Cannabis effects not to blame for IQ loss - study - Polidicks

What about LSD? It's full unharmful for body and can be mental harmful if you screw set and setting.

[QUOTE=QuazarD;39226142]What about LSD? It's full unharmful for body and can be mental harmful if you screw set and setting.[/QUOTE]how is this related at all to cannabis

[QUOTE=QuazarD;39226142]What about LSD? It's full unharmful for body and can be mental harmful if you screw set and setting.[/QUOTE] no dude my friend fries up every 20 minutes and is a 4.0 student in 6 majors and also speaks 12 languages fluently

[QUOTE=AJisAwesome15;39222624]smoke weed if you want, i don't care and shouldn't care just don't go around trying to say [B]it's some miracle drug that cures cancer and grants you immortality[/B], no it's something people use to feel better and relieve pain[/QUOTE] Said no one ever. Go tout your superiority complex elsewhere. [editline]15th January 2013[/editline] What it is though, is its [URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/19/marijuana-and-cancer_n_1898208.html"]highly effective in [B]treating[/B] cancer[/URL] (when administered properly). Also, the painful symptoms associated with cancer and AIDS can be treated by simply lighting one up.

[QUOTE=Starpluck;39226334]Said no one ever. Go tout your superiority complex elsewhere. [editline]15th January 2013[/editline] What it is though, is its [URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/19/marijuana-and-cancer_n_1898208.html"]highly effective in [B]treating[/B] cancer[/URL] (when administered properly). The painful symptoms associated with cancer and AIDS can be treated by simply lighting one up.[/QUOTE] I agree entirely with you but you can't deny there's a large group of stoner types that profess an almost messianic view on weed.

[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;39226396]I agree entirely with you but you can't deny there's a large group of stoner types that profess an almost messianic view on weed.[/QUOTE] Some people excessively enjoy weed, but you never hear someone say that its a "miracle drug that grants you immortality" when debating on its effects. Yeah some people might mumble how great it is while they're high, but to pretend as if that's the face of the proponents of marijuana in debates is pretty stupid.

I've heard a lot of stoners call it a miracle drug. "Grant immortality" is obviously an exaggeration.

[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;39226541]I've heard a lot of stoners call it a miracle drug.[/QUOTE] considering the lack of side effects and the list of ailments it can treat, I don't really see why it can't be considered a "miracle drug"

Weed, in terms of why people use it, is no different than alcohol. Actually it's much safer and more controllable than being drunk. Hell, even using weed as a means to escape depression is safer than using alcohol as the substance to abuse to escape depression.

[QUOTE=Strider*;39223603]Also funny how you miss this "little gem" that literally is right after the sentence you posted. you don't know what you're doing, do you?[/QUOTE] Do you even understand what you're reading? Let's go through the article point by point: [quote]Dr Rogeberg found that low socio-economic children's IQ's were temporarily boosted by schooling, but when they left school and became adults their IQ went back down to its former low baseline, Professor Poulton said. If many cannabis users were formerly low socio-economic children, the coincidence could create the impression that cannabis was responsible for their drop in IQ as an adult. [/quote] This says the IQ 'loss' originally attributed to cannabis use can instead, for people of lower economic status, be attributed to a natural decrease in IQ after leaving school. [quote]However, Professor Poulton said that when looking at children from middle-class homes, the findings of a decline in IQ in adolescent-onset cannabis users remained unaltered.[/quote] As well, the same decline in IQ is also observed in middle-class children. [quote]"Many of the adolescent cannabis users in the [New Zealand] study were from slightly lower socio-economic homes, though not all.[/quote] Although many of the surveyed students were from lower class, not all were, so some of the subjects observed to experience the IQ drop were of middle and upper class. [quote]"However, their IQs were not boosted by schooling, because their IQ scores are the same from the time they began school to adolescence," he said.[/quote] And THIS is the kicker. The same drop in IQ was observed in middle and upper economic class students following school, but these students don't receive the same temporary IQ boost that the lower-class students did. Where the lower class students received an IQ boost while in school which faded afterwards, the middle and upper class students did not gain any IQ boost, but suffered a drop in IQ afterwards anyways. In other words: This article is presenting a possible non-cannabis explanation for the loss of IQ in lower-class subjects. It has no explanation for the loss of IQ in middle and upper class, there is still a direct correlation between early cannabis use and loss of IQ. That is not at [I]all[/I] the same as 'Cannabis effects not to blame for IQ loss'. It's not saying anything for certain either way. There's still a correlation that isn't necessarily a causation, and this is just one possible explanation for a subset (not all) of the sample population. Nothing has been proven or disproven, contrary to the title, which is clear from the article and study data that apparently nobody read.

the issue shouldn't be healthy vs unhealthy or harmful vs unharmful. the issue lies in the legalization of a few psychoactive substances (nicotine, alcohol) while keeping others illegal with no actual justification. All drugs effect everyone differently. It should be up to the government to educate the masses about responsible use and let them learn which altered states of consciousness they enjoy, and can handle without ruining their lives. Just because person x doesn't enjoy weed doesn't mean person y shouldn't be able to enjoy it. Everything you do will make you dumber, from what you eat and your sleeping habits, to accidentally knocking your head on something. [editline]15th January 2013[/editline] also with weed effecting others differently, it is commonly misunderstood that pot is a mild psychedelic, and everyone reacts differently to psychedelics. negative effects can commonly occur with bad set/setting, just like any other psychedelic.

It'd be ridiculous to take any specific stance on cannabis at the moment with the amount of conflicting studies there are. [editline]15th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=skynrdfan3;39228384]considering the lack of side effects and the list of ailments it can treat, I don't really see why it can't be considered a "miracle drug"[/QUOTE] It doesn't treat that bloody much, it works as a painkiller and antidepressant, but it's not exactly a "miracle drug"

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;39228825]It'd be ridiculous to take any specific stance on cannabis at the moment with the amount of conflicting studies there are.[/QUOTE] At least if you're going to cite one.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;39228825]It doesn't treat that bloody much, it works as a painkiller and antidepressant, but it's not exactly a "miracle drug"[/QUOTE] As well as fighting against pancreatic tumor cells. People call it a miracle drug not because they actually think it has miraculous properties, but when a drug goes through extensive demonization and then recent studies exhibit it in fact has very little negative effects, and provides a substantial amount of benefits - the shift from what it was previously labeled as (i.e. devil's drug) to what it really is now is a major shift and because of how big the shift was (almost to the opposite end of the spectrum) people tend to label it relatively, which is a miracle drug.

[QUOTE=Zambies!;39222509]Well, let's be honest here. IQ is a test taking skill, not a true marker of your intelligence.[/QUOTE] i see this in literally every thread about IQ where do people get this idea christ [editline]15th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=catbarf;39223472]It's kind of funny how some pro-weed posters start high fiving without reading the article and miss this little gem: So in other words, no, the study has not been overturned or rendered invalid, there's just a little more data and a little more specificity, but the study still does indicate a loss of IQ directly correlated with cannabis use. Whether that means weed makes you dumb or is a misleading correlation without causation due to some additional factor remains to be determined, but good god you should read the actual article (it's not hard) before leaping to conclusions.[/QUOTE] actually in fairness the economist has a point - the sample size was pretty low. of the ~1000 people in the sample only 5% came to smoke marijuana frequently, and if you're again subdividing that group into "middle class" it's gonna be a smaller sample size still.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;39228825]It'd be ridiculous to take any specific stance on cannabis at the moment with the amount of conflicting studies there are. [editline]15th January 2013[/editline] It doesn't treat that bloody much, it works as a painkiller and antidepressant, but it's not exactly a "miracle drug"[/QUOTE] You‘re forgetting it‘s antispasmodic, immunosuppressive, antinflammatory, and appetite stimulating properties. Admittedly there are drugs that are more effective at doing some of these things other than cannabinoids, but considering the worst of the negeative side effects are dry mouth and red eyes, it‘s a pretty good trade off.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;39223633]IQ is the best test for determining aptitude at taking IQ tests It's unsurprising that pot would not affect your score in a test that does a better job of determining your socioeconomic background than your intelligence[/QUOTE] except that's totally wrong

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;39228825]It'd be ridiculous to take any specific stance on cannabis at the moment with the amount of conflicting studies there are. [editline]15th January 2013[/editline] It doesn't treat that bloody much, it works as a painkiller and antidepressant, but it's not exactly a "miracle drug"[/QUOTE] I consider it one, but I use the term lightly. I mean you can smoke to your hearts content and not worry about smoking too much or that you're mixing the wrong medications. And there's no competition when it comes to stimulating your appetite when you're sick. I wish I had some last week when I was throwing up for a few days. The nausea meds I took didn't change that I couldn't eat and that my stomach still felt horrible. Were I not dry I could've spent those sick days in front of a computer instead of in my bed I think. :V

[QUOTE=Zeke129;39223633]IQ is the best test for determining aptitude at taking IQ tests[/QUOTE] This is misleading and fatuous. [quote]It's unsurprising that pot would not affect your score in a test that does a better job of determining your socioeconomic background than your intelligence[/quote] IQ measuring intelligence has a scientific consensus behind it dude.

[QUOTE=skynrdfan3;39222353]but weed is bad and im better than everyone else for not smoking it![/QUOTE] inhaling smoke in general isn't healthy.

I find it funny that people tout weed a some sort of medical miracle, when most of the people pushing for legalization, and MMJ, are just looking to get high without getting arrested. Honestly, after smoking weed for over 4 years now, the net effect on me has been negative. My anxiety is worsened and now I have issues with my stomach that are aggravated by weed.

[QUOTE=laserguided;39229980]inhaling smoke in general isn't healthy.[/QUOTE] I thought the same thing but from what I've read there aren't any reports of lung cancer as a result of marijuana smoke, so take that for what it is.

[QUOTE=catbarf;39230043]I thought the same thing but from what I've read there aren't any reports of lung cancer as a result of marijuana smoke, so take that for what it is.[/QUOTE] yeah wasn't there a study showing heavy marijuana smokers had less incidents of lung cancer than people who smoked nothing at all? I'll try dig it up One of the elements of the plant had displayed a stimulating repairing effect on lung tissue or cilia or something? [URL]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060526083353.htm[/URL] [QUOTE]The heaviest smokers in the study had smoked more than 22,000 marijuana cigarettes, or joints, while moderately heavy smokers had smoked between 11,000 to 22,000 joints. Even these smokers did not have an increased risk of developing cancer. People who smoked more marijuana were not at any increased risk compared with those who smoked less marijuana or none at all.The study found that 80% of lung cancer patients and 70% of patients with head and neck cancer had smoked tobacco, while only about half of patients with both types of cancer smoked marijuana. There was a clear association between smoking tobacco and cancer. The study found a 20-fold increased risk of lung cancer in people who smoked two or more packs of cigarettes a day. The more tobacco a person smoked, the greater the risk of developing both lung cancer and head and neck cancers, findings that were consistent with many previous studies. The new findings are surprising for several reasons, Dr. Tashkin said. Previous studies have shown that marijuana tar contains about 50% higher concentrations of chemicals linked to lung cancer, compared with tobacco tar, he noted. Smoking a marijuana cigarette deposits four times more tar in the lungs than smoking an equivalent amount of tobacco. "Marijuana is packed more loosely than tobacco, so there's less filtration through the rod of the cigarette, so more particles will be inhaled," Dr. Tashkin said. "And marijuana smokers typically smoke differently than tobacco smokers--they hold their breath about four times longer, allowing more time for extra fine particles to deposit in the lung." [B]One possible explanation for the new findings, he said, is that THC, a chemical in marijuana smoke, may encourage aging cells to die earlier and therefore be less likely to undergo cancerous transformation.[/B][/QUOTE] Obviously not the be all and end all but it's something

[QUOTE=Strider*;39224927]My motto is "smoke weed until you die", so don't think I'm trying to disparage tokers here. However, none of what you've just stated has any relevancy to the debate of whether marijuana is neurotoxic or not. Anecdotal evidence simply isn't valuable.[/QUOTE] Here's a couple thing's I've found on some potential neuroprotective effects exhibited by Cannabis. A study on its effect on Alzheimer's disease from The Journal of Neurochemistry: [url]http://www.medicinalgenomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/B-Amyloid_CBD_Protection_Alzheimers1.pdf[/url] Here's Raphael Mechoulam, PHD rambling on about the subject for ten minutes: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI2VT2kOfnM[/media] "Endocannabinoids in the Retina: From Marijuana to Neuroprotection" I'll be honest with you I just skimmed over this one, but from what I read it seems interesting: [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2584875/[/url] Here is a study on the effect of marijuana on MDMA neurotoxicity. THC seems to prevent it. Keep note that the MDMA doses used to create neurotoxicity are massively larger than your average dose of 100-200mgs, they fed the rats 20mgs/kg, which would be equivalent to over a gram in a man weighing 70kg: [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20174577[/url] I found a few more but these are all ridiculously long and I'm getting sick of reading them so I think I'm good. Actual sources linking to neurotoxicity I actually could not find, but then again I was just googling "cannabis neuroprotection" and "cannabis neurotoxic" so take from that what you will. Edit: I take that back, here's one study on Pubmed on the neurotoxicity of chronic exposure of THC in rats for equivalent to 10% of their life. It seems to come to the conclusion that adolescent rats should not smoke marijuana daily: [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1666926[/url]

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;39228825]It'd be ridiculous to take any specific stance on cannabis at the moment with the amount of conflicting studies there are. [editline]15th January 2013[/editline] It doesn't treat that bloody much, it works as a painkiller and antidepressant, but it's not exactly a "miracle drug"[/QUOTE] I wouldn't consider this "not treating bloody much." The potential is immense, and concentrated cannabis oils are renowned for their ability to target cancerous cells and destroy them. [quote] United States Patent 6,630,507 Hampson , et al. October 7, 2003 Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants Abstract Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV dementia. Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidoil, are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses useful in the method of the present invention. A particular disclosed class of cannabinoids useful as neuroprotective antioxidants is formula (I) wherein the R group is independently selected from the group consisting of H, CH.sub.3, and COCH.sub.3. ##STR1## [/quote] [url]http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6630507.PN.&OS=PN/6630507&RS=PN/6630507[/url]

[QUOTE=Starpluck;39226334]Said no one ever. Go tout your superiority complex elsewhere. [editline]15th January 2013[/editline] What it is though, is its [URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/19/marijuana-and-cancer_n_1898208.html"]highly effective in [B]treating[/B] cancer[/URL] (when administered properly). Also, the painful symptoms associated with cancer and AIDS can be treated by simply lighting one up.[/QUOTE] Treating the symptoms of the AIDS and cancer infections I got from weed needles! Marijuana is the devil, praise jesus.

[QUOTE=catbarf;39228693][b]Although many of the surveyed students were from lower class, not all were[/b], so some of the subjects observed to experience the IQ drop were of middle and upper class. And THIS is the kicker. The same drop in IQ was observed in middle and upper economic class students following school, but these students don't receive the same temporary IQ boost that the lower-class students did. Where the lower class students received an IQ boost while in school which faded afterwards, the middle and upper class students did not gain any IQ boost, but suffered a drop in IQ afterwards anyways. In other words: This article is presenting a possible non-cannabis explanation for the loss of IQ in lower-class subjects. [b]It has no explanation for the loss of IQ in middle and upper class[/b], there is still a direct correlation between early cannabis use and loss of IQ.[/QUOTE] [quote]She said the original study did not have a large sample size which limited the extent it could take into account possible confounding factors, such as socio-economic status.[/quote] Do you even statistics? Note also that socio-economic status isn't the only possible confounding factor. [editline]15th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;39229965]IQ measuring intelligence has a scientific consensus behind it dude.[/QUOTE] To be fair, IQ is only accurate at measuring what it measures. [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d2/Wechsler_Adult_Intelligence_Scale_subscores_and_subtests.png/800px-Wechsler_Adult_Intelligence_Scale_subscores_and_subtests.png[/img] Here's a common one.

plus it correlates with a fucking wheelbarrow full of measures predicting life success [editline]15th January 2013[/editline] even after controlling for socioeconomic background and level of education

[QUOTE=Strider*;39231212]Do you even statistics? Note also that socio-economic status isn't the only possible confounding factor.[/QUOTE] When you figure out what part of 'the sample size is a little small to draw useful conclusions' equals 'Cannabis effects not to blame for IQ loss', let me know.

[QUOTE=laserguided;39229980]inhaling smoke in general isn't healthy.[/QUOTE] Luckily you don't have to smoke to get high, you can vaporise or use it in cooking.