Wednesday, October 5, 2011 -

    COMT Gene Cannabis Scare Story Disproven Again

    It’s the favourite of Mary Brett, Debra Bell, Charles ‘cocaine for kids’ Walker, Nadine Dorries and every other low rent, prohibitionist nutter, cannabis scaremonger and trainee Daily Mail hack.

    Well it would be, wouldn’t it?  It suggested that a functional polymorphism in the catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) gene meant that 25% of those who enjoyed even the merest whiff of a joint would become instantly psychotic, axe wielding mass murderers.  The COMT gene theory was their dream come true!

    OK, I may be overstating it a little but the dreadful thing is that even though the theory has already been disproven over and over again, Charles Walker put it at the centre of his nonsensical rant in his adjournment debate in the summer.  Judge Roger Thorn spouted it out in some ignorant and prejudiced judgment in Newcastle Crown Court.  Mary Brett continues to put it at the heart of the misinformation that her sham charity Cannabis Skunk Sense preaches.  I even saw the BBC let the Duchess of Northumberland, she of the Alnwick poisonous garden, promote the lie on its Country Tracks programme earlier this year.

    Yet another study has just been published by the Glyn Lewis and Stan Zammit team at Cardiff and Bristol that shows the COMT gene theory is nonsense

    We just have to keep on telling the truth.  Mankind has used cannabis safely and effectively for more than 5000 years.

    Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

    Related news:

    1. An Open Letter To Charles Walker, MP For Broxbourne
    2. Complaint against Judge Roger Thorn (Newcastle Crown Court)
    3. PCC Complaint. The Hertfordshire Mercury, 15th June 2011
    4. PCC Complaint. The Bearsden Herald, 13th June 2011 – NOT UPHELD
    5. PCC Complaint. The Newmarket Journal, 13th June 2011 – NOT UPHELD
    • http://www.weedisgood.co.uk lil_lady_lizzy7

      “Cannabis increases risk of psychosis irrespective of underlying COMT genotypes”
      First Conclusion isn’t the most positive, however if it aids truth in the long run, then so be it

    • Peter Reynolds

      Yes, cannabis use does increase the risk of psychosis – from about zilch to about zilch + 0.000001

    • http://www.peter-reynolds.co.uk Peter Reynolds

      Yes, cannabis use does increase the risk of psychosis – from about zilch to about zilch + 0.001

    • alan.

      Peter, I agree with lizzy. you just know this statement will be used as conclusive proof, regardless of how tiny the increase is, by MPs, and be blown out of all proportion to maintain the status quo.

      Ps. Looking forward to the debate on the 18th;)

    • MR_Bimble

      Any mind altering drug can increase the chances of psychosis – if you have a predisposition to it. But it could be coffee, alcohol, prescription drugs anything it’s all about risks and how to minimise them. Not that The Daily Fail will publicise that.
       

    • Cshaws

      I must admit that when I first read it I wondered how this could be good news?  Then I read the background and I got the drift BUT I think Alan and lil-lady-lizzy are right, this will be music to the ears of the prohibitionists the way it is phrased. Sorry to be negative but I can hear Heil Hitchens now—- “…scientists prove that not a percentage of users but anyone who tries cannabis will end up a psychotic drug crazed baby eater… etc etc” 

    • Nutta1985

      i dont know about you but even if it did send you mad is it not my personal choice to be as mad as a march hair if i so choose, were is the law that says i have to be sane. well at least i can sit at home an be unsociable while giving my self cancer and serosis of the liver because cigarets an alcohole are fine arnt they i mean they are sanctioned an taxed by our government so they must be ok, and they say cannabis makes us mad. i think we’ve got an argos government looked grate at first but on closer inspection lots of screws lose in the cabinet 

    • http://www.peter-reynolds.co.uk Peter Reynolds

      We’ve known for several years now that cannabis use increases the risk of psychosis, particularly in young people.  There’s no point in denying it but we must put it in proportion.  Alcohol, tobacco, energy drinks and most POM medicines increase the risk far more.

    • alan.

      Fair point bimble, in fact that’s a good idea…
      How about presenting this information collectively in comparison with the other substances mentioned, maybe with the figures given as a %?

    • Sam

      Infact I’ve yet to see a study that actually proves a causal link between cannabis use and psychosis. Correlation does not equal causation, and while there is some evidence that increased use of cannabis is correlated to an increased chance of psychosis, there is no proof that cannabis use CAUSES that trend.

      It could simply be that those who are prone to psychosis are also more prone to cannabis use, or that they are self medicating with its use.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Derek-Williams/1072934911 Derek Williams

      The COMT gene theory placed 25% or the population at high risk, that claim can’t really be made any more.

      There is no risk
      to older people, for over 21′s it’s not low, it’s zero. The risk is all to young teenagers/children and especially for young kids. For under 15′s, the risk might be considered to be a bit more than “zilch + 0.01″.

      The claim that cannabis increases the risk of
      psychosis is a reason to restrict the sales to adults and this is an argument against prohibition, not for it. Ever younger kids using drugs has been one of the worst effects of prohibition, as it was with alcohol prohibition in 1920′s USA which is lead to the slogan “Save our children, protect the youth, end prohibition”.

      http://ukcia.org/images/prohibition/save_the_children.jpg

    • j stone

      where are you getting the info about how mush the increases is
      has there been a studi  

    • j stone

      ye i would like to see some thing like this 

    • http://twitter.com/TransformDrugs TransformDrugPolicy

      you undermine any sensible points you are making with the name calling. Honestly – it doesnt help anyone.

    • Cshaws

      Better than undermining any sensible points you are making with blatant lies and scaremongering surely?   

    • Cshaws

      As the Duchess of Northumberland got a mention —- this is from her website:

      ******
      “In the intriguing Poison Garden, behind locked gates, guides share tales of deadly plants. Myths and legends are uncovered, along with facts from science and history. The Garden features many plants grown unwittingly in back gardens and in the British countryside, as well as many more unusual varieties. Flame-shaped beds contain belladonna, tobacco and mandrake. The Alnwick Garden has a Home Office licence to grow some very special plants; the cannabis and coca which are found behind bars in giant cages.The Poison Garden is home to The Alnwick Garden’s drugs awareness activities, in consultation with the Drug Action Team. Specialist tours give school children the chance to learn more about the effects of drugs, and families can learn more together in an informal environment.”
      ******

      Any members near the gardens might like to pop in and check out what ‘facts from science@14695dd6ccd04a03092b2512e2fb2fb7:disqus  and ‘history’ are being taught.  It would also be interesting to find out how she got a home office licence to grow Cannabis and Coca and if the cannabis is industrial hemp (I suspect so) or an ‘illegal’ variety in the ‘giant cages’!! – maybe it’s a savage variety??  

      Just a thought.

    • Cshaws

      This is the website of the ‘ex’ poison garden warden.  It seems questions have been asked why Cannabis is kept in the poison garden (but it’s still there). 

      http://www.thepoisongarden.co.uk/blog/blog270811.htm 

    • alan.

      I understand now why this is such good news after reading dereks post. Sometimes it takes a few taps b4 it sinks in.

    • http://www.peter-reynolds.co.uk Peter Reynolds

      What name calling?

      Do you mean that the blatant lies and falsehood spewed out by these idiots should be dealt with politely and without drawing attention to them?

      That might be alright for an academic thinktank but what exactly have you achieved with your softly, softly approach?

    • Cshaws

      I thought maybe they were complaining about my reference to Heil Hitchens.  Could have been worse — I could have referred to him as Adolph Hit…..  

    • Anonymous

      I’ve got an idea…
      If we can get accurate scientific figures for the percentage of people over 18, as well as under 18, who genuinely attained a psychotic condition directly from a substance, then we could have a top twenty of psychoactive substances which can cause psychosis and allow people to try to spot Cannabis by the figures alone.
      Example:
      Substance 
            A-1%
            b-0.6%
            c-10%
       …and so on.Kind of like a competition.
      That way instead of morals doing the job of ascertaining which substance people think should be prohibited for adults and children under 18, purely for their actual danger, as opposed to perceived danger, why not leave it to the facts…?As long as the facts are obtained from a reliably accurate source.

      I think people in general should be aware of the actual harm a substance can do to an individual.That’s the only fair way anyone can make an informed decision on whether or not to use a substance.
      From my own experience I can assure you that certain medications which are prescribed regularly ON THEIR OWN can cause episodes of psychosis and depressive degeneration.
      Let the facts speak, not the fear.

      It could also be that I am completely bats and have just had an episode!

    • http://twitter.com/TransformDrugs TransformDrugPolicy

      Im talking about calling people low-rent nutters. Just say they are wrong and say why. You can do that perfectly well without name calling and its likely to be much more effective. Thats not ‘softly softly’ – its pragmatic. If you throw insults you just strengthen their hand and undermine your credibility.  

    • http://www.peter-reynolds.co.uk Peter Reynolds

      It’s time to get angry.  Let’s spend less time bickering with each other and more time exposing the low rent nutters for who they really are – liars, cheats and bigots!

      http://clear-uk.org/its-time-to-get-angry/