[QUOTE=daschnek;44555422]You mean the same source that says[/QUOTE]
Blue member owns Gold member.
[QUOTE=Furioso;44555878]A [I]lot[/I] less. Tobacco companies add all sorts of nasty chemicals to the tobacco in their cigarettes.[/QUOTE]
But only a small amount of those chemicals are carcinogens. Weed may have less but they still have enough to cause damage to a cells DNA and lead to cancer
[QUOTE=AJ10017;44555924]But only a small amount of those chemicals are carcinogens. Weed may have less but they still have enough to cause damage to a cells DNA and lead to cancer[/QUOTE]
Source?
I would like to see the same kind of study done for caffeine or nicotine or alcohol or any of the other legal drugs people use.
[QUOTE=AJ10017;44555924]But only a small amount of those chemicals are carcinogens.[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cigarette_smoke_carcinogens"]I'd argue otherwise[/URL].
[QUOTE=AJ10017;44555924]Weed may have less but they still have enough to cause damage to a cells DNA and lead to cancer[/QUOTE]
I wasn't arguing that weed wasn't capable of causing cancer.
[editline]15th April 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=ChronoBlade;44555914]Blue member owns Gold member.[/QUOTE]
Wasn't sure if anyone could beat some of the dumb posts in this thread, but you just did it
[QUOTE=ChronoBlade;44555914]Blue member owns Gold member.[/QUOTE]
I feel like I'm in 2006 fp
Anyways; this study worries me. I also want to see the actual study like UberNoob said
There's a lot of people making generalisations about each other in here. Most people in DD aren't gonna be in denial, and to say that they'll swoop in with dumb ratings is horrendously ignorant. Most of the active DDers aren't the type to praise the herb blindly. There's no way we can know everything about weed and much like coffee, paracetamol and everything else under the sun, it's probably harmful in some way. This isn't that surprising. Not everybody's as heavy a user as those in the study, but still, it's not some cure-all damageless wonder-drug - and it's also not [i]excessively[/i] harmful (still causes minor harm) in those who smoke responsibly over the age of ~18-25 from what the bigger studies seem to show. In my view, whether it's good or bad depends on who's smoking it and whether or not they're aware of the results of studies such as this.
[QUOTE=geogzm;44555977]here's no way we can know everything about weed and much like coffee, paracetamol and everything else under the sun, it's probably harmful in some way. This isn't that surprising.[/QUOTE]
Yeah. It's pretty much guaranteed that an excess of anything can and will damage or even kill you, including things that you need to live, like water, oxygen, and sugars.
[QUOTE=Furioso;44555938][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cigarette_smoke_carcinogens"]I'd argue otherwise[/URL].
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][There are approximately 600 ingredients in cigarettes. When burned, they create more than 7,000 chemicals. At least 69 of these chemicals are known to cause cancer, and many are poisonous.
What's in a Cigarette? - American Lung Association
[url]www.lung.org/stop-smoking/about-smoking/.../whats-in-a-cigarette.html[/url] [/QUOTE]
69 out of 7000 sounds like a small amount to me
[QUOTE=Duck M.;44555616]Try telling that to most Marijuana users. Many are adamant that marijuana has absolutely zero negative effects. This study, however, has too small of a sample size and the results are less than conclusive, at least for me to draw an explicit decision on whether or not they're safe to consume.[/QUOTE]
The sample size is fine, it just means that there are less margins of error for the sample size. Say 99% line up with the hypothesis of a sample of 40, but only a 96% is needed for a sample of 200 (these are just to illustrate a point not actual stats numbers).
The conclusion is sound, but not fully articulated as that is usually found in the section that discusses implications and future research, something we can't see until we get the full study.
[QUOTE=AJ10017;44556019]69 out of 7000 sounds like a small amount to me[/QUOTE]
I'm still confident there's a[I] lot[/I] less carcinogens in untreated marijuana than there are in cigarette tobacco that has been sprayed with a bunch of random chemicals.
[QUOTE=1STrandomman;44555644]Wouldn't they need to do a longitudinal study to prove causation, or am I missing something?[/QUOTE]
They would not, as they have isolated pot smoking as the variable. A longitudinal study would get a more accurate curve of the effects (such as how much decay over time), but this study isn't really measuring time. It's basically just saying that a mean of 11 joints per week damages certain regions of your brain more than not smoking pot at all
[QUOTE=jediken21;44555427]And still zero deaths in recorded history ever attributed to smoking cannabis. Deal w/ it nerds.[/QUOTE]
science is good as long as it doesn't suggest some of my lifestyle choices might not be entirely healthy
What about edibles, this is just for smoking. For all we know the joint papers themselves are causing this.
I don't see why people are so dismissive of this, quite honestly.
This isn't some big research breakthrough, the scientific literature on marijuana has been showing things like this for at least the last 25 years. This is just a drop in the bucket.
I simply can't believe anybody would ever thing that weed doesn't do some kind of harm. It just seems that the harm is negligible on comparison with alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, etc.
With that said I'd also like to raise another popular myth..
I've said this once, and I'll say this again.
Marijuana is NO EXCUSE for a person's actions. Most people tend to think that people who smoke a lot of weed are lazy and don't get anything done in life.
That is so fucking bullshit its incomprehensible for me.
I've been smoking for 3 years and I've gotten more done in the past 3 years than i have in my whole life.
On top of a full time career, I've been making dance music and djing clubs on the side. Making an impact on the music scene itself in my area.
Now i realize health effects are a separate issue from this, however the stigma that is attached to this is crazy. The only people who get stoned and do nothing are the people who would do nothing regardless of whether they were stoned or not.
I'd really like to get my hands on this paper when it's published. It'll most likely be behind a paywall like nearly every other journal study is nowadays, but since I'm a college student I could request it through my library.
The news articles state the nucleus accumbens and amygdala change in volume, density and size. Nuccleus accumbens is associated in reward and pleasure, amygdala in fear processing and emotional memory/memory consolidation, but both have other functions as well. If they're changing shape, density and size (they never mentioned specifically if it's bigger or smaller curiously, I'm assuming it's getting smaller as that would be a problem), grey matter could be decreasing, which is not a good sign (with NA it could mean less motivated behavior and the amygdala it could mean less fear response or worse memory consolidation), or white matter could be decreasing, which could mean less myelinated areas of the brain and thus slower action potentials. Usually with drug use there are more receptors in the brain, specifically for weed it'd be more cannabinoid receptors, so that may play a role.
Honestly I'm interested in the study as Neuroscience is what I'm trying to get into for a career and there's quite a few friends of mine who smoke pot, so hopefully this is a good study and not bunk. It's a small sample size specifically since they're doing brain scans which take a lot of time and aren't feasible on a large scale, but if these users have not had any issues in their life as the news article states then it may be playing a role behind the scenes that's not overtly damaging unlike Korsakoff's syndrome in alcoholics. I wouldn't be surprised if weed does change the brain in negative ways, but this seems like a stepping stone into discovering what changes when the brain gets THC, and a later study will have to show how that affects behavior. A lot of studies have a hard time with the latter because human subjects tend to confound experiments by either not taking a standardized dose or by using alcohol or other drugs in combination.
[QUOTE=AJ10017;44556019]69 out of 7000 sounds like a small amount to me[/QUOTE]
Tell that to the people who have lung cancer, tell that to CO2's effect on the atmosphere, small things can have big effects.
[QUOTE=djshox;44555565]sadly not anymore
we just had someone driving under the influence kill someone in a car accident here in washington in the past 6 months[/QUOTE]
and IIRC, the driver was found to be not at fault.
[QUOTE=postmanX3;44555492]interesting study, but as they point out themselves it's a very small sample (20 smokers, 20 non-smokers) and even if they've observed "structural changes" they don't articulate what these changes actually mean for the person.
i think it's a bit silly to definitely comment one way or the other on the harmfulness of weed considering how evidently it's not yet fully-researched. but people who smoke accept the risks thereof, and it's not that different from someone who chooses to smoke tobacco or drink on a regular basis.[/QUOTE]
This.
The study does says weed affects the "core brain regions involved in processing of rewards, the making of decisions, the ability to assess emotions..." What exactly does that mean? Do you not feel rewarded doing anything after smoking so much? Does it make you bad at making decisions? Am I gonna be an emotionless freak if I smoke it? We need more definitive research.
The thing that bothers me about this is that the study simply showed that there were different neural pathways in the brain. The term "abnormality" doesn't necessarily indicate that it's bad; just different than normal. Of course when one consumes a mind-altering substance their brain will produce new pathways as it becomes used to the effects of the drug.
On the flip side I can definitely relate to the damages they are inferring. While I personally don't smoke a large quantity of marijuana(much less than other people), I do tend to get into the habit of smoking often. When I do decide to smoke I can without a doubt feel the affect on my psyche for days afterwards. Being high a lot does cause decreased motivation, slightly dulled emotions, and the general sense of taking things as they come aka not giving a shit. Basically the concept is why would I do anything else if I can just smoke all the time and live in that more pleasurable state.
However, it most definitely is not extreme to the point where one is fucked beyond all repair. As long as you have an actual willpower to do things and prevent drugs from being your life then of course you can live a normal life. Doing drugs recreationally just makes it harder to an extent. Clearly though it's easy to just get caught into the addiction, but that could be said with anything. It's just really easy with drugs because, well they feel good.
Respect and responsible use is the key. Moderation can be just as detrimental as all the time if you make it a crutch you rely on or a habit.
Laughing my ass off at people that never listened to the anti-marijuana adds and my favorite "BUT IT'S A PLANT! PLANTS DON'T DO ANYTHING!"
I've always wondered why they measure the amount of weed in joints.
[QUOTE=djshox;44555565]sadly not anymore
we just had someone driving under the influence kill someone in a car accident here in washington in the past 6 months[/QUOTE]
I don't think that really counts as a weed-related death.
A few months ago we had an article on FP of someone that actually did manage to poison themselves from marijuana but I can't remember how they managed it. It was an impressive amount taken if I recall correctly.
Do the same test on lyrica. Then tell me marijuana is bad
[QUOTE=RichyZ;44557104]anti-marijuana ads are often false or are true but in a misleading way
such as "MARIJUANA IS THE GATEWAY DRUG TO EVERYTHING ELSE" (false)
and "MARIJUANA SMOKE CAUSES LUNG DAMAGE" (as does any smoke from anything ever)[/QUOTE]
it CAN be a gateway drug if you have shitty friends/shitty dealers...but not as often as people portray it as
[QUOTE=frozensoda;44556136]What about edibles, this is just for smoking. For all we know the joint papers themselves are causing this.[/QUOTE]
Honestly I think that would be the case, which is why I will probably never smoke it, except occasionally out of a vaporizer.
[editline]16th April 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=RichyZ;44557104]anti-marijuana ads are often false or are true but in a misleading way
such as "MARIJUANA IS THE GATEWAY DRUG TO EVERYTHING ELSE" (false)
and "MARIJUANA SMOKE CAUSES LUNG DAMAGE" (as does any smoke from anything ever)[/QUOTE]
It's funny because apparently less people are using hard drugs and smoke/eat weed instead.
[QUOTE=beanhead;44556943]I've always wondered why they measure the amount of weed in joints.[/QUOTE]
I am a bit puzzled aswell, but maybe I am just missing something.
A joint can have any dosage of weed in it, and I am sure that the amount of weed smoked is not a trivial aspect in this research. So it seems weird to me that they just use "joint" as a measurement, since joints can have any amount of drug in them.
[QUOTE=kattolil;44555604]IIRC, the brain has different area's specialized for different things you are doing, emotions being one center in the brain and stomach, while skills would be spread about depending on what they involved doing.[/QUOTE]
But what I'm sayin is everything affects the size and form of that part of the brain seeing as it stores your skills and reactions and the experience of the toke life would probably be atore as a skill reaction thing. I'd be more worried if it didn't change anything at all and the brain didn't even notice it
I want a study on edibles or vaporizing, to seperate marijuana's effects from having fucking smoke in your lungs. Ive been vaping/eating for years, never smoked.
Might as well add that I agree with other posters here, weed doesn't make a lazy person. While vaping/eating multiple times a week, i have remained successful in school, and later on, my career
. It's only dangerous if you're OK with never getting anything done, and I'm not.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
