery may be long or short, it will have twists and turns with one step forward and two steps back. In order to reach the goal of recovery, both parent and child must persevere.

Related:

University of Washington study: Heroin use among young suburban and rural non-traditional users on the https://drwilda.com/2013/10/13/university-of-washington-study-heroin-use-among-young-suburban-and-rural-non-traditional-users-on-the-increase/

Resources

Adolescent Substance Abuse Knowledge Base http://www.crchealth.com/troubled-teenagers/teenage-substance-abuse/adolescent-substance-abuse/signs-drug-use/

Warning Signs of Teen Drug Abuse
http://parentingteens.about.com/cs/drugsofabuse/a/driug_abuse20.htm?r=et

Is Your Teen Using?
http://www.drugfree.org/intervene

Al-Anon and Alateen http://www.al-anon.alateen.org/

WEBMD: Parenting and Teen Substance Abuse http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/tc/teen-substance-abuse-choosing-a-treatment-program-topic-overview

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has a very good booklet for families What is Substance Abuse Treatment? http://store.samhsa.gov/home

The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) has a web site for teens and parents that teaches about drug abuse NIDA for Teens: The Science Behind Drug Abuse
http://teens.drugabuse.gov/

Where information leads to Hope. © Dr. Wilda.com

Dr. Wilda says this about that ©

Blogs by Dr. Wilda:

COMMENTS FROM AN OLD FART© http://drwildaoldfart.wordpress.com/

Dr. Wilda Reviews © http://drwildareviews.wordpress.com/

Dr. Wilda © https://drwilda.com/

For exclusive content: THE OLD BLACK FART Subscribe at http://beta.tidbitts.com/dr-wilda-the-old-black-fart/the-old-black-fart