Pot Use in Teen Years May Lower IQ, Study Shows

[True Earthling]

Aug. 27, 2012 -- Heavy, long-term marijuana use beginning in the teens can possibly lead to lower IQ, a provocative new study shows.

Frequent, continued use of marijuana starting before age 18 was associated with an eight-point decline in IQ in the study. The decline was not seen in users who started smoking pot in early adulthood or later in life.

The findings suggest that long-term marijuana use can cause long-term harm to some thinking abilities, such as intelligence, memory, and attention span, and that teens are uniquely vulnerable, researchers say.

“Many people today, especially young people, believe that marijuana is risk free, but this research tells us that this is not the case,” says Temple University professor of psychology Laurence Steinberg, PhD, who was not involved with the study.

http://www.webmd.com/brain/news/20120827/pot-use-teen-years-lower-iq?src=RSS_PUBLIC

[flamingdem]

1. I coulda been a contenda

just kiddin'

[Liberal Veteran]

2. So it may raise it, then?

I'm in.

[DefenseLawyer]

3. It also causes you to rape white women n/t

[tama]

6. If you are black or hispanic nt

[Drale]

4. I could see that

In your teen years you are still developing and adding outside chemicals doesn't seem like a good thing, whether they are natural or not.

[BeyondGeography]

5. Who needs pot

when you can play with your phone all day?

[CountAllVotes]

26. ...

[Fumesucker]

34. Is that what the kids are calling it these days?

Playing with your phone too much will make you go blind..

[coalition_unwilling]

51. I only "played with my phone" until I needed glasses (with

a hat tip, IIRC, to George Carlin

[surrealAmerican]

7. Without defining just how much use is "heavy" use ...

... this article is pretty much useless.

[Politicalboi]

8. Blame the pot

Not the cell phones, video games, movies, bullying, side effects from drugs given at a younger age for attention deficit. Nope, it's got to be the dope.

[Igel]

11. THC interferes with memory formation.

It continues to interfere with memory formation for a while after any buzz is gone. Not 100%. Doesn't need to squash all memory formation to be a problem.

It's not like you remember the stuff you never learned. You never learned it. You have to go back, figure out what you failed to learn, and play catch up. If you can.

But heavy pot use usually is accompanied by social and psychological changes. Something wants you to stop being you. That also often makes you stop trying to stay caught up or get caught up. Meaning you don't try to learn stuff you would learn.

IQ as tested is usually emergent. It's what you get when you know facts and skills and learn how to manipulate those facts and skills to solve problems. Those skills, even the innate portions, still need practice. If you can't practice them because you don't know enough then you don't practice them.

[Le Taz Hot]

22. This is the biggest bunch of

drivel I've seen on DU for a long time.

1. The OP report doesn't link to the actual study which automatically makes it suspect.
2. I used all through college and found that if I studied with a buzz on I needed to take the test with a buzz on. Did I mention that I graduated with a 4.0?
3. I.Q. tests have long been criticized as having NOTHING to do with intelligence and everything to do with how well a person take a test so I'd be careful in touting I.Q. tests as the be-all, end-all in intelligence measurement.

Now, time for a fatty.

[eridani]

33. The only member of my grad school class that flunked orals

--didn't use pot. The out of state students sold it in order to deal with the extra tuition.

[tama]

40. "Like a virgin, touched for the very first time..."

Anandamide systems of our bodies (which respond to cannabinoids) do have lot to do with how our memory and forgetting works. When the anandamide system gets boosted by cannabinoids, e.g. munchies taste so good because you are tasting the food for the first time. You are able to forget pain. Without anandamide system women would never give birth second time, fully remembering the pain of the first time. We know how boosting anandamide system with cannabinoids affects short term memory, long term memory is different story, we have in fact little understanding how long term memory works in the first place. Listening and playing music, it brings you to the moment and surrenders you to the flow of music.

But heavy pot use usually is accompanied by social and psychological changes. Something wants you to stop being you. That also often makes you stop trying to stay caught up or get caught up. Meaning you don't try to learn stuff you would learn.

This is the interesting part. Long term use does affect processes of ego, self-image and social identity. It tends to brake ties to rigid social hierarchies and orientate towards more holistic nature relation. Which authoritarian and control manic brainiacs have big problem with. And cannabis is not always just the kindest and nicest teacher in that respect, it can also punish.

[pscot]

54. Something wants you to stop being you

I'd love to see the data and the analytical method that led to that conclusion.

[tama]

59. What is "you" or "me"? eom

[kestrel91316]

9. I'm sure alcohol doesn't do ANYTHING comparable.........

[Igel]

12. Does it matter?

What if alcohol is worse?

Does that suddenly make the effect of THC on memory formation a good thing? Justifiable?

Or do you want to make the thread a debate about the relative and not the absolute merit of each chemical?

Or to say we can't worry about smaller problems until the biggest problem is dealt with? (That is, demanding that not the perfect but simply the better be the enemy of the good.)

[kestrel91316]

19. Why is one poured freely and the other completely prohibited? Just curious.

There is a lot more going on in this picture than brain function.

For the record, I oppose cannabis prohibition. Alcohol is a FAR worse substance of abuse. And a single study showing cannabis to be bad in some way doesn't come close to outweighing all the studies that show it is virtually harmless.

Also, I don't think restricting cannabis goes along with liberal politics. It's quite the conservative view.

[MercutioATC]

10. OMG!! Pot makes you stupid!

It's amazing what studies these days can identify! If only we knew this 30 years ago!

[Mmm_Bacon]

14. Shocking really...

[Robb]

15. LOL

[MercutioATC]

16. Other:

Robb is a dingbat

Hey, bro! Long time!

[Robb]

20. Nice to see you, you old thumb-biter.

Man. We're old and stuff.

[MercutioATC]

21. Tell me about it. (and I still bite my thumb at thee)

[randome]

13. You want to get high without the chemical consequences?

Listen to acid trance music in the dark. Look inside yourself, not outside.

Decriminalize? Yes. Advocate? No.

[Ohio Joe]

17. Strange they do not link to the study...

I think it also strange that they only have a comment from someone that had nothing to do with the study. No link, meaningless analysis and, I at least, cannot find the article on the site it is supposed to be:

http://www.pnas.org/

If anyone finds it, please drop in a direct link as I know I would like to see it. I find it hard to believe that people have a lower IQ at 38 then they did at 13.

[GeorgeGist]

23. Here is the abstract, the article costs.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/08/22/1206820109.abstract

[bananas]

31. Someone posted the full pdf on reddit

http://my.reddit.com/r/science/comments/yx7k3/persistent_cannabis_users_show_neuropsychological/c5zobyo

username112358 1680 points 6 hours ago*

I think it's important to note that they specifically mention that there was no negative impact found in persistant cannabis smokers who began as an adult. That means cannabis could impact development during puberty, but not after. In other words, don't give it to kids, but you can do it once you reach a certain age. Hence, the regulate pot like alcohol campaign.

EDIT: Woo, this is my most upvoted comment. EDIT 2: Since this comment is high up on the page, here's the full PDF of the study: http://www.rjbf.com/PNAS_Meier.pdf

[guardian]

18. Here is empirical evidence that marijuana use prepares teens for school

[liberal_at_heart]

24. I don't want my kids using drugs of any kind but

I'm not stupid. Late teens and early twenties is when young people experiment and those who think they don't are as foolish as those who think that young people don't have sex. Of of all the horrific drugs that are prevalent such as prescription pain killers, heroin, cocaine, meth, and alcohol I would much rather my kids experiment with marijuana. Besides, I'm very skeptical of these studies, of any studies really. Studies are not really properly conducted anymore. They usually don't use a large enough population for long enough periods of time to come up with reliable data. I know people who have smoked since their teens and who are now in their sixties and are still very intelligent people with high paying jobs and stable homes.

[Vattel]

25. If I had a joint for every time a study

that finds a correlation between two things gets misprepresented as establishing a causal connection between them, I'd be high all the time.

[Quantess]

27. Pot does not agree with me. I hate it!

I went along with the group occasionally and got stoned in high school. I completely lost my ability to do a math problem when under the influence of marijuana.

[Egalitarian Thug]

29. It's definitely not for everyone, but not being able to do math means you're doing it right. n/t

[OriginalGeek]

30. To be honest

I had a rough time doing math problems before I ever discovered pot.


I was a bit of a savant, though, when it came to looking at a baggie and knowing how many joints I could roll from it.

[Quantess]

45. My ex boyfriend

was an otherwise smart guy with a certified learning disability who, I believe, graduated high school without being able to make it through Algebra 1.
He started smoking pot at age 12 or 13. I doubt marijuana helped him with his study skills. But he certainly knew how to make precise measurements with a scale, and exchange monetary amounts.

I hung out with the cool & rebellious kids who tended to do more drugs than the average teen, so I ended up experimenting, even though I was a good student. A lot of those teens did not graduate.

I am not saying they were not smart people, but, substances and school-learning do not mix.

[OriginalGeek]

55. Yeah, I don't regret smoking pot

and I might still every once in a while if it were legal. But I think I'm glad I didn't discover it until after I graduated high school. If I had gotten into it as heavily then as I did after, I doubt I would have graduated.

[AlbertCat]

50. lost my ability to do a math problem

Was it long division of quadratic equations or trig?

Because, arithmetic is not what people do in high school. So guess what. It's HARD.

Besides, I think you just completely lost your DESIRE to do a math problem... not your ability.

[Quantess]

52. No. I really was lost during math problems when stoned.

I could not hold my train of thought, and became confused. I forgot from one moment to the next what I was supposed to be doing.

[AlbertCat]

57. Now that I understand.

I find it hard (tho' not impossible) to read when really stoned.

[Care Acutely]

28. I don't think it did much for the EX, that's for sure.

Not that he was a physicist-in-the-making early on or anything - but let's just say the love of smoke clearly has done him no favors over the last 25+ years. Delivery system aside no active drug is without side effects, natural or not.

Disclaimer:
Anecdote is not evidence
I haven't really looked at the study and I do have better things to do. I'm just not that "into" this issue.

[jtuck004]

32. For many years it was assumed that age was associated with lower IQ. But what they found

when they did the research in Adult Education is that adults want task-oriented work, not the meaningless hoop-jumping that fills the testing regimen of schools. Thus, when you give them a test without a specific goal that THEY care about, such as a math test given in a subject that is just there to broaden or improve their thinking (even if it is required for a degree), the performance is lower, but it's not because they have leaked out some brain cells through their ears.

They aren't less smart, they just don't care enough to push when they don't see the point.

So I am really suspicious of a study that doesn't do something to identify that already known issue and note its influence.

Beyond that, the researchers expect people medicating themselves with a mind-altering drug that we know impairs your ability to focus on a task (well, if it's any good) to, uh, focus on a task. Maybe they got into the research weed.

[Fumesucker]

35. Kids aren't particularly fond of meaningless hoop-jumping either...

I'm not sure why anyone would think otherwise.

[jtuck004]

60. The underlying assumption being that they care about the kids, me thinks.

http://www.smu.edu/News/2012/ron-wetherington-film-26april2012

'Course, people don't have to be religious fundamentalists to care more about themselves than the kids, even while stating otherwise.

[Quantess]

61. No, I have to challenge you on that. Do you have a link for that?

Last edited Tue Aug 28, 2012, 04:40 PM - Edit history (1)

Age is associated with increased time in thought processing, and decreased learning capacity, absolutely. But lower IQ?

Also. you need to specify which age ranges you are referring to, and in which parameter. I am not letting that one go unchallenged.

Edit to say: All I see is some absorption of Reader's Digest articles that you have read during long waits at the doctor's office.

[jtuck004]

62. So a link to a whole area of Adult Education...that's a toughy. <G>

Here's a blurb from a synopsis, references at the bottom. Following all that out could take years. For some it has.

"Findings from much of the earlv research were a function of research design. Tests of older adults against young people under timed conditions made it appear that being younger meant being a better learner. Lorge ( 1944, 1947) later pointed out that adult test scores were related to previous education and skills, not to age per se. Since older adults had less formal education and less opportunity to develop test-taking skills, it only appeared that they were less-capable learners. Moreover, when Lorge focused on adults' ability to learn rather than on the speed or rate of learning (that is, when time pressure
was removed), adults up to age seventy did as well as younger adults.

Part of the problem is the uncritical used of the construct called IQ, with most folks having nothing but a vague association between that and their first learning that higher IQ kids were "smarter".

wiki - "The first large-scale mental test may have been the imperial examination system in China. Modern mental testing began in France in the 19th century. It contributed to separating mental retardation from mental illness and reducing the neglect, torture, and ridicule heaped on both groups.[7]"

So they then throw this out there, and I am sure the report will contain numbers, which infer a lot of precision, But it's built on that shaky foundation of what is now a political construct. The can be as rigorous as they want, doesn't change the fact that it's made up assumption that can give wildly varying results depending on how it is used.

There is an old story about a new teacher, given a list of students with the numbers 121, 137, 115 and so on. At the end of the semester she was given an award for their exceptional performance, and when she gave her acceptance speech she said "And when they gave me that list of IQ's, and I saw how high they were, I knew I was among exceptional people, and taught them as such"
The principal pulled her aside later and confided "That was a troublesome class, and I felt a little bad about putting you in there, since they had run off 2 teachers already. But hose weren't their IQ's they were their locker numbers."

Probably apocryphal, but look up Rosenthal-Jacobson study. If IQ was really predictive, if we REALLY knew what we were looking at, you shouldn't be able to get such performance out of people who can't perform. Yet we do.

Other people can hang onto the concept if it helps them. Hell, there is a whole political party trying to move us back to 1565, so I can understand how one wants to grab onto something they can use to manipulate other people. For me, I would rather presume that people are capable of a lot more than we can measure and proceed accordingly.

Gotta throw a little insult in there, huh? Classy...

[Quantess]

63. Thanks for responding. IQ can increase or decrease as you age, in fact,

depending on whether your cognitive functions are stimulated or not. Up to a certain age, anyway... I can offer a link to a specific age when I have time.

We all need to stimulate our minds in order to remain sharp, and it is never too late to begin, nor can anyone "rest on their laurels" and claim they have learned all they needed to learn.

But the fact remains that birth to age 3 is the most crucial period for human cognitive development.

Edit to change a word

[jtuck004]

65. I wouldn't disagree with any of that, except for the idea

that human potential, or even just the ability to learn (other than a narrowly defined set of facts which we wish to bank in their little heads, remotely useful or not), more than coincidentally aligns with an IQ number. Little numbers, all made of ticky-tacky, all look just the same. Not my kinda world

Then again, I think qualitative research tells us more than much of the quantitative data that tells us what we think we know. But we ignore it, perhaps for the same reason most people avoid software help screens.

Such work is useful in finance, (just ask Jamie Dimon) or when predicting tool wear for replacement as parts in a CNC machine age. But for people? phooey.

My educational philosophy is such that I would suggest we end "Graduation" and have "You-Are-Just-Getting-Started-Learning-Be-Careful-You-Don't-Kill-Anyone" parties after 12 years of school, and it is derived from Myles Horton, Paulo Freire, Joseph Hart, Jerry Farber, Neill, Dewey, others. Probably why I didn't wind up compromising in a school after I left college. There's lots of other educational opportunities out there, however.

[Bohunk68]

36. Well, that explains everything!

Now I know why the Teabaggers and other knuckle draggers are so stoooopid! They smoked pot as teenagers!! Do I need a sarcasm thingee here?

[DiverDave]

37. And

Pigs MAY fly out of my behind.

This is scientific?

[Douglas Carpenter]

38. Can we have enough intellectual honesty from people to admit that pot is NOT harmless?

I don't say this as someone who hates pot or the life associated with it. I say this as someone who once smoked the stuff very,very heavily for about seven years and absolutely loved being high. Okay, modest use is no worse than modest use of anything else. Heavy usage is no worse and may not even be as harmful as heavy use of alcohol or other intoxicants. But that is all besides the point. Many people especially the young start out with modest use the same way many people start with modest use of alcohol. Many, probably most are able to keep their use modest just as most people are able to consume alcohol moderately. But claims that heavy marijuana is harmless requires one to completely lie to themselves and those around them. I can definitely believe that heavy use tends to lower IQ levels in teenagers. I can believe that like alcohol - heavy usage of marijuana drills holes in peoples' brains. One would have to really spend energy avoiding reality not to admit that heavy usage is in fact harmful; very, very harmful. So do as you please, but please don't lie to yourself.

[limpyhobbler]

39. Maybe it makes people not care about doing well on IQ tests.

It has an effect on people.
That's not necessarily the same as "harm".

Either way, it's a good reason to legalize and regulate it.
Slap a warning label on the box.

"Warning: Makes you not give a shit about stuff"

I found that prolonged use made me very personable but I lost the ability to do difficult math problems.

But after stopping for about a while then I got my math back but turned into a grouch.

[tama]

41. What about music?

And deep discussions - internal and/or social - about philosophy of math?

[limpyhobbler]

42. It definitely enahnces creativity.

Music for sure. Good for writing songs. But if going on stage to perform, I think one hit is sufficient. Because it does slow the reflexes and might decrease technical ability on faster tempo songs.

Yes it's good for philosophy. Bad for driving.

[Douglas Carpenter]

43. I support legalization too. If for no other reason than more harm is caused by keeping in illegal

I have no doubt but what marijuana did help me break through some psychological issues I just couldn't deal with. I also have no doubt but what I would have accomplished a number of things I did not accomplish during a certain period of my life if I could have used it moderately and had not been so damn preoccupied with getting high all the time. But, like with many things in life - having harmful effects and the potential for harmful effects does not mean that criminalization improves the situation. I'm certain the criminalization of marijuana and probably criminalization of even indisputably harmful drugs like cocaine causes more harm than good. It is entirely possible that marijuana does produce both negative and positive side effects - like many things in life. It is totally possible that marijuana does make people less grouchy and might even inspire a certain type of free thinking and creativity. It is also quite possible that heavy prolonged use does usually reduce certain cognitive skills and memory abilities as it usually makes prolonged heavy users lazy and a bit dimwitted I find it outrageous that people could delude themselves into believing that heavy use of marijuana is harmless even among growing adolescents. It is not some grave evil that should be criminalized. It probably can have some positive side effects in moderate use. But heavy use is certainly not harmless. That is freeper level dumb-ass bullshit - to put it politely.

[limpyhobbler]

46. seems reasonable. It's for adults, not kids.

[bakpakr]

44. Guys it's an election year

There are several states that have legalization on the ballot. There are several that have it up for a vote for medicinal use. Many localities have it up for a vote for decriminalization, legalization.

Because of this you will see much more of this as the election gets closer. Nothing new same tactic as in the past. You will find that most of the studies are based on bias, and straight out lies. Heck even the study Nixon had done prior to him starting the war on drugs recommended that Cannabis not be placed on schedule one. That was put out by the Shafer Commission.

http://www.csdp.org/news/news/nixon.htm

[CatWoman]

47. if so

I should be a blathering idiot by now.....

[AlbertCat]

48. Alrighty then!

High school students will just have to go back to binge drinking.

[hughee99]

49. The study is flawed...

I can tell because it suggests there are some potential negative side effects for some people related to marijuana use, when we all know there are none...

I suspect the kids who use just didn't care about taking the IQ test as much, since they're not conformists willing to "jump through hoops".

Also, I know a guy who smoked daily before he was 18 and he's one of the smartest guys I know...

Also, alcohol has negative side affects.

Also, the study was probably funded by big-pharma who want to keep it illegal since they can't make any money on it.


I think that about sums it up.

[Quantess]

53. That is a big assumption on your part

to say that that there are no potential negative side effects for some people. I have smoked it enough times to tell you, it has several negative side effects for me.

I hate being stoned! Okay well, I liked it for the first 5 minutes, but after that I feel thoroughly confused and annoyed, and unable to hold my train of thought. And then I start feeling depressed.

If it does not affect you negatively, the way it does for me, then I believe you. I have friends who say they can function well when stoned. I assure you, I cannot function at all while stoned.

[hughee99]

56. Come on, you've been around here long enough to know

that whenever any study suggests that marijuana isn't all sunshine, lollipops and rainbows what the defenders responses will be...

The science is flawed or biased (and sometimes it is)
The methodology of the test is flawed or biased (and sometimes it is)
I know a guy that disproves the conclusions.
Well, Alcohol is bad but it's legal.
This is just part of a big-pharma conspiracy to protect their profits.

I thought I did a pretty good job of hitting all the usual defenses.

[Quantess]

58. Oh.

I responded to your post that way because I am so accustomed to seeing all of the points you hit, above. I missed the part where you let on that you were a cynic.

But anyway, I have done more than my fair share of experimenting with drugs, but for me, marijuana = bad trip. Maybe some people are allergic to marijuana, who knows.

I fully support legalization, especially for medical purposes.

[porphyrian]

64. Yeah, in about 5% of teens.

See here: http://healthland.time.com/2012/08/28/does-weekly-marijuana-use-by-teens-really-cause-a-drop-in-iq/.

More of them will end up with chlamydia (with or without pot).