Marijuana Actually Does Harm Your Brain - Study - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Delta616;44561982][editline]16th April 2014[/editline] That makes it fact.[/QUOTE] I'd like to think medical science has a little more weight in discussions then your personal opinion, if that's what you're getting at.

[QUOTE=Glitchbunny;44562045]I'd like to think medical science has a little more weight in discussions then your personal opinion, if that's what you're getting at.[/QUOTE] No, that's not what i'm getting at. What i'm getting at is medical journals aren't scientific fact.

[QUOTE=Delta616;44562062]No, that's not what i'm getting at. What i'm getting at is medical journals aren't scientific fact.[/QUOTE] Unless they happen to support the idea that weed is harmless, then it's the inevitability of science beating ignorance, right? Funny how you never see people saying 'it's just a peer-reviewed medical journal backed by an accredited institution and written by professionals, not [i]scientific fact[/i]' when there's an article talking about the benefits of THC. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44561902]why do you give a shit what people do in their own lives when it has no effect on you[/QUOTE] The 'it's my choice to hurt myself' argument ends the instant you start telling other people that your vice of choice is harmless. There's a huge difference between recognizing the risks and accepting them, and denying the risks altogether.

[QUOTE=catbarf;44562157]Unless they happen to support the idea that weed is harmless, then it's the inevitability of science beating ignorance, right?[/QUOTE] Wrong, but arguing when you're ignorant the beneficial properties of cannabis is stupid.

idk, it sure seems to me that a study of 40 people is not really going to be the best study to generalize all people who use, but you guys clearly think it is so that's enough for you. [editline]16th April 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Glitchbunny;44561981]The third articles explains a little more about how drug use can affect how dopamine is distributed, cannabis creates more dopamine than sex, food etc, and as you grown more dependent on the dopamine drug abuse gives you in comparison, you might find yourself on a different substance for an increased 'high'. At least that's how the article explains it. [editline]16th April 2014[/editline] I was quoting from a medical journal but OK?[/QUOTE] so what's the gateway to alcohol? i mean, if marijuana is a gateway drug, then it stands to reason, the legal drug commonly sold and drank in the form of alcohol is itself, a gateway drug then, what I have to ask, lead people to drink? what was the gateway to that?

Yo you guys seem like you could use a dank blunt to chill out ;)

[QUOTE=catbarf;44562157]Unless they happen to support the idea that weed is harmless, then it's the inevitability of science beating ignorance, right? Funny how you never see people saying 'it's just a peer-reviewed medical journal backed by an accredited institution and written by professionals, not [i]scientific fact[/i]' when there's an article talking about the benefits of THC. The 'it's my choice to hurt myself' argument ends the instant you start telling other people that your vice of choice is harmless. There's a huge difference between recognizing the risks and accepting them, and denying the risks altogether.[/QUOTE] where did I deny? I didnt, I said I know it can hurt me or damage me.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44562227]where did I deny? I didnt, I said I know it can hurt me or damage me.[/QUOTE] So what is it you don't understand about wanting to know the truth of the danger it poses? Do what you want, it's your body, I really don't care. If you want to smoke, I support that decision, and if there's ever a referendum on legalization in my state I will vote to legalize. But don't be telling others that it's harmless if there's evidence to the contrary. I'm not saying you're necessarily doing that, but you asked: [quote]why do you give a shit what people do in their own lives when it has no effect on you[/quote] and it's really not unreasonable to not want people spreading misinformation or denying evidence because it supports their agenda.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44562196]idk, it sure seems to me that a study of 40 people is not really going to be the best study to generalize all people who use, but you guys clearly think it is so that's enough for you. [editline]16th April 2014[/editline] so what's the gateway to alcohol? i mean, if marijuana is a gateway drug, then it stands to reason, the legal drug commonly sold and drank in the form of alcohol is itself, a gateway drug then, what I have to ask, lead people to drink? what was the gateway to that?[/QUOTE] That comparison doesn't really work. Alcohol is a culturally and socially respectable intoxicant. In moderation, it can even be considered healthy. Not many people go from sober jumping straight into heroin, PCP, cocaine etc. A lot of people start with weed, which is why it's coined as the gateway drug. It's not addictive, and it is relatively safe and it gives them the high they desire. It's just that for this study, they've found an actual neurological link instead of the usual scare mongering agencies like the DEA use.

"Alcohol is a culturally and socially respectable intoxicant" lol as if society's opinions on what is acceptable or not matter at all "In moderation, it can even be considered healthy." and theres evidence for the same thing with numerous other drugs like pot, lsd, etc.

[QUOTE=DOG-GY;44562375] lol as if society's opinions on what is acceptable or not matter at all[/QUOTE] I didn't say it did, I meant that they are introduced to alcohol pretty early in their lives. There's no gateway to it. It's pretty much in your life from day one. [QUOTE=DOG-GY;44562375]and theres evidence for the same thing with numerous other drugs like pot, lsd, etc.[/QUOTE] Which is also true, but this is important for cannabis as there was scarce evidence before showing that it could have more severe downsides.

[QUOTE=Glitchbunny;44562350]That comparison doesn't really work. Alcohol is a culturally and socially respectable intoxicant. In moderation, it can even be considered healthy. Not many people go from sober jumping straight into heroin, PCP, cocaine etc. A lot of people start with weed, which is why it's coined as the gateway drug. It's not addictive, and it is relatively safe and it gives them the high they desire. It's just that for this study, they've found an actual neurological link instead of the usual scare mongering agencies like the DEA use.[/QUOTE] Yes, alcohol is that way. And so is tobacco. But it is terribly inconsistent of us to not treat cannabis the same way as the previously mentioned drugs. There is this philosophical saying "no ought from is", that we shouldn't make guidelines based on previous assumptions just because that's how things worked before. Either we evaluate cannabis for itself in a vacuum, not comparing it to any other "casual" drugs. Or we have to evaluate them all at the same time. The assumption that cannabis is a gateway drug is actually kind of unfounded, and is loosely based on unsound deduction from observations. This is [B]bad statistics.[/B] The primary reason [I]why[/I] people believe that cannabis is a gateway drug is because a lot of time heroin addicts, crackheads, amphetamine poppers are found to also smoke marijuana. It would be terribly wrong to just assume that these guys are heroin addicts and what not [I]because[/I] of cannabis. I'd hazard a guess to say it is more likely that it is the other way around. I'm not saying that dopeheads would never start doing heavy drugs. I'm saying that it is a lot less common than people might think. If you decide to respond to me, I want you to first read this quote by Jacob Sullum, editor of Reason magazine [quote]"Notice that none of these interpretations involves a specific pharmacological effect of the sort drug warriors seem to have in mind when they suggest that pot smoking primes the brain for cocaine or heroin. As a National Academy of Sciences panel observed in a 1999 report, 'There is no evidence that marijuana serves as a stepping stone on the basis of its particular drug effect.' Last year the Canadian Senate's Special Committee on Illegal Drugs likewise concluded that 'cannabis itself is not a cause of other drug use. In this sense, we reject the gateway theory.'[/quote] [editline]16th April 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Glitchbunny;44562408] Which is also true, but this is important for cannabis as there was scarce evidence before showing that it could have more severe downsides.[/QUOTE] All we've found out is that [I]there are[/I] downsides. Not finding downsides that will bring death and doom upon everyone who smokes. A lot of SSRI's (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) that are prescribed to people who are in the grey area of actually needing them, have more serious side effects.

I'm a huge Marijuana advocate and smoke it a lot and support the legalization, but even I knew that it harmed you in some sort of way. Inhaling ANYTHING can harm you, especially smoke. But, as long as it doesn't kill me, I'm still going to smoke it.

[QUOTE=Kazumi;44562480]Yes, alcohol is that way. And so is tobacco. But it is terribly inconsistent of us to not treat cannabis the same way as the previously mentioned drugs. There is this philosophical saying "no ought from is", that we shouldn't make guidelines based on previous assumptions just because that's how things worked before. Either we evaluate cannabis for itself in a vacuum, not comparing it to any other "casual" drugs. Or we have to evaluate them all at the same time. The assumption that cannabis is a gateway drug is actually kind of unfounded, and is loosely based on unsound deduction from observations. This is [B]bad statistics.[/B] The primary reason [I]why[/I] people believe that cannabis is a gateway drug is because a lot of time heroin addicts, crackheads, amphetamine poppers are found to also smoke marijuana. It would be terribly wrong to just assume that these guys are heroin addicts and what not [I]because[/I] of cannabis. I'd hazard a guess to say it is more likely that it is the other way around. I'm not saying that dopeheads would never start doing heavy drugs. I'm saying that it is a lot less common than people might think. If you decide to respond to me, I want you to first read this quote by Jacob Sullum, editor of Reason magazine [editline]16th April 2014[/editline] All we've found out is that [I]there are[/I] downsides. Not finding downsides that will bring death and doom upon everyone who smokes. A lot of SSRI's (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) that are prescribed to people who are in the grey area of actually needing them, have more serious side effects.[/QUOTE] This last part of this post really gets me; it's so true. So many human made drugs end up causing worse side-effects than cannabis. Something to think about (doesn't mean cannabis doesn't have any bad effects, just a funny thought eh?)

[QUOTE=Kazumi;44562480]Yes, alcohol is that way. And so is tobacco. But it is terribly inconsistent of us to not treat cannabis the same way as the previously mentioned drugs. There is this philosophical saying "no ought from is", that we shouldn't make guidelines based on previous assumptions just because that's how things worked before. Either we evaluate cannabis for itself in a vacuum, not comparing it to any other "casual" drugs. Or we have to evaluate them all at the same time. The assumption that cannabis is a gateway drug is actually kind of unfounded, and is loosely based on unsound deduction from observations. This is [B]bad statistics.[/B] The primary reason [I]why[/I] people believe that cannabis is a gateway drug is because a lot of time heroin addicts, crackheads, amphetamine poppers are found to also smoke marijuana. It would be terribly wrong to just assume that these guys are heroin addicts and what not [I]because[/I] of cannabis. I'd hazard a guess to say it is more likely that it is the other way around. I'm not saying that dopeheads would never start doing heavy drugs. I'm saying that it is a lot less common than people might think. If you decide to respond to me, I want you to first read this quote by Jacob Sullum, editor of Reason magazine [editline]16th April 2014[/editline] All we've found out is that [I]there are[/I] downsides. Not finding downsides that will bring death and doom upon everyone who smokes. A lot of SSRI's (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) that are prescribed to people who are in the grey area of actually needing them, have more serious side effects.[/QUOTE] I did a bit more reading on the statistics, and a lot it is skewed as you said by people who already use 'harder' drugs than people who use it as a stepping stone, but if the study is correct, the neurological effect THC has towards further drug use on users is really interesting so I'll have to keep an eye on that. I agree it's certainly not death and doom, but it's interesting to see further research on it. Between 'weed is going to kill you' and 'weed is natural its 100% safe', finally weighing the pros with the cons in the next few years is going to help a lot of people re-evaluate whether cannabis is the correct choice of recreational drug for them.

[QUOTE=Glitchbunny;44562608]I did a bit more reading on the statistics, and a lot it is skewed as you said by people who already use 'harder' drugs than people who use it as a stepping stone, but if the study is correct, the neurological effect THC has towards further drug use on users is really interesting so I'll have to keep an eye on that. I agree it's certainly not death and doom, but it's interesting to see further research on it. Between 'weed is going to kill you' and 'weed is natural its 100% safe', finally weighing the pros with the cons in the next few years is going to help a lot of people re-evaluate whether cannabis is the correct choice of recreational drug for them.[/QUOTE] Absolutely! Fully agree on both points. Things are never as black and white as we are sometimes led to believe. More research is needed, as you said. A lot of time also need to be spent on re-evaluating drugs (across the board) through the visors of normative neuroethics.

[QUOTE=Glitchbunny;44561737]Which is why I didn't form the basis of my argument on that anecdote and that remains my only personal input in the thread. All other posts have been relevant to the study. Flaming me seems largely unnecessary and only further pushes us off-topic all because I somehow hurt your feelings? EDIT: I didn't really want to argue about drugs on FP due to any time anything anti-drugs crop up, it always end up pro-cannabis, no matter which way the evidence is pointing and people like yourself getting unnecessarily hurt over it. Also hur dur? Am I back in 2005?[/QUOTE] Calling you ignorant isn't flaming when it's the truth. You're ignorant on the topic as you lack substantial personal experience. You're spouting things from medical studies that were poorly conducted and seem to think they qualify as fact, when they don't. A study is a study, they are THEORIES, not facts. There is no hard evidence backing any of the claims you have made.

[QUOTE=Aetna;44562721]You're ignorant on the topic as you lack substantial personal experience. You're spouting things from medical studies that were poorly conducted and seem to think they qualify as fact, when they don't. [/QUOTE] 'All you have are scientific studies, you need more personal anecdotes' Are you serious right now?

[QUOTE=catbarf;44563068]'All you have are scientific studies, you need more personal anecdotes' Are you serious right now?[/QUOTE] idk, a study of 40 people? Is that what you're going to base scientific fact on?

Response to the comments: Something we should clarify - when we say that something has negatives, what do you mean? I could argue that even with weed having downsides, there is a net upside too (between how it made me more empathic and I think it allowed me a better perspective on myself and others). There are many activities where we accept negatives because of the net affect. The hate using the term drug given how culture dependent it is. We tend to cherry pick our usage of it and ignore much more serious drugs that we happen to call medication (like what heroin was at one point). I have a wishlist for all the things I think a proper study should do: 1) Use the safest forms of getting THC (edible or vap) 2) Be precise with dosages, latent conditions or predispositions when possible 3) More people involved over longer amounts of time 4) Do more testing much later on those who stop smoking. 5) Besides simply looking for "is there a way to make this habit dangerous", also look into "is there a way to make it sustainable". So if you had people smoke in an "optimal way" (edibles/vap, taking T breaks, allowing for self reflection, etc), what would the affects of that be? I feel reports on these drugs are sorta like reports on video games & violence, i.e more often than not bad science given how political it is.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44563256]idk, a study of 40 people? Is that what you're going to base scientific fact on?[/QUOTE] If it occurs in all 20 that smoked, yes.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;44563367]If it occurs in all 20 that smoked, yes.[/QUOTE] so if i did a study with 10 people, I can safely statistically say without fail that that will ALWAYS happen? No? so 20 works? I'm serious when I say that's not true and not good science. You can't survey all of america by asking 50 people. You ask 1500ish. Why is it 20 that gives us a clear, unaffected view of all marijauna users? Like, this doesn't allow for ANY statistical outliers, any examination of effects outside of the fact those 20 smoke weed. You really really have to have an agenda to look at this study and use it as definitive proof that it's harmful. Yes, it's harmful, but this study isn't proof of it beyond a shadow of a doubt, we already knew weed was harmful. This study hasn't done a great job proving that this study is true and factual everywhere.

It doesn't sound like it really solidifies anyone's stance for or against recreational/medical usage of marijuana. In fact, to only test 20 smokers and 20 non-smokers is an extremely small group for something so complex. I would like to know what changes occur and as to whether or not they're as detrimental to one's health as, let's say the carcinogens in cigarettes. Honestly though, what doesn't have a negative properties for you health? Just about every activity or pleasure you participate in is harmful in some way. Consuming Alcohol is naturally a poison that has horrendous effects on the liver and other organs when consumed excessively and regularly. Smoking tobacco is similar in that regard. So what if marijuana has a negative property? I don't see that as any reason to write it off because that right there is a double standard.

Well overusing anything can fuck you up, so can weed.

Weed does have negative side effects in long term use. If you exercise every day I found that all the negative side effects go away, for me anyways. I take SSRI's daily because of my borderline personality disorder. I've had seroquel, and Mitrtizpine, prescribed for me one caused my symptoms to get worse. The other one caused my lung function to go down, my muscles had no strength and would spasm like mad. So now I take cipralex, exercise, and use weed for mood stuff. Overall if someone is going to use drugs daily I'd say weeds your best bet if you exercise.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44563404]so if i did a study with 10 people, I can safely statistically say without fail that that will ALWAYS happen? No? so 20 works? I'm serious when I say that's not true and not good science. You can't survey all of america by asking 50 people. You ask 1500ish. Why is it 20 that gives us a clear, unaffected view of all marijauna users? Like, this doesn't allow for ANY statistical outliers, any examination of effects outside of the fact those 20 smoke weed. You really really have to have an agenda to look at this study and use it as definitive proof that it's harmful. Yes, it's harmful, but this study isn't proof of it beyond a shadow of a doubt, we already knew weed was harmful. This study hasn't done a great job proving that this study is true and factual everywhere.[/QUOTE] I'm currently studying statistics applied to science and psychology, and a sample of 40 is fine. 30 is actually the bare minimum in most cases, but that depends on the study. In this case I would say that it paints a pretty good picture.

[QUOTE=Glitchbunny;44562350]That comparison doesn't really work. Alcohol is a culturally and socially respectable intoxicant. In moderation, it can even be considered healthy. Not many people go from sober jumping straight into heroin, PCP, cocaine etc. A lot of people start with weed, which is why it's coined as the gateway drug. It's not addictive, and it is relatively safe and it gives them the high they desire. It's just that for this study, they've found an actual neurological link instead of the usual scare mongering agencies like the DEA use.[/QUOTE] You know, it could be that people who do drugs smoke weed. Most bikers wear leather chaps, if you wear leather chaps does that lead you into being a biker? If weed didn't exist, those people would still do the other drugs. Weed is just easy to find, I honestly believe that weed is not a gateway drug. I don't think there even is such a thing as "gateway drugs" either you are a user of a drug, or you're not. Also, this is a preliminary result that has come out during a time of great contention about weed. There are far too many people vested in getting one result or another, and far too few people actually able to do studies about this. I will wait for more information before I make up my mind, and I encourage you all to do the same. This hypocrisy coming from the anti-weed camp is astonishing. How can you sit here and tout this as scientific proof and say pro-weed people are cherry-picking when you are completely ignoring everything else except this one single small study? And please, would someone link the actual paper, I've searched and I can't find it. You guys are treating this like proof when I know for a fact you haven't even seen the fucking paper it's based on, and then in the same breath turn around and say that pro-weed people are the ones who are being unscientific.

Weed is tight, though.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;44563367]If it occurs in all 20 that smoked, yes.[/QUOTE] We don't claim that a scientific theory, cancer research, or any other scientific data is accurate with a small sample pool, so why would you willingly be able to accept this small sample size?

[QUOTE=The First 11'er;44565555]We don't claim that a scientific theory, cancer research, or any other scientific data is accurate with a small sample pool, so why would you willingly be able to accept this small sample size?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Kazumi;44565036]I'm currently studying statistics applied to science and psychology, and a sample of 40 is fine. 30 is actually the bare minimum in most cases, but that depends on the study. In this case I would say that it paints a pretty good picture.[/QUOTE] [editline]17th April 2014[/editline] The had an equal sized control group for god's sake.