Talk:Cannabis use disorder

older entries

I can't help but feel the 'Worldwide data on cannabis use and dependence' is more like 'Australian data on cannabis use and dependence'. Doesn't seem very encyclopaedic.114.76.51.217 (talk) 03:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Does any one else find it amusing that one of the first references cited here is Budney et al.?

Yeastbeast (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought boredom would be a symptom of withdrawal. I guess that might fall under depression though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.94.0.129 (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

This whole entry is misinformation, and culled from the DSM. On another wikipedia page we have:

It has also been alleged that the way the categories of the DSM are structured, as well as the substantial expansion of the number of categories, are representative of an increasing medicalization of human nature, which may be attributed to disease mongering by psychiatrists and pharmaceutical companies, the power and influence of the latter having grown dramatically in recent decades.

The same article concludes that the connections between panel members and the drug companies were particularly strong in those diagnoses where drugs are the first line of treatment, such as schizophrenia and mood disorders, where 100% of the panel members had financial ties with the pharmaceutical industry.

My observation is that much of the 'anti-cannabis' 'research' currently emanating is by psychiatrists, presents no science to back up allegations of addiction or psychosis, and is stacked with assumptions, illogical conclusions and obfuscation, if not downright misinformation. In light of the above, psychiatrists 'opinions' on cannabis should be avoided as unscientific and 'disease mongering', ie. creating conditions that only they can then treat. This page is therefore doing the job for the pharmaceuticals, who are busy patenting cannabis 'medicines' while the issue remains clouded in some minds. The threat to them is that people can and do self medicate, and with a substance they can grow themseves. Currently big pharmaceuticals make many billions fro conditions cannabis can and does treat, often more adequately that their chemical coshes, and with relatively trivial side effects. PetePassword (talk) 11:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Citation style

The first version of this article had no established citation style-- it's all over the map. The citation style makes work on this article difficult:

Sample view of text in edit mode
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Evidence for cannabis dependence comes from a number of sources including epidemiological surveys,<ref>{{cite journal | doi = 10.1016/S0376-8716(01)00130-2 | last1 = Degenhardt | first1 = L. | last2 = Hall | first2 = W. | last3 = Lynskey | first3 = M. | year = 2001 | title = The relationship between cannabis use and other substance use in the general population | url = | journal = Drug and Alcohol Dependence | volume = 64 | issue = 3| pages = 319–327 | pmid = 11672946 }}</ref><ref name="Swift, W. 1998">{{cite journal | doi = 10.1159/000018952 | last1 = Swift | first1 = W. | last2 = Hall | first2 = W. | last3 = Copeland | first3 = J. | year = 1998 | title = Characteristics of long term cannabis users in Sydney, Australia | url = | journal = European Addiction Research | volume = 4 | issue = 4| pages = 190–197 | pmid = 9852371 }}</ref><ref>Robins, L.N. and Regier, D.A. (eds) (1991). ''Psychiatric Disorders in America: the Epidemiologic Catchment Area Study''. New York: Free Press.273.</ref><ref>{{cite journal | doi = 10.1016/S0376-8716(02)00223-5 | last1 = Teesson | first1 = M. | last2 = Lynskey | first2 = M. | last3 = Manor | first3 = B. | last4 = Baillie | first4 = A. | year = 2002 | title = The structure of cannabis dependence in the community | url = | journal = Drug and Alcohol Dependence | volume = 68 | issue = 3| pages = 255–262 | pmid = 12393220 }}</ref> studies of long-term users,<ref name="ReferenceB">{{cite journal | last1 = Bolla | first1 = K.I. | last2 = Brown | first2 = K. | last3 = Eldreth | first3 = D. | last4 = Tate | first4 = K. | last5 = Cadet | first5 = J.L. | year = 2002 | title = Dose-related neurocognitive effects of marijuana use | url = | journal = Neurology | volume = 59 | issue = 9| pages = 1337–1343 | pmid = 12427880 | doi=10.1212/01.WNL.0000031422.66442.49}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Sadovsky | first1 = R. | year = 2000 | title = Driving impairment from marijuana and alcohol | url = | journal = American Family Physician | volume = 62 | issue = 7| page = 1625 }}</ref> clinical trials of people seeking treatment,<ref>Shand, F. and Mattick, R.P. (2001). ''Clients of Treatment Service Agencies: May 2001 Census Findings''. (National Drug Strategy Monograph 47). Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing</ref><ref>Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2002).'' Treatment Episode Data Set'' (TEDS): 1992–2000: national admissions to substance abuse treatment services. (DASIS Series: s-17, DHHS Publication no. (SMA) 02-3727). Rockville, Maryland: US Department of Health and Human Services</ref><ref>European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (2002). ''Annual Report on the State of the Drugs Problem in the European Union and Norway''. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities</ref> controlled experiments on withdrawal and tolerance,<ref name="Budney, A.J. 2001">{{cite journal | doi = 10.1001/archpsyc.58.10.917 | last1 = Budney | first1 = A.J. | last2 = Hughes | first2 = J.R. | last3 = Moore | first3 = B.A. | last4 = Novy | first4 = P.L. | year = 2001 | title = Marijuana abstinence effects in marijuana smokers maintained in their home environment | url = | journal = Archives of General Psychiatry | volume = 58 | issue = 10| pages = 917–924 | pmid = 11576029 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | doi = 10.1037/0021-843X.112.3.393 | last1 = Budney | first1 = A.J.M. | last2 = Moore | first2 = B.A. | last3 = Vandrey | first3 = R.G. | last4 = Hughes | first4 = J.R. | year = 2003 | title = The time course and significance of cannabis withdrawal | url = | journal = Journal of Abnormal Psychology | volume = 112 | issue = 3| pages = 393–402 | pmid = 12943018 }}</ref><ref>James, J.S. (2000). Marijuana safety study completed: weight gain, no safety problems. ''AIDS Treatment News'' No. 348: 3–4</ref> and laboratory studies on cannabis brain mechanisms.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Wenger | first1 = T. | last2 = Moldrich | first2 = G. | last3 = Furst | first3 = S. | year = 2003 | title = Neuromorphological background of cannabis addiction | url = | journal = Brain Research Bulletin | volume = 61 | issue = 2| doi=10.1016/S0361-9230(03)00081-9 | pmid=12831997 | pages = 125–8}}</ref>

Does anyone object if I make consistent and truncate authors to first three plus et al so that the text in edit mode will be less dense, and I can begin to flag the Reviews and primary sources here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, well, those primary sources are all gone now anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect

According to Britannica's Macropedia, cannabis does not produce withdrawal symptoms, nor does it cause a chemical dependence, nor cause increased tolerances. Any dependence on it is habitual. It does have negative effects for long term use, according to recent studies, but not dependence. Lucy346 (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Macropedia? See our medical sourcing guidelines. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

its part of Encyclopedia Britannica. It has two sections the normal micropedia, and macropedia which is knowledge in depth. Surely, it is a good source. Lucy346 (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Please see PubMed for reliable medical sources; we clearly have recent secondary reviews compliant with our medical sourcing policies, which Britannica is not, that disputes all of what you say their Macropedia says. For example, Cannabis dependence is defined as a medical condition, so it clearly creates dependency. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

clarification: It says it can produce a psychological dependence and affect will, but it doesn't cause a physical dependence. I shouldn't use one encyclopedia to improve another, (that defeats the purpose of competing encyclopedias) except to point out that the un-sourced information is contradicted by a good (tertiary) source. Britannica's information can't be dismissed wholesale. But, I wish to make no further changes, just leave this here for people to consider, when they made edits. Lucy346 (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The recent edits are clearly wrong, but whatever. Lucy346 (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Whatever; here is a list of the DSM-5 changes: [1] I'll add those to the article when I find a higher quality source, since the DSM5 isn't available online, but that page is accurate. The Table of Contents of DSM5 is available online via google search, and shows:

• Cannabis-Related Disorders

• Cannabis Use Disorder
• Cannabis Intoxication
• Cannabis Withdrawal
• Other Cannabis-Induced Disorders
• Unspecified Cannabis-Related Disorder

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

In truth the only negative efects come from prolonged and excessive use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.40.105.150 (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

'For example, Cannabis dependence is defined as a medical condition, so it clearly creates dependency. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a circular argument; cannabis dependence [unproved] defined as medical condition, so it [clearly?] creates dependency. dependence creates dependence?

Yet in another page of WP, we have 'It has also been alleged that the way the categories of the DSM are structured, as well as the substantial expansion of the number of categories, are representative of an increasing medicalization of human nature, which may be attributed to disease mongering by psychiatrists and pharmaceutical companies, the power and influence of the latter having grown dramatically in recent decades.' The same article concludes that 'the connections between panel members and the drug companies were particularly strong in those diagnoses where drugs are the first line of treatment, such as schizophrenia and mood disorders, where 100% of the panel members had financial ties with the pharmaceutical industry.'

And you dismiss a Encyclopaedia Brittanica as inconveniently not agreeing with a body many think is clearly corrupted by the vested interests of pharmacuticals. PetePassword (talk) 11:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

DSM US-only

Credible editor deleted bunch of cites saying that disorder was in DSM. But DSM is US-only. Is that really "good enough" for the whole world? Seems US-centric. Saying that, however, does not mean that numerous cites should not have been rm! Student7 (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

First, the DSM is not "US only"; it is widely used, world-wide. Second, there is also a WHO ICD-10 diagnostic code, but I've not encountered any journal coverage of the differences, if there are any, between DSM and ICD. Third, the DSM5 was recently published, and the specifics of the diagnosis were changed. I do not have the DSM5, but I did find the Table of Contents online (see section above), and there were enough changes that the old text needs to be rewritten. By someone who has a copy of the DSM5. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This whole article sounds a lot like the cases described in DSM Criticism - where in this case 'cannabis dependence' is a mis-diagnosed form of chronic stress, which a patient had previously been self-medicating for, in order to prescribe a more lucrative drug. Without the downer/hangover experienced with the likes of caffeine or alcohol, cannabis only has more potential for psychological dependence than LSD & psilocybin because it more reliably brings about a pleasant experience. 4ndyD (talk) 21:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any reference to support that? Best regards. —Jmvgpartner (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Outdated tag restored

If I had a copy of DSM5, I'd write this section; I don't, and have restored the tag removed by another editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Comparison between caffeine and THC addictive potential

The article says that "Research has shown the overall addiction potential for cannabis to be less than for caffeine, tobacco, alcohol, cocaine or heroin," but gives no citation. For the latter three drugs this would be hard to dispute, but is there good evidence showing this is true of caffeine? It is hard to find a reliable source for this. Several studies in particular list caffeine as only "marginally addictive," while the same is not usually said of THC or of marijuana. This probably isn't an unreasonable claim, but it also isn't obvious and should be backed up.

I've added a citation needed tag pending discussion. Eebster the Great (talk) 00:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I am aware of one study that examines caffeine dependence http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3621326/ , they cite another study that found 30% of current caffeine users were dependent, though it does not directly compare addictive potential to cannabis. Psyden (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

You think tobacco to be less addictive than cannabis? [four drugs listed after caffeine, not three] I think many would disagree with you. I certainly do. Also, having no problem going without cannabis for extended periods of time, but not so with coffee, which I NEED regularly every day, I agree totally that caffeine is much more addictive. Especially since addiction has not been shown with cannabis, and there are no withdrawal symptoms; claiming insomnia as a withdrawal symptom when cannabis was being used to treat insomnia is insane, or at least simple minded. As is claiming pain, muscle spasms and all other conditions cannabis treats as withdrawals when it is stopped. If I stop taking Tramadol, I get searing backache, Tramadol does not cause backache, it treats it! So please stop this addiction claim, it's nonsense, utterly without proof and diminishes any argument that points up real possible harms just as much as the enthusiast's denial of any risks does. Two extreme positions do make make for one balanced one. This comparison of harms may be useful PetePassword (talk) 12:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Cannabis (drug)

Cannabis addiction redirects to the Cannabis (drug) article so this page should do the same.   Bfpage |leave a message  19:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Dependence and addiction are separate concepts so I don't think the addiction redirect can justify the merge. That said I'm not opposed to a merge on other grounds.Sizeofint (talk) 22:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose The Cannabis dependence is a separate issue per ICD-10 and ICD-9, as stated in that article's infobox, while the target article is too big to accommodate it. Brandmeister^talk 19:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Having separate dependence pages is consistent with other drug entries, including alcohol dependence, amphetamine dependence, and opiod dependence.DrNicotiana (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)