Talk:Schizophrenia

Risk factors: Substance use possibly unintentionally misleading

I make no claims to being an expert on the subject of cannabis or schizophrenia. However, I felt it bears pointing out that for decades the U.S. government made so many official false claims about the dire effects of marijuana in its efforts to conduct its global drug war that now people all over the world are understandably skeptical about any reports of marijuana's potentially negative effects. Considering the debilitating effect a diagnosis of schizophrenia is apt to have on a patient's life, if sufficient reliable evidence to list marijuana as a contributing factor exists, special care must be taken to differentiate it from Reagan-era "just say no" bullshit [REJSNB]; otherwise, readers who might otherwise be helped by the information will surely ignore it.

The whole last paragraph of the section reads as though it might be suspect. But most egregious is: "One of these strains is well known as skunk"—a statement with all the hallmarks of REJSNB. Skunk weed isn't a strain of marijuana in the sense that, say, C. sativa is. It simply refers to an old, pre-legalization belief that the potency of any garden-variety marijuana can be judged by how it smells. Weed that emits a sharp, skunk-like odor when burnt was thought to be particularly potent.

Any habitual smoker will take one look at that and burst out laughing. Granted, they're probably giggling already, but I suggest the entire sentence can be elided unless the point of including it is to make a dubious claim that brand-name strains of marijuana are psychologically healthier than skunk weed. It seems unlikely that any such baldfaced attempt at monetization is being made here. If it were, however, such an attempt might be improved by finding a brand-name weed distribution company to sponsor this page. --Saltcub (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the paragraph is badly sourced, and the reserch cited in the citations used for the claim abbout 'skunk' being the coulpritt actualy does not say the same as what is written on the Wikipedia page. The relevant source for the potency claim mentions the chemical Delta 9-THC. Whilst it does mention 'skunk' i do not realy see the relevance of pointing out a certain strain when the findings point to the chemical and not the strain itsself. As a side note reserch on the effects of mrijuana on mental helath is especialy complicated as it is a plant. Therefore different strains may contain differnt levels of chemichals, and different chemicals, making the singelinng out of a particualar strain problematic at best, and pottentialy untruthfull at worst. However the basic raserch behind the linking of canabissmoking and schizophrenia seems to be sound, however it should not be a masive cause for concern as in the overall picture the ellimination of consumtion would only resoult in a poppulation wide derease in the prevalence of schitzofrenia of 8 %, if there is a causal relationship between the two. EirikRS (talk) 11:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

References

The sourcing is sound, and neither the NHS nor the Royal College of Psychiatrists are “Reagan-esque era” sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

They may be good sources, but thhey do not give good suport for what is stated in the wikipedia article, especially the mention of the strain 'skunk'. In my opinon the paragraph would be improved by simply removing themention of skunk. This would also increase the emphasis on the importatnt risk factor (THC concentration) and away from the focus on a single strain (skunk). EirikRS (talk) 10:24, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2021

There's a typo in the "Negative symptoms" section: "blunt effect" should be "blunt affect". 2A01:C22:C867:CD00:E80E:91B3:7F92:2373 (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Done, thanks Urve (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Recreational Drugs section

Seems to me there are several claims with sources that say nothing. Especially on the bottom. Kenhick (talk) 04:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Can you give specific examples?--Megaman en m (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

recent edit

Hi Bear420 I get what you're going for, but without a survey / poll of popular belief, maybe it's best to just cite the facts and not say 'contrary to popular belief'? Like the difference between saying "many disabled people have graduated from college" vs saying "contrary to common belief, many disabled people have graduated from college" - one puts the emphasis on facts about the actions of the people in question, the other shifts the emphasis to the biases or misconceptions of abled people. Thoughts? - ARMILLARIA.9 (talk) 01:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, this is a clear case of editorialization.--Megaman en m (talk) 10:42, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know that it's editorialization per se, and if Bear420 wants to share a source / survey of popular belief, I'd be ok with keeping some mention of it. - ARMILLARIA.9 (talk) 13:33, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I think (but am not too sure) that even if it's true, the claim is synthetic to make without explicit linkage between public opinion and college graduation in the source. Urve (talk) 13:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Skunk

Incorrect usage of the word 'skunk' in the article:Italic text Hi, the use of the word skunk in the article is not factual and not backed up by the sources linked. As a Brit, I know exactly where this misconception has arisen. During the 2000s, the British government started calling any 'stronger' strains of cannabis,'skunk'. There is no strain actually just called 'skunk'. There is skunk no1' but no such strain as just skunk. Like i said, this was catch all phrase for the UK government for any stronger cannabis strains.

So basically the skunk sentence in article is wrong in two ways 1.the source provided does not back up the claim 2.No such strain exists and is a result of blanket phrasing by the British government/nhs. 3. The government/NHS was referring to any high thc content strain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Systema2000 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

See the discussion at (above on this page). The text in the article now reflects high quality sources. If you have better sources, please provide them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I severely question the quality of these sources in proving the use of the word skunk as factual. The Causal association between cannabis and psychosis: examination of the evidence source has no use of the word skunk that i can find.

The 'High-potency cannabis and the risk of psychosis' source does use it, but its in brackets used as a colloquial term next to the word sensimilia. It makes no reference to a strain called skunk. Like i said before, its using the word as a blanket colloquial term, and the only reason they include it is due to their(uk gov, nhs, medical establishmenet etc) past errors in basically nicknaming all high strength weed as some special strain called skunk.

What specifically do i need to provide? Im questioning the validity of the sources used as they dont support what the article says. You want me to provide a source proving that those sources are wrong? Because thats going to be impossible because no one is going to bother to write a scientific article on how the uk government and the nhs/uk medical establishments use of the word skunk is wrong.

I dont feel i need to anyway, as the sources pretty much define it as i was saying, using it colloquially.

Heres a recent source that makes the effort to not directly call all high strength cannabis 'skunk', instead they refer to it as 'skunk-like'. https://www.thelancet.com/pb/assets/raw/Lancet/pdfs/14TLP0454_Di%20Forti.pdf

Hopefully this enforces my point more. They would not drop the term skunk like that without good reason. The reason is, skunk is just a colloquial term. Skunkno1 is just one particular mix of land race cannabis strains. In the years since skunkno1 was bred, breeders and seed companies have collected and bred together different combinations of land race cannabis strains, many of which are much higher potency than skunkno1.

So all the other high strength strains that dont derive from skunkno1 are being labelled as skunk, incorrectly. Even with the older strains Eg White widow,a cross between a Brazilian sativa landrace and a resin-heavy South Indian indica. It has no skunk genetics. Yet its 18% thc. High strength cannabis. Skunk no1 is a hybrid of Afghani, Acapulco Gold, and Colombian Gold.

Different genetics entirely. the two most popular strains the uk at the moment are amnesia haze and stardawg. Amnesia haze has no skunk no1 genetics at all. Chemdawg has a complicated origin but is also considered not to have skunk no1 genetics.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Systema2000 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC) 

Can you find a secondary source that addresses the same issue that is more specific about "skunk" versus "high potency strains of cannabis"? Is "better" than the current source? Wikipedia tries to do as little "interpretation" as possible so getting a better source that addresses the same issue is a good approach. Unfortunately well-reasoned arguments will tend to lose to "this source says such and such". The role of knowledge and understanding is to know when a better source is likely to be found. Sometimes no suitable source exists. Talpedia (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

---

Yes i agree sometimes there isnt a better source available, but if we know some parts of the source to be incorrect, why do we need to relay that onto the wiki page? Seems a bit backwards, to provide something factually incorrect on a wiki page just because there isnt a more recent source with correct terminology.

Also, the sources all make reference to 'high strength cannabis' in some way, and detail the percentages of thc too. Now why would they put that if the word skunk was fine? Because they didnt have a clue about the strains their users were actually using, and they knew that the term skunk wasnt proper. One source, when using the word skunk, always puts it in apostrophes, indicating they arent using it as an offical term per se. Surely this enough to prove its being used an a slang phrase?

Usually if a source can be proven to be incorrect in its terminology, wouldnt that source be considered not acceptable/antiquated? 

The only solution i can think of is getting a written clarification from one of the authors of the sources , which I can imagine is going to be very hard.

I only briefly read the sources, but it seems to me they were going off user subject submitted data. Eg, the people being studied were just giving the researchers info about their cannabis usage. Now unless those users grew it themselves, they wouldnt even be able to tell if its skunk no1 genetics or not. So to then put 'skunk' on the wiki page just seems crazy.

I mean to me its super obvious the sources are using it as a blanket term , using it next to terms such as high potency cannabis.

I just think the level of proof thats required from me isnt the same as that source required when written, yet we are all going off those sources. All the source required was the user telling them they smoke high strength weed, then that gets made into 'they smoke skunk'by the authors of the source, without any details of strains being given to the researchers.

But because its published, its just considered fact by wiki? And now I have to provide superior evidence than the source did, in order to get that section of the wiki removed/altered into preferable terms? Eg instead of using the word skunk and mentioning the strain, just put 'high potency cannabis', a term used by multiple sources in place or alongside the word skunk already.

Its an incorrect addition to the wiki article, its really frustrating.

What abut providing details/sources about other high potency non skunk related strains? Surely thats enough to disprove the usage alone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Systema2000 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)