Are cannabinoids neurotoxic?

[BilZ0r]

Heres a ~6,000 word liturature review I wrote on the subject. Its not 100% checked or corrected, but I'm a busy man. I suggest someone who isn't very interested just look at the tables and the summary.

 

[frizzantik]

cool.. i'm downloading this now

 

[ksi]

Reading it atm.

edit: Good read. I personally think cannabis is neurotoxic in humans. Well if you go by the definition of ICON, that is.

Thanks for posting!

 

[diegoblunt]

wow! Top post man. By far the most stimulating and interesting thing ive read in this forum for a little while.

You are right that those studies show somewhat conflicting and inconclusive results. I'm not sure what personal conclusions I draw from the material, but some of the studies that looked at usage time-frame make me feel comfortable with my situation. Tbh, i have already accepted the fact that when im 50, my memory and ability to run mazes will be significantly impaired compared to non-smoking control subjects. I may be slightly slower at some activities, but is that really worthy of such panic (im sure numerous other lifestyle diseases will be well on their way to killing me by then). While I don't believe that THC legitimately fulfills the requirements for 'neurotoxicity', I understand and accept any lasting damage that I do to myself. Its a classical harm v benefits analysis and in the manner i see the world, the benefits of everyday marijuana usage outweigh the potential costs of neurotoxicity. I found the Animal Behaviour section to be very interesting. (Some of the earlier Bmax receptors etc. had me a bit lost).

I highly reccomend that everyone in here reads this. I just wish it had a quote button.

 

[Blowmonkey]

Thanks for posting this here!

Heh, I thought it was Bill asking us if it was.. Ah well.

I have absolutely no time to read this through atm, but I'll have a look at it as soon as I've got time. Bound to be an interesting read. Keep us updated!

 

[BilZ0r]

I think the most interesting study is Pope et al., 2001, where they compare people who had smoked 5000 times or more, but have basically quit for 3 months, to people who have never smoked, and people who still smoke daily.

The people who have quit for 3 months are the same as the controls.

The question is, how long does it take you to smoke 5000 times. In the paper they say that it is 13 years or so. Which was shown by the costa-rican paper to not be enough to cause damage, becasue in their study, only the peopl who had smoked for 34 years were damaged....

Interesting stuff.

 

[Blowmonkey]

*Bump*

I've send off a copy to Advanced Drug Discussion..

-------->>

 

[austior]

Bilzor, as usual your paper is comprehensive, strong on science, and weak in grammatical form . It's really quite easy. Just remember: Commas always come in pairs, except when they come in twos or threes, or in groups of some higher number. Also, ALWAYS seperate complete clauses with a comma, unless they are parsed with a seperating word, such as "and" or a conjunctional "but", BUT not if some other rule applies. And please, never start sentences with an "and" but by all means do this if it sounds good when read aloud.

Joking aside, this is an excellent article. I literally laughed out loud when I read that the 1977 researchers thought an alcohol extraction of cannabis didn't have thc. They obviously didn't smoke any! Anyway, I liked it so much that I did a complete re-edit. Bilzor, I hope you are pleased, but if you don't like it I'll have the mods remove this post.

 

[BilZ0r]

Bilzor, as usual your paper is comprehensive, strong on science, and weak in grammatical form

LOL, I can't spell either...