Scans "reveal brain damage from cannabis is like schizophrenia"

Indoobitably, Everyone !

As others have pointed over, the sample is QUITE flawed. For one there is only 15 people in it. Two, how do they control for OTHER DRUG USAGE, or UNDIAGNOSED "SCHIZOPHRENIA" or other mental illnesses?

In my advanced neuroscience classes- they stressed schizophrenia IS NOT always diagnosable from physiology scans. Sometimes people have bigger ventricles, or different receptor profiles, but to claim there was a fundamental difference in the way that information is processed in the white matter of the frontal lobe JUST IN SCHIZOPHRENIA, and then to say it directly affects language and hearing- well i must say the article provided no support for these wide assumptions- except to refer to a MAGICKAL technology-DIFFUSION TENSOR IMAGING. I need to go Google it now!

Those three confounds, added to the obvious /agenda/bias perceived from the so-called experts quoted in this article- caused me to check my grades at The Ohio State University, which were just posted- All A's so far! I took a hit of my bowl and thanked my statue of buddha that my brain cells still loved to be tickled.

I have an idea. This study is so bad that I think we should use it to increase the cancer that is contemporary Prohibition. nExt we should Start a liquour company and BANKKK!!! Date rape, drunk driving, assault what?
 
Last edited:
The article states the scans were done 30 days after last use.
Report
Click to expand...

I was clean (from cannabis) for about 6 months one time when I went for treatment and tested positive for cannabis. I smoked daily for about 18 years.

Yes, I feel my memory has decreased lately. How much is from cannabis, who knows. I think a lot of it is age related (I'm 47) because early in sobriety (after 2 years) I went back to school and passed 2nd in my class so I couldn't have been too damaged by the whole thing.8)

Oh, and one more thing........um, can't remember......

Oh yeah, looks like more anti-pot propaganda for the right wing. Load up on the ammo boys.
 
I saw a film on this actually. It's serious alright, kids jump out windows, black men rape white women... Seriously everybody, this is serious.
 
this may be a poor article but im convinced that marijuana does indeed cause brain damage and heavy use is mentally unhealthy. i base this on my personal experience with heavy marijuana use. even after a year of cessation daily use my mind is still greatly affected by the years i spent smoking cannabis throughout the day.
 
what sucks is that if this article was shown to a normal non-bluelighter, they'd look at it through a solid anti-drug perspective and say "yeah, good thing that shit is illegal"
 
If this was an article saying something positive about weed no one would dare say a thing. No one would question. No one would nitpick. They would defend it as much as possible. Now a study comes out with bad news against marijuana, and theres just no way its true. Now you look for any little loophole to deem it false. And you say the anti drug people are puppets. I'm not saying what I'm for or against or anything, just pointing out the obvious.
 
If pot causes schizophrenia, than all of our parents would have been institutionalized. Hell, a good percentage of the whole U.S. public would have it.

Don't tell me about the storms at sea, tell me when the ships are arriving.
 
ilovebw,

For me, it's not that they're lying and they didn't find the effect they did. It's not that weed is a vitamin and smoking it cleans your lungs and makes you smarter. It's that anyone who supplies journalists with those kind of quotes about their research is a hack. It's lame to pretend to know what kind of damage causes schizophrenia, because nobody knows. When someone figures it out, they will get the Nobel Prize and we'll all hear about it. The guy quoted at the very end of the article is even worse. Apparently typing "cannabis fmri" into pubmed is too much work for him, and it never occurred to anybody else to put cannabis users in a brain scanner.

I do see your point, though.
 
this may be a poor article but im convinced that marijuana does indeed cause brain damage and heavy use is mentally unhealthy. i base this on my personal experience with heavy marijuana use. even after a year of cessation daily use my mind is still greatly affected by the years i spent smoking cannabis throughout the day.
Click to expand...
obviously anything as psychoactive as cannabis is gonna affect one's brain in some way...it's not a simple opiate receptor being stimulated...anything done regularly that affects your perception on so many levels is going to be "temporary" for only so long...but the trouble is the way they're making such bold statements and generalizations......
 
ilovebw... actually, whenever the rare instance occurs that a *slightly* non-negative article about weed comes out, it gets pushed under the table and ignored, after a brief outcry from the general public/scientific opponents/whatevs. how often do you see a positive headline about pot? pretty much NEVER. even though it's pretty clearly just about the least harmful drug of so many legal and non-legal substances...

anyway, we're not looking for 'loopholes.' i think most of us are familiar with research standards, and there are basic questions you have to ask yourself when questioning the validity of ANY study. things like SAMPLE SIZE and POPULATION DEMOGRAPHICS are absolutely crucial to take into consideration, let alone more technical things like the method of analysis and the presumed connections between variable X and condition Y. i don't think we're puppets for actually taking the time to analyze study design and read beyond the 'facts' we're presented.
 
although i myself wouldn't put too much into this study, i do find it a little scary bc it hits home... my aunt smoked pot for years beginning in her teens and she was diagnosed with schizophrenia when i was little... i mean i don't know a lot about how much influence genetics has over schizophrenia, but if MJ triggers it... i dunno. not enough to stop me from smoking but its something i think about :| i sure as fuck dont want to end up like her...
 
ilovebw said:
If this was an article saying something positive about weed no one would dare say a thing. No one would question. No one would nitpick. They would defend it as much as possible. Now a study comes out with bad news against marijuana, and theres just no way its true. Now you look for any little loophole to deem it false. And you say the anti drug people are puppets. I'm not saying what I'm for or against or anything, just pointing out the obvious.
Click to expand...
actually in my experience of reading DITM, that's not the case at all
 
IAmJacksUserName said:
If pot causes schizophrenia, than all of our parents would have been institutionalized. Hell, a good percentage of the whole U.S. public would have it.

Don't tell me about the storms at sea, tell me when the ships are arriving.
Click to expand...

and if alcohol caused liver cirrhosis all of our parents would have that. i guess alcohol is completely safe then. the artcile never said "all pot smokers will get schizophrenia".
 
Last edited:
neurotrash said:
ilovebw... actually, whenever the rare instance occurs that a *slightly* non-negative article about weed comes out, it gets pushed under the table and ignored, after a brief outcry from the general public/scientific opponents/whatevs. how often do you see a positive headline about pot? pretty much NEVER. even though it's pretty clearly just about the least harmful drug of so many legal and non-legal substances...
Click to expand...

bullshit, there have been several positive pot articles within the past year. articles suggesting it doesn't cause cancer, articles suggesting it may have neuro-protective qualities, articles suggesting a derivitive of it may be good for the heart to name a few.
 
"anyway, we're not looking for 'loopholes.' i think most of us are familiar with research standards, and there are basic questions you have to ask yourself when questioning the validity of ANY study. things like SAMPLE SIZE and POPULATION DEMOGRAPHICS are absolutely crucial to take into consideration, let alone more technical things like the method of analysis and the presumed connections between variable X and condition Y. i don't think we're puppets for actually taking the time to analyze study design and read beyond the 'facts' we're presented."


Never are any of these basic questions and more technical things asked when a postive pot (or any drug) article comes out. As a matter of fact Im willing to bet if someone did question an article that said lets say "marijuana cures cancer" for example then they would be verbally beaten into the ground.
 
just because there "have been pot-positive articles" doesn't mean they get taken seriously by the scientific community OR the general public... certainly, they don't get the same media coverage, and they definitely get more criticism than their pot-negative opponents...
 
>>No I'm not.

Yes I am.


No I'm not.

Yes I am. >>

Actually characteristic of dissociative identity disorder. sorry, i couldn't stop myself from posting this.

ebola
 
ilovebw said:
Never are any of these basic questions and more technical things asked when a postive pot (or any drug) article comes out. As a matter of fact Im willing to bet if someone did question an article that said lets say "marijuana cures cancer" for example then they would be verbally beaten into the ground.
Click to expand...



Are you just talking about on this site? Because that's probably entirely true, but in the three-dimensional world (especially its political hemispheres), I can't even fathom someone who would say, "wait a minute, this pot-curing-cancer study wasn't even double blind and randomized!" and then get slammed by anyone who heard them. Who would beat them into the ground? The FDA? Government officials? Uninformed people who mistakenly believe that pot is actually PCP? Yeah, maybe some hippies and loudmouthed neuropsychopharm students - ;) - would write a blog entry, or an editorial for their college paper, or have an argument with their parents, if someone questoned the validity of the study... but a talking head on CNN, a spokesperson for the DEA, an institution like a university? You'd never see any type of "prominent figure" (save for the occasional wacko celeb) saying, "POT IS EVIL AND THE NOTION THAT IT CURES CANCER IS A SIN IN ITSELF!!" and then receiving an onslaught of widespread criticism. If only...
 
... and another thing! ;) If you search PubMed for the most recent journal articles with the word "marijuana" or "cannabis" in the title, TWO out of the first FORTY results have a positive (well - neutrallish positive, if you will) take on the drug. And one of the articles is just a pharmaceutical (synthetic cannabinoid used for pain management) efficacy trial - obviously, drug manufacturers want to fund studies that show that their drug WORKS, so the relevance of this one in the grand scheme of things is kind of debatable.
But my point is the same - non-negative pot articles are like republicans at a typical liberal arts college... they're on campus, and occasionally, they're vocal, but overall, they get lost in the sea of vegans and anti-bush clubs and white-girl dreads. They don't have much of a general presence in their community, because everyone else at the school has already decided that Republicans are the minions of the devil and they don't really care to hear alternative opinions. Every now and then, somebody will write 'SOCIAL SECURITY IS FOR THE WEEK AND GREEDY' in chalk on the outside of the political science building, or advertise the hell out of their thesis on the evils of gay marriage, and such events will attract some heat for a few days, until the majority of the population forgets about it and loses interest in something they're never going to agree with. Meanwhile, week after week, students all over campus will regurgitate the same tired protests, interpretive dance performances, and community workshops about how we need to be tolerant of "the other" and how GW is a smirky little bitch.
People hear what they want to hear. They argue when someone challenges a conventional belief. It's hard to even get your voice heard (and harder to be understood and respected, in the long run) when you express an unpopular/unconventional viewpoint, especially in the scientific community. If I publish a meta-analysis of the effectiveness of SSRI's in the treatment of social anxiety and find that their overall effect size is lower than their side effect profile, someone who questions my research isn't going to be verbally beaten into the ground. They'll be among a worldwide congregation of worshippers at the Church of Serotonin, and all the members will reinforce each other's disagreement with/dismissal of my work. And I'll be muttering under my breath as I open another headline article about yet ANOTHER condition that's miraculously cured by Wellbutrin or Paxil, thinking to myself, "well, uh, MY MOM thinks my paper is good!"

Yeah, enough with the bizarre metaphors. Bottom line: FREE THE STONERS i mean MARIJUANA CURES CANCER!!

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top