Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Casual marijuana use linked to brain changes [View all]RainDog
(28,784 posts)78. here's what the research says about itself
http://jn.sfn.org/press/April-16-2014-Issue/zns01614005529.pdf
In addition, the use of alcohol at an early age was not factored in, tho all the participants who were among the 20 participants who had used marijuana in the study also used more alcohol than those who did not use marijuana in the study - therefore the researchers stated that alcohol was considered a covariant for the study.
There were no brain scans of the marijuana users to indicate if they already had larger areas of the brain prior to marijuana use, as well. The study also does not indicate what, if anything, larger areas of this part of the brain may indicate - whether this is good or bad - tho we know in the case of alzheimers, this is good because the marijuana helps regrow brain cells.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021840545
If the study wants to imply something about addiction, the researchers should also do a study with coffee drinkers, since marijuana and coffee are considered equally addictive as substances - rather than any other, more harmful drug, to establish some baseline in this regard, as well.
The leading pharmacologist in the UK said, in 2010:
studies from Harvard published late last year: http://www.democraticunderground.com/11701551
and a meta analysis of marijuana studies have indicated that marijuana was only a risk for schizophrenia for those with existing family histories, and, therefore, existing predisposition for schizo-affective disorder:
On the other hand, the AMA has recommended that cannabis be removed as a schedule I substance so that more research can occur, again, based upon physicians' views of existing research and patient reports. But they have to couch their words so that they don't offend the DEA, etc., as you see in this link: http://www.amednews.com/article/20091123/profession/311239968/7/
All that said - of course any substance which activates existing endocannabinoids will have a temporary, at least, impact on the brain. We know, for instance, that marijuana works as an anti-convulsant for epilepsy and anti-inflammatory for MS and Parkinson's disease - and the area of inflammation includes the amygdala. Cannabis appears to be very good for the aging brain - it appears to slow aging: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021840545
Here's how it helps those with alzheimers: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4416665
Because of its illegal status, cannabis is least available to those who may benefit the most from its medical uses.
But, AGAIN, all that said - cannabis should not be legal for teenagers, just as alcohol is not. Legalizing and regulating will help to keep it out of the hands of teenagers - who can purchase mj much easier than alcohol simply b/c it's illegal and illegal dealers don't care about checking i.d.s.
On the other hand, a longitudinal study of women in Jamaica who consume cannabis as part of their folk medicine found it had no impact on children of those mothers.
here's a link to her published research: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8121737
And here's a video of her discussing her work: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3135343
This preliminary study has several caveats. First, the sample size does not provide power to examine complex interactions such as sex differences. Because this is a cross-sectional study, causation cannot be determined...
In addition, the use of alcohol at an early age was not factored in, tho all the participants who were among the 20 participants who had used marijuana in the study also used more alcohol than those who did not use marijuana in the study - therefore the researchers stated that alcohol was considered a covariant for the study.
There were no brain scans of the marijuana users to indicate if they already had larger areas of the brain prior to marijuana use, as well. The study also does not indicate what, if anything, larger areas of this part of the brain may indicate - whether this is good or bad - tho we know in the case of alzheimers, this is good because the marijuana helps regrow brain cells.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021840545
If the study wants to imply something about addiction, the researchers should also do a study with coffee drinkers, since marijuana and coffee are considered equally addictive as substances - rather than any other, more harmful drug, to establish some baseline in this regard, as well.
The leading pharmacologist in the UK said, in 2010:
Roger Pertwee, professor of neuropharmacology at Aberdeen University, will on Tuesday tell the British Science Festival in Birmingham that making cannabis available from licensed outlets would reduce drug-related crime and cut the risk of users moving on to more dangerous drugs.
At the moment cannabis is in the hands of criminals, he will say. We are allowed to drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes. Cannabis, if it is handled properly, is not going to be more dangerous.
Although research has shown cannabis may increase the risk of developing schizophrenia in particularly vulnerable individuals, this danger does not apply to the general population, he will say. The risk could be reduced by setting a minimum age of 21 for consuming cannabis or requiring individuals to obtain a licence to buy it.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/RainDog/23
At the moment cannabis is in the hands of criminals, he will say. We are allowed to drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes. Cannabis, if it is handled properly, is not going to be more dangerous.
Although research has shown cannabis may increase the risk of developing schizophrenia in particularly vulnerable individuals, this danger does not apply to the general population, he will say. The risk could be reduced by setting a minimum age of 21 for consuming cannabis or requiring individuals to obtain a licence to buy it.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/RainDog/23
studies from Harvard published late last year: http://www.democraticunderground.com/11701551
and a meta analysis of marijuana studies have indicated that marijuana was only a risk for schizophrenia for those with existing family histories, and, therefore, existing predisposition for schizo-affective disorder:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/09/01/2673334.htm
Previous research has suggested cannabis use increases the risk of being diagnosed with schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders.
This latest study, led by Dr Martin Frisher of Keele University, examined the records of 600,000 patients aged between 16 and 44, but failed to find a similar link.
"An important limitation of many studies is that they have failed to distinguish the direction of association between cannabis use and psychosis," the authors write in the latest edition of the journal Schizophrenia Research.
Previous research has suggested cannabis use increases the risk of being diagnosed with schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders.
This latest study, led by Dr Martin Frisher of Keele University, examined the records of 600,000 patients aged between 16 and 44, but failed to find a similar link.
"An important limitation of many studies is that they have failed to distinguish the direction of association between cannabis use and psychosis," the authors write in the latest edition of the journal Schizophrenia Research.
On the other hand, the AMA has recommended that cannabis be removed as a schedule I substance so that more research can occur, again, based upon physicians' views of existing research and patient reports. But they have to couch their words so that they don't offend the DEA, etc., as you see in this link: http://www.amednews.com/article/20091123/profession/311239968/7/
All that said - of course any substance which activates existing endocannabinoids will have a temporary, at least, impact on the brain. We know, for instance, that marijuana works as an anti-convulsant for epilepsy and anti-inflammatory for MS and Parkinson's disease - and the area of inflammation includes the amygdala. Cannabis appears to be very good for the aging brain - it appears to slow aging: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021840545
Here's how it helps those with alzheimers: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4416665
Because of its illegal status, cannabis is least available to those who may benefit the most from its medical uses.
But, AGAIN, all that said - cannabis should not be legal for teenagers, just as alcohol is not. Legalizing and regulating will help to keep it out of the hands of teenagers - who can purchase mj much easier than alcohol simply b/c it's illegal and illegal dealers don't care about checking i.d.s.
On the other hand, a longitudinal study of women in Jamaica who consume cannabis as part of their folk medicine found it had no impact on children of those mothers.
here's a link to her published research: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8121737
This research provides data on the development of 59 Jamaican children, from birth to age 5 years, whose mothers used marijuana during pregnancy. Approximately one-half of the sample used marijuana during pregnancy and were matched with non-users according to age, parity, and socioeconomic status. Testing of the children was done at 1, 3, and 30 days of age with the Brazelton Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scales and at ages 4 and 5 years with the McCarthy Scales of Children's Abilities. Data about the child's home environment and temperament were collected from direct observations as well as from standardized questionnaires. The results show no significant differences in developmental testing outcomes between children of marijuana-using and non-using mothers except at 30 days of age when the babies of users had more favourable scores on two clusters of the Brazelton Scales: autonomic stability and reflexes. The developmental scores at ages 4 and 5 years were significantly correlated to certain aspects of the home environment and to regularity of basic school (preschool) attendance.
And here's a video of her discussing her work: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3135343
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
140 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
What does legality have anything to do with one drug being more destructive than another .... ?
MindMover
Apr 2014
#73
I rec'd your OP not because I agree with the study, but because I agree with this:
scarletwoman
Apr 2014
#10
Actually, no. I quit several times for years because of kids, jobs, schedules, etc.
mountain grammy
Apr 2014
#67
Unless it's that cheap $10/oz crap we used to buy across the border. Then maybe not.
jtuck004
Apr 2014
#19
I remember all the Reader's Digest articles citing a constant stream of studies showing all sorts of
byronius
Apr 2014
#41
Anti pot story brought to you by alcohol companies, bars and other legal death dealers
workinclasszero
Apr 2014
#43
Don't forget the petroleum,cotton and logging industries.They made sure it became illegal in the 1st
judesedit
Apr 2014
#62
I'm sure it's possible that this is true. But it seems minor compared to the side effects of...
DesertDiamond
Apr 2014
#48
That's bs. Pot smokers miss less work, are more productive & get more promotions according to other
judesedit
Apr 2014
#61
I'm surprised that a mainstream outlet actually published Gerdeman's point,
BlancheSplanchnik
Apr 2014
#83
This is just blatant misinformation/exaggeration and is what the prohibitionists want ...
MindMover
Apr 2014
#127