Teenage pot smoking may lower IQ – for life

This "study" lacks any clear-cut control group. IQ and "intelligence" varies greatly from unique individual.

There is absolutely no way to do this study right, without inventing a time machine in the process, to go back to when the smokers were teens and experiment.

Saying any conclusive results have come from this study is outright propaganda.
 
oh what bullshit, oh my iq score oh no, what will i do with my life now. Maybe i won't be able to solve useless puzzles anymore or make abstract comparisons as well. Perhaps smoking cannabis allows your brain to think better in ways that are more applicable to our natural life rather than like a computer/robot.

what do these people really have against cannabis? Were they the kids in highschool who weren't invited to get high and felt left out and now have to persecute every last one of those kids who so selfishly damaged them forever? That's what i like to picture in my head.
 
The only reason people are able to link drug use to stupid people, is because very stupid people that have crappy lives and either crappy or no job are more likely to spend money on drugs. At least that's the way it works around here.
 
This "study" lacks any clear-cut control group. IQ and "intelligence" varies greatly from unique individual.

There is absolutely no way to do this study right, without inventing a time machine in the process, to go back to when the smokers were teens and experiment.

Saying any conclusive results have come from this study is outright propaganda.

It's funny every time I look at a thread about how everything makes people retarded, and you're almost always the last person to have posted.
 
Looks like the By Dr Robert Lefever article got moved here. No problem. I started it as a new thread because, although he mentioned the IQ study, he was more having a rant about cannabis in general.
 
Meh, big deal, so my high school years spent high 90% of the time dropped my IQ from 135 to 127, I'll deal with it. (I took a test at age12)
 
a critique:

Perspective on cannabis dependence and IQ

Reports from various news outlets have been discussing a paper published a couple of days ago in PNAS. The paper investigates cannabis dependence, and it’s relation to change in IQ. Media articles have interpreted these findings as ‘cannabis use is harmful to adolescent brains, but not afterwards’. Now, before I go on, I should say that I’m not disputing that this may be the case, but I don’t think this paper provides as strong evidence as is being reported, for a number of reasons, which I’ll go through here.

1. Sample size. OK, 1000 people sounds like a lot, but in terms of observational epidemiology, it’s not massive. This study had 5 levels of cannabis use, 3 of which had at least some form of dependence. Although cannabis use is quite common, cannabis dependence is not, and so the number of people in the highest cannabis use categories are very small, 35 and 38 in the top two. So although 1000 sounds like a lot, it can mean very small numbers in each category. Indeed, later in the paper, when the authors compare those dependent by age 18 with those dependent after age 18, they are looking at groups of less than 15 people in some cases.

Also, when looking at the sample they report, it looks like their analyses are only done on 874 of those 1037 people they mention in the abstract. But I can’t see any mention of why this would be.

2. Cannabis dependence. As I mention above, although cannabis use is quite common, cannabis dependence isn’t. The smaller a sample size, the less representative they are of the population at large. This can result in a larger standard deviation, or wider confidence intervals (measures which represent the spread of likely ‘true’ underlying values assessed by a sample). 55% of the whole sample is in their second category, ‘used cannabis, never diagnosed dependent’. A further 28% of the sample have never used cannabis at all, leaving only 17% of the sample who have ever been diagnosed as cannabis dependent. These 153 people are then further divided in to 3 dependence categories. Since most people are in the ‘used, not dependent’ category, to me it would make more sense to divide this category up a little, as there’s a lot of variation in recreational use before a person would reach dependence which is lost.

more: http://www.scilogs.com/sifting_the_evidence/perspective-on-cannabis-dependence-and-iq/
 
another critique:

Cannabis reduces IQ (and appreciation of context)

Some of the smartest and most talented people I know are regular cannabis users, and have been for years. But this personal observation seemingly runs contrary to a new study recently published that suggests that young cannabis users run the risk of a lower IQ. In what is an impressively long-term cohort study, it was found that "those who started using cannabis below the age of 18 - while their brains were still developing - suffered a drop in IQ".

It does sound like an impressive study, and any study maintained over 2 decades deserves kudos for that alone. But as always, a news story written for the general public is going to leave out some important scientific points, as well as potentially raising some issues.

Firstly, as is often said, correlation does not imply causation. Just because those who smoked cannabis as teenagers were recorded as having lower IQs, doesn't automatically mean that cannabis intake causes lower IQ. Measuring IQ is often a slippery subject, let alone working out what sort of things affect it. For example, as bizarre as it may seem, height is apparently positively correlated with IQ. That is, taller people seem to be more intelligent, according to IQ tests. Why is this? It's uncertain. You may think it's a bit contrived to use height as an example in a discussion about cannabis. But then, cannabis is typically smoked. And what stunts your growth…?

Studies of large populations are tricky, it's practically impossible to rule out ALL variables that affect a typical human. Some large studies have revealed a link between cannabis use and psychiatric disorders like psychosis and schizophrenia. It's still uncertain as to how this might occur. It's logical to assume that regular intake of mind-altering chemicals will alter your mind for the worse, eventually. But it may be possible that people prone to or suffering from these psychiatric disorders are self-medicating, using the effects of the drugs to alleviate the symptoms of the psychiatric illness. It becomes a question of what came first; the schizophrenic chicken or the constantly-stoned egg?

The study is undoubtedly a good one and will produce a lot of interesting analysis and discussion for years to come. On the down side, it's likely that this finding has already been stripped of any meaningful scientific context by anti-drug campaigners and politicians looking to score easy points.

continued http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/brain-flapping/2012/aug/29/cannabis-reduces-iq?CMP=twt_gu
 
Daily Mail

29 August 2012 1:02 PM
Peter Hitchens Blog

With reader comments

An Antidote to Anecdote – Undeniable Evidence that Cannabis is bad for you

The son of a friend of mine suffered severe, irreversible mental illness after he used cannabis in his early teens. He has since found, in conversations with friends of his own age, that this is an extraordinarily common experience. A happy, healthy bright child smoked cannabis in his (it usually is his rather than her) early teens, and his personality altered, his hopes were dashed and he isi now in many ways a burden on those who love him.

He seethes at the way in which complacent people will dismiss these accounts as ‘anecdotal’, as if that meant they didn’t mean anything, or have any wider significance. How many such anecdotes, he asks, would amount to evidence on which one might act? Part of the problem, as I discuss in my soon-to-be-published book , ‘The War we Never Fought’ is that mental illness is itself a very vague category, hard to define and hard to measure objectively. I have dealt with this in my riposte to those who have referred (and will no doubt again refer) me to the inconclusive Keele Study, which a) used a database which almost certainly excludes many cannabis users, and b) referred to ‘Schizophrenia’, a category whose borderlines shift and are disputed, and for which there is no objective measure; also it is not necessarily the only form of mental illness which might be associated with cannabis use.

More...
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co...le-evidence-that-cannabis-is-bad-for-you.html
 
Cannabis more damaging to under-18s, study suggests

"Adolescents who are regular users of cannabis are at risk of permanent damage to their intelligence, attention span and memory, according to the results of research covering nearly four decades.

The long-term study which followed a group of over 1,000 people from birth to the age of 38 has produced the first convincing evidence, say scientists, that cannabis has a different and more damaging effect on young brains than on those of adults.

Around 5% of the group used cannabis at least once a week in adolescence or were considered dependent on it. Between the age of 13 and 38, when all members of the group were given a range of psychological tests, the IQ of those who had been habitual cannabis users in their youth had dropped by eight points on average.

Giving up cannabis made little difference – what mattered was the age at which young people began to use it. Those who started after the age of 18 did not have the same IQ decline.

"This work took an amazing scientific effort," said Professor Terrie Moffitt of King's College London's Institute of Psychiatry, one of the authors.

"We followed almost 1,000 participants, we tested their mental abilities as kids before they ever tried cannabis, and we tested them again 25 years later after some participants became chronic users.

"Participants were frank about their substance abuse habits because they trust our confidentiality guarantee, and 96% of the original participants stuck with the study from 1972 to today.

"It's such a special study that I'm fairly confident that cannabis is safe for over-18 brains, but risky for under-18 brains."

The research, on people in Dunedin, New Zealand, was carried out by researchers from King's College and Duke University, North Carolina in the United States and published online by PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences).

"Marijuana is not harmless, particularly for adolescents," said Madeline Meier from Duke, one of the researchers. While eight IQ points on a scale where the mean is 100 may not sound a lot, she said, a drop from 100 to 92 represents a move from the 50th to the 29th percentile. Higher IQs correlate with higher education and income, better health and a longer life.

"Somebody who loses eight IQ points as an adolescent may be disadvantaged compared to their same-age peers for years to come," Meier said. The study took into account the education of the participants, which can be disrupted by drug use.

The authors say that young people tend today to think that cannabis is harmless. "Increasing efforts should be directed toward delaying the onset of cannabis use by young people, particularly given the recent trend of younger ages of cannabis-use initiation in the United States and evidence that fewer adolescents believe that cannabis use is associated with serious risk," says the paper.

"The simple message is that substance use is not healthy for kids," said Avshalom Caspi, of Duke and King's, one of the leaders of the study. "That's true for tobacco, alcohol, and apparently for cannabis."

Robin Murray, professor of psychiatric research at King's, who was not involved in the study, said the paper was impressive and if the same results were found in other research, public education campaigns should be launched to warn of the dangers of cannabis to younger people. "The Dunedin sample is probably the most intensively studied cohort in the world and therefore the data is very good. The researchers, who I know well, are among the best epidemiologists in the world. Therefore, although one should never be convinced by a single study, I take the findings very seriously.

"There are a lot of clinical and educational anecdotal reports that cannabis users tend to be less successful in their educational achievement, marriages and occupations. It is of course part of folklore among young people that some heavy users of cannabis seem to gradually lose their abilities and end up achieving much less than one would have anticipated. This study provides one explanation as to why this might be the case."


http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/aug/27/cannabis-damaging-under-18s-study
 
I waited until i was 19 to try any chemicals/drugs, however i was given alcohol when i was younger, although i didnt get drunk very often not a thing i wanted to do that much.

I think that everyone should wait until they are 18 unless they have a medical valid reason, to smoke weed (Be it inflammatory disease, joint pain, insomnia)

I think that drugs are for Adults.
 
^would it necessarily take several decades to try to reproduce the results? Isn't there a more rapid way to test this?
 
In my opinion it would, assuming they can be reproduced. I think the most accurate way would be to play it out in real life as it has been. Otherwise we make reductive assumptions.
 
Last edited:
I really hope that's BS because it'll just be another thing I'll regret about my life (most of my blazing took place in my teenage years).
 
Top