Cannabis and psychosis: revisiting a nineteenth century study of ‘Indian Hemp and Insanity’ in Colonial British India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In nineteenth-century British India, concern regarding large numbers of asylum patients with 'Indian Hemp Insanity' led to establishment of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission. The exotic cannabis plant was widely used in pharmacopeia and a source of government revenue. The Commission was tasked with determining the public health risks of cannabis use, particularly mental illness. This analysis of the Commission report seeks to highlight the status of 1892 cannabis research and compare it with current evidence for medical and recreational cannabis use. METHODS: Detailed historiographic review of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission Report (1892). RESULTS: In 1892, heavy cannabis use was considered to have been associated with severe mental illness (7.3% of asylum patients; 12.6% of patients with diagnoses). About two-thirds were children and young adults with higher relapse rates. Risk increased with early cannabis use and a family history of mental illness. Cannabis psychosis was found to have a shorter trajectory and better prognosis than other mental illnesses in the asylums. Different cannabis potency and modes of consumption had different effects. Occasional cannabis use was felt to have medicinal benefits for some. Appendices provided symptoms and demographic characteristics of cannabis-induced mental illness. CONCLUSION: This important nineteenth-century study observed frequency and dose-related effects of cannabis on mental health, particularly psychotic symptoms in young people with a previous or hereditary risk of mental illness. Pathophysiological observations were consistent with current knowledge. As one of the most systematic and detailed studies of the effects of cannabis of the time it foreshadowed contemporary cannabis issues.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".