Early Marijuana Use Leads to Later Brain Problems

[onehandle]

Source: WebMD/Harvard Medical School and McLean Hospital, Boston

Nov. 16, 2010 (San Diego) -- Early marijuana use appears to take a toll on the brain, according to new research.

Young adults who began smoking marijuana before age 16 performed worse on cognitive tests compared to those who began smoking after age 16, says researcher Staci Ann Gruber, PhD, of Harvard Medical School and McLean Hospital, Boston. She presented her findings at a news conference Monday at Neuroscience 2010, the annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience in San Diego.

Although several studies have already found that earlier use of marijuana can lead to cognitive problems, the new study directly compares the differences between early and late-onset users, Gruber says.

snip...

The healthy comparison group performed better on several measures, compared to the marijuana smokers, and the early-onset smokers did worse than the late-onset smokers. The early-onset smokers ''kept not getting it," Gruber says. Despite being told their sorting was wrong after the rules change, the early-onset users kept making repeated errors. The early users also had more problems maintaining a set of rules.

Read more: http://www.webmd.com/brain/news/20101115/early-marijuana-use-later-brain-problems

[leveymg]

1. True. The British had such problems "maintaining a set of rules" in Jamaica, they finally gave up.

Guess the locals "kept not getting it." :evilgrin:

[Larry Ogg]

62. I just can't imagine that all those that voted for republicans are life long stoners...

Of course there's also a lot of evidence that shows they, unlike the Jamaicans, ""don't get it"" naturally. Or maybe their hi on something and just lie about it because their such natural self centered hypocrites who want to keep all the good smoke for them selves.

[DFab420]

2. Damn lies...

from the very last part of the article..

This study was presented at a medical conference. The findings should be considered preliminary as they have not yet undergone the "peer review" process, in which outside experts scrutinize the data prior to publication in a medical journal.

Let's just say that, 40 or 50 years ago doctors were saying smoking weed would make you go crazy and become hyper-sensitive and aggressive. Now they say it's going to do the exact opposite!

All pot makes you do is be ok with being bored, and makes you want to eat stupid amounts of food.

[RainDog]

3. another reason to regulate, like alcohol. we also don't want children to drink

however, reading the study, I don't see that they performed any tests on the early users to see if they had cognitive issues before they began smoking.

the test also demonstrated some bias by calling non-smokers "healthy" compared to smokers. this may be a matter of sloppy reporting or it may be the way the test was set up. I don't know.

however, the study doesn't indicate if those who smoked more often and earlier were screened before they began smoking to see if they had other issues like adhd or personality disorders - if they had been abused - so, while I DO think that people under the age of 18 should not use cannabis (unless they use it as part of a medical program for something like cancer treatment) I also wonder about the people who were part of the test.

what, other than cannabis, may have played a part in their problems? Did the researchers take other issues into account? If not, the test is not very useful.

[texastoast]

4. Not peer-reviewed

It will be interesting to see how it really turns out.

[pattmarty]

9. My guess is this will be the last we heard of just another study trying..........

.........to link marijuana use to anything from growing "man tits", to becoming a physco like in Reefer Madness. This has to be one of the most studied objects of the twentieth century. And so far nada, nothing, not a goddamn thing except, "hungry, happy, sleepy" found in the "study" by the great Katt Williams.

[nyc 4 Biden]

5. i agree.

Note that this is solely based on my experience.

[RainDog]

11. my experience is totally different

I knew a guy who, as a teenager, smoked pot all the time. he's a lawyer now, went to Columbia.. and, in fact, most of his peers also did the same.

they were from wealthy families, tho, so they had all sorts of support for the things they wanted to achieve and access to others to help them achieve those things.

for every person with a "my personal experience" there's another with an opposite experience.

that proves nothing (oh, btw, I was not one of those smoking, fwiw.)

[Axle_techie]

13. I started smoking when I was 10 years old

at 17, I scored in the upper 95th percentile of the average IQ scores (not in an internet test, but in a test that was actually administered by a shrink). At 18, I took the ASVAB and scored a 93 (out of a 99 at that time), the second highest in the room , with the highest going to a guy with a masters degree. These tests prove that there may be an effect in some people, but the controls on the tests are way to loose to actually prove anything.

[hedgehog]

22. "course, we have no way of knowing whether you would have scored even

higher had you never smoked pot.

[texastoast]

25. Or had smoking more pot improved it

Funny. That stuff. Each person has a pretty unique relationship with it, in my experience.

Sort of like, well, maybe God?

:hide:

[Roon]

77. I grew up with a couple of brothers that toked from 7th grade on

we tripped acid, drank, smoked all growing up. One of these brothers is now a senior engineer at a cable company and the other one is now a music teacher at a jr.high.

[devilgrrl]

79. That is some f'ed up shit. OMG!

:sarcasm:

[cyr330]

156. Yeah

I started smoking pot at 14, and I'm still smoking now at 47. Did it affect me? :) I don't know, but I really don't regret it, as I'm quite content.

[WhiteTara]

6. I'm sure that is true of all substances ingested

in growing/changing bodies of kids under 16. Edit to add...substances such as alcohol, etc.

[elocs]

7. Anything even remotely negative about pot is a nonstarter here at DU

where I'm sure some believe it should be in infant formula.

[onehandle]

20. Studies are stupid unless they support MY position.

The hive mind lives.

[RainDog]

24. total bullshit remarks

to claim that people think it should be in infant formula because people note the study is flawed?

anyone making this claim would seem to have a problem with reality because the reality is that tests are conducted in such a way to rule out other factors.

if you and this other person don't like that - you're the ones who have a problem, not those who note the flaws in a test that has not even been peer-reviewed.

in addition, in post after post on this topic, people here indicate that they think cannabis should be regulated like alcohol. that is far from thinking it should be put in infant formula or that this test does not conform to their bias.

saying that cannabis should be prohibited for those under legal age, or the former legal age for alcohol, in fact, indicates the OPPOSITE of the claims made above.

so please explain how the bullshit remark you seem to think has validity is in any way supported by the overwhelming responses to this thread. I'm interested in contortionists too, I suppose.

[onehandle]

30. I think you meant to reply to elocs. nt

[RainDog]

54. oh, so you're noting that elocs suffers from stereotyping ignorance?

..that any study posted that might be questioned means that elocs might automatically weigh in with some worthless remark? the "hive mind" of those who routinely stereotype and insult those who doubt the veracity of certain scientific reports in the media after things like, oh, the monkeys that Reagan suffocated to prove that suffocation by cannabis smoke (as with any form of suffocation) causes brain damage?

the collective consciousness of blind acceptance of propaganda from a govt that has used racism as a way to punish a subset of the American population? That sort of racist-influenced hive mind?

in that case, yes, I was just replying to elocs.

however to claim that "hive mind" applies to people who question whether something is propaganda or not demonstrates an agreement with elocs.

people who know about the long history of lies in relation to govt-sanctioned studies into cannabis have good reason to question a study that is presented as this one is.

that said, I'm not saying the study is without merit. However, I do not see the merit in a study that does not control for factors that would create problem-solving issues. If this study did so, I'd like to see the evidence. Sample size might be important, too. Also the way the subjects were recruited - from what part of the population - whether it was a cross-section or mined from a specific group or place.

that's all that people are asking for here - information to demonstrate the validity of such a subject.

in reply elocs talks about cannabis in baby formula. what a stupid thing to say.

[onehandle]

60. I stopped reading your first reply at the 'infant formula' line thinking it was for elocs.

I stopped reading your second reply at the end of the subject line.

[laughingliberal]

74. +1000 nt

[laughingliberal]

73. +1000 nt

[DCKit]

47. Sweet. No more screaming babies on airplanes. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

71. actually what we believe is that it should be legal and regulated.

and that the opposition to legalization is irrational, and that prohibition is by far the direct cause of far more harm than any or all of even the wildest claims regarding pot.

[tabasco]

85. That's a stupid remark.

What kind of drugs are you on?

[Axle_techie]

8. 35 chronic smokers vs. 29 healthy people

does not provide a substantial control group, and does not allow for a significant cross-section of the population to be tested. This test did not take into account medical and mental health histories, and did not seem to check what other possible drugs had been taken as well. People who start earlier are more likely to use other harder drugs at some point or another, at least just to experiment. They also did not specify the stance on marijuana that is taken by the researcher to begin with.

[RainDog]

10. yes. the test is flawed in the extreme

but it serves a propaganda purpose, so non-peer reviewed studies without proper screening are "okay" if all you want to do is continue scare tactics.

[Ginto]

12. At what age do you deem the use of MJ appropriate?

It's an interesting question.

[Axle_techie]

14. Same restrictions as alcohol.

[Ginto]

16. I actually think alcohol should be restricted more along the same lines that it is in

Europe.

[RainDog]

21. 18. the same age that I think alcohol should be legal

I think if someone is old enough to sign up for the military, they're old enough to decide what to ingest.

if they want to raise the military age to 21, so be it.

[texastoast]

26. I think so too, kinda

It turns out a lot of those 18-year-olds are still in high school and it turned out here that they bought booze for their younger classmates.

[RainDog]

27. then they should be dealt with for providing a controlled substance to a minor

if someone buys alcohol to share with a minor, no matter what their age, they are breaking the law and they face consequences for that.

when I was married, I lived in and/or visited Europe often b/c that's where my ex is from and where his family still lives. the attitude there is quite diff. at 16 there are social clubs for teenagers that allow some consumption of alcohol.

the culture doesn't make alcohol the agent of the devil, as it is so often presented here, and people grow up with alcohol as part of family dinners - not as an experience of going to a bar when someone is legal and drinking till they puke.

a large part of the problems a society has with a substance also depends on how that substance is viewed.

[texastoast]

37. Agreed.

We have French family friends here, and the difference between American drinking and European drinking (they observed) is that Europeans drink for the culinary and health aspects of it (I would argue about Ireland and England, though ;-)). Americans drink for the buzz (the MIGHTILY inferior alcohol buzz). Their own kids have been drinking since about age 9, as I recall, having watered wine with lunch. I watched their kids in high school here, and they are both very good, accomplished kids with no drinking problems--really quite the opposite, as they were raised to consume appropriately.

[RainDog]

55. the same is true with cannabis

in Europe, where cannabis is de facto decriminalized in many ways, when hemp farms are found across the continent, people do not deal with the level of bullshit that we find here regarding cannabis use.

there just isn't the stupid hysteria.

my step-daughter went to teen social clubs when she was 16, drank, experimented with cannabis, didn't use it all the time, and she has a PhD and does research herself.

and, yes, some families do water down alcohol and allow their kids to drink. others don't. I much prefer to consume alcohol with a good meal and good friends than to go to some bar - whether in the US or somewhere else.

The problem the US has is the puritanical streak that assumes that pleasure in life must somehow either be associated with sin or be somehow derived from their version of god. that leaves out a whole world of experience.

[JVS]

83. How about drinking age depends on graduation from HS or 21.

Whichever comes first.

[Axle_techie]

169. I really like that one, but

they would have to add the info to your ID or something.

[Axle_techie]

53. +1

[Rozlee]

18. Consider that today, marijuana users are considered a lawless element.

Don't get ruffled feathers. I've used the evil weed and haven't held up any liquor stores. But, I wonder who their test subjects were. Did they gather a group of graduate students that admitted to chronic marijuana use? I also keep getting a humorous image in my mind of a bunch of medical eggheads trolling around looking for Cheesh and Chong-looking guys to ask them if they'd like to earn a couple of bucks participating in a medical study. I know that just about everyone has used marijuana on occassion; and I've got a handful of chronic users in my own family. Maybe it speaks more for my stereotype of medical researcher geeks. I tend to think of them as prissy types that rarely hang with people like me that ever toked, let alone the chronics. Hell, for all I know, they may be the worst chronics around. I just wonder how they go about finding research subjects. Being how marijuana use is against the law, I hope they didn't do something totally stupid like get them from prison or something.

:shrug:

[AlecBGreen]

15. correlation =/= causation

100% of people who drink water WILL DIE!!!1!1!

[laconicsax]

63. zOMG! CALL CONGRESS!!! RIGHT FUCKING NOW!!!!!1

:rofl:

[kestrel91316]

17. Legalize it the same way as alcohol: at age 21. Prior to that, NOPE.

Pot in minors should be frowned upon in the same way alcohol is.

[groundloop]

23. Yep. Legalize it, tax it, solve many problems in one pen stroke

[HuckleB]

34. +1

[Psephos]

42. Making 21 the age for alcohol has increased binge drinking and given alcohol cachet.

Restriction of universally used substances makes abuse by the young more likely, not less.

[DirkGently]

19. Aspirin and peanuts are bad for children too.

[FLPanhandle]

28. Maybe it's just that early users are already less intelligent than later users.

Is it the weed causing the problem, or a problem group that is more likely to use it earlier?

Simple cause & effect.

[Dr Fate]

29. I doubt that mood-altering drugs of any kind are too good for children.

If this is meant to spread more prohibition hysteria, then they are off base.

[greiner3]

31. I would withhold any criticism or accolades;

Until I could find out who has been funding this researcher. It could be that alcohol companies are. This would scream 'conflict of interest.'

[greiner3]

32. I withhold any criticism or accolades;

Until I could find out who has been funding this researcher. It could be that alcohol companies are. This would scream 'conflict of interest.'

[JDPriestly]

33. Maybe those who use early use early because they have problems

maintaining a set of rules or keeping rules. It may be that the parents and families of early-onset smokers instill less discipline and order into their children.

This may or may not be cause and effect.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[azurnoir]

36. Remember this one? Marijuana may help stave off Alzheimer’s

Good news for aging hippies: smoking pot may stave off Alzheimer’s disease.

New research shows that the active ingredient in marijuana may prevent the progression of the disease by preserving levels of an important neurotransmitter that allows the brain to function.

Researchers at the Scripps Research Institute in California found that marijuana’s active ingredient, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, can prevent the neurotransmitter acetylcholine from breaking down more effectively than commercially marketed drugs

THC is also more effective at blocking clumps of protein that can inhibit memory and cognition in Alzheimer’s patients, the researchers reported in the journal Molecular Pharmaceutics.

The researchers said their discovery could lead to more effective drug treatment for Alzheimer’s, the leading cause of dementia among the elderly.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15145917/ns/health-alzheimers_disease

[Alcibiades]

38. This isn't necessarily a question of brain damage

The early smokers admitted to smoking 14 grams a week, versus 6.4 for the other pot smokers. This could well be simply measuring this difference, not irreversible brain damage.

[Ramulux]

48. What?

The young smokers who were tested were smoking 14 grams a week? If that's true, this study doesn't mean shit, no one but burn-out losers smoke that much and it doesn't take a genius to see that if you are really high all the time during your formative years you might lack the mental clarity of other people.

Honestly, I dont think there are any pot heads who say that kids should be smoking weed, a lot of them do and many adults tolerate it, but I literally cant think of anyone who would say there would no negative effect on a 13 year old smoking weed.

[Alcibiades]

168. I started when I was nine

But stopped about fifteen years ago, as it didn't really fit with my adult lifestyle. Married, two kids and a Ph.D. When you're 22 and smoke pot every day, but if I did that at 42 I'd feel like a loser.

14 grams is a lot at current levels of potency. One of the brightest fellows in my doctoral program was a daily pot smoker, though, and also began at an early age. He was high all the time, maybe still is. He earned tenure at a remarkably young age: I suspect that folks who are rather bright to begin with suffer fewer of any cognitive deficits associated with heavy use.

What is really striking is the claim that marijuana use years ago is supposed to account for the differences in results among current users, with one group using twice as much as the other group. When you're looking for correlations, you would assume that something that occurs closer in time to what you're measuring would have a bigger effect than something more temporally remote. If I were her academic adviser, I would at least have had her address this. This is a classic example of spuriousness.

[KamaAina]

51. 14 G's a week?! What is this, "Cheech and Chong's Big Study"?

That's half an OZ each and every week. Don't bogart that study, dude!

[RaleighNCDUer]

52. At today's prices, that is a lot.

But back in the dark ages when I was in college I'd go through an ounce a week easily, and often up to three oz/wk. Of course, that's when it was $25/oz.

[KamaAina]

56. At today's potency, too.

:smoke:

[wildbilln864]

61. in the late 70s to early 80s...

I could get a QP for $50.00
Now it's $350.00
:hi:

[ellisonz]

86. Ha...maybe at wholesale Mexican brick prices.

A Quarter Pound averages 1000-1400. I think you mean ounce.

[wildbilln864]

145. nope I mean a QP!

don't know where you are but here an OZ is $100.00. :shrug:

[ellisonz]

166. West Coast Market and Hawaii...

I see you're from South Carolina. You're either smoking ditch weed or cheap import, or have a really great hippy friend.

We make money by sending you guys good stuff at a high markup.

[wildbilln864]

170. cool!

it does vary in quality but hey, you can't miss what you never had I guess. :smoke: It's been killer lately tho, lol. Thanks!

[RantinRavin]

39. My how times change.

Today's pot smokers sound just like the tobacco companies of the 60's.

[texastoast]

40. Only it's completely different

:eyes:

[obxhead]

41. Another reason to legalize it and control/tax its use.

When I was in my teens it was far easier to find pot, cocaine, and meth than it was to get just a 6 pack of beer.

[Evasporque]

43. my friend started at 8

by 9:30 he was totally impaired.

[U4ikLefty]

76. Okay, now THAT was funny!!!

I thought I'd give you some props on a good joke.

[RainDog]

82. agreed

sometimes it's just better to laugh than to care what people think who don't care about the damage their stereotypes do for people with chronic (sic) illnesses like cancer, MS, CP, glaucoma, epilepsy, neuralgias, rheumatoid arthritis, anorexia...

[Bragi]

44. Does, ahhh.... ummm... Not! /nt

[Ter]

45. Why is it the same people who don't believe negative scientific studies about pot...

Believe every single study that says there global warming and climate change? The Freepers are just as bad, they believe the reverse. Can't you believe both? Or neither?

[azurnoir]

46. see post #36 there was a study at Scripps a few years ago that said the opposite

so who to believe here?

[bemildred]

64. Beat that straw man to death, beat it! You can do it! nt

[nebenaube]

80. listen...

This 'study' is not a study, it is a non-peer reviewed student research paper and it is bullshit.

[devilgrrl]

49. Oh please!

:eyes:

[asdjrocky]

50. Another flawed study for the MSM to consume.

Look, I'm not for underage kids consuming cannabis unless it's for medical reasons, but lying to them is not going to help, they've got finely honed BS detectors when it comes to stuff like this.

It okay because it won't matter in the end, the truth that is cannabis will be one of the only truths revealed. It is inevitable.

[bemildred]

57. The methodology here smells bad.

Very small sample, apparently not double blind, few details. Nobody in their right mind thinks pot makes you smart, but there is a subjective element in this "study" that smells real bad. I see nothing that talks about the chance of this being a random result, for example, no confidence level, etc.

FWIW, it would not surprise me if smoking pot early and often has permanent effects. I'm not sure if not responding well when "scientists" fuck with your mind is one of them.

[BlueIris]

58. Wow, you don't say. That is such NEW INFORMATION.

Not.

[RainDog]

59. agreed. it looks like another flawed study intended to support bigots

or, perhaps it's just a sloppy study.

[Bragi]

72. What kind of "bigot"?

Not sure I understand how bigotry is involved here.

[laughingliberal]

75. Marijuana laws are enforced disproportionately against minority populations. nt

[wildbilln864]

65. bullshit!

www.newscientist.com/article/dn8155-marijuana-might-cause-new-cell-growth-in-the-brain.html
"A synthetic chemical similar to the active ingredient in marijuana makes new cells grow in rat brains. What is more, in rats this cell growth appears to be linked with reducing anxiety and depression. The results suggest that marijuana, or its derivatives, could actually be good for the brain."

[Dreamer Tatum]

66. Here, in one post, is the pro-pot attitude crystallized

ONE study indicates a certain result that HINTS at something a pothead doesn't want to hear, so it's...

BULLSHIT.

And what bolsters this interjection? What COMPLETELY INVALIDATES the findings of this report. Why, another (unrelated) report, of course:

"A synthetic chemical similar to the active ingredient in marijuana makes new cells grow in rat brains. What is more, in rats this cell growth appears to be linked with reducing anxiety and depression. The results suggest that marijuana, or its derivatives, could actually be good for the brain."

Now, since this "evidence" is exactly what a pothead wants to hear, it is IRREFUTABLE TRUTH, and no amount of disclaiming, not even from the study itself (note the words 'suggest' and 'could'), could possibly impeach it.


Thank heavens that real science is conducted by actual scientists.

[bemildred]

68. The report "suggests" that being stoned impairs high-level cognition.

This is not new. It's like saying drinking makes you drunk. Whatever it might be, it sure is not science.

[Dreamer Tatum]

69. So...the study isn't bullshit, then. You're saying it's totally true.

Which sort of validates its science, right?

:eyes:

[bemildred]

70. Science is a method, not a belief system.

I don't doubt that the stoners did worse, especially the ones doing half an ounce a week of chronic, but it means squat unless you sober them up for a month or so and then see how they do. To be really "scientific" you ought to have a larger sample and make sure the "scientists" don't know which "subjects" are which, and some other things. This is "propaganda research".

[boppers]

121. The article suggests it's irreversible,

"She speculates that the marijuana exposure ''is somehow modifying the way that part of the brain is developing," she tells WebMD. "That area is one of the last parts of the brain to develop fully, she says, so the teen brain is especially vulnerable.

''Currently, it looks irreversible," she says of the damage incurred by early-onset smoking of marijuana."

...That would seem to indicate that such "sobering" occurred, and the subjects were tested after not only a month, but maybe a year or five.

Of course, that would be part of my study design. Somebody else might only give them a day/week to look for changes, which is not enough (IMO) to undo the effects of heavy smoking.

[RainDog]

134. This isn't true for adults. I don't know about teenagers, tho.

from the same source -

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20030701/heavy-marijuana-use-doesnt-damage-brain

July 1, 2003 -- Long-term and even daily marijuana use doesn't appear to cause permanent brain damage, adding to evidence that it can be a safe and effective treatment for a wide range of diseases, say researchers.

The researchers found only a "very small" impairment in memory and learning among long-term marijuana users. Otherwise, scores on thinking tests were similar to those who don't smoke marijuana, according to a new analysis of 15 previous studies.

In those studies, some 700 regular marijuana users were compared with 484 non-users on various aspects of brain function -- including reaction time, language and motor skills, reasoning ability, memory, and the ability to learn new information.

Of course, as I said, that's adults, not teenagers. And that's 700 users, not a few dozen. And that's a peer-reviewed study, not a student report.

but this report cited in the OP may have something useful to say. We don't know from the report here, however.

The marijuana users in those 15 studies -- which lasted between three months to more than 13 years -- had smoked marijuana several times a week or month or daily. Still, researchers say impairments were less than what is typically found from using alcohol or other drugs.

yet again another reason to regulate cannabis like alcohol to keep it out of the hands of teenagers, tho.

[boppers]

139. All in the emphasis,...

The researchers found only a "very small" impairment in memory and learning among long-term marijuana users. Otherwise, scores on thinking tests were similar to those who don't smoke marijuana, according to a new analysis of 15 previous studies.

:evilgrin:

[RainDog]

144. you're cherry picking to create a lie

because the study noted that cannabis was less harmful than alcohol or other drugs, as well. which you choose to leave out.

again, we allow alcohol use for adults in this nation because we know that prohibition does not work. why people want to pretend that prohibition is valid for cannabis, a substance that has been used safely 1000s of years, is beyond me.

there is no recorded death from cannabis use. none.

so, to choose to highlight one sentence indicates that you have an agenda. go for it. but don't expect anyone to buy it if they're not already under the sway of the b.s. propaganda that has not served any of us well for more than 70 years.

[boppers]

146. Over-generalization will shoot a person in the foot every time.

http://cannabis.net/uk/mortality.html

It can kill you. It's difficult to do, but possible (six joints a day? Yikes).

I chose to selectively highlight a sentence as a joke (hence, the evilgrin), if I was to Palin-ize it, I would have just replaced that section with a friendly "..."

But hey, feel free to assume that I have a specific "agenda". :shrug:

[RainDog]

151. okay. one death in 5000 years. oh, but that's not really the cause of death, is it?

that's the first I've ever heard of this ridiculous claim ... and you're trying to claim this is some sort of point you're making about the safety of cannabis? you call it overgeneralizing when you find one death which, if you read the article, is highly suspect as a cause of death. Which is, in fact NOT LISTED AS THE CAUSE OF DEATH.

the article noted high levels of cannabis and was thus called cannabis toxicity when, it is a FACT that has already been established that the level of cannabis that would need to be consumed to cause death is humanly impossible to ingest?

when the article notes, "Mr Howells, the coroner for Pembrokeshire, recorded a verdict of death by misadventure because Mr Maisey had died while taking part in an illegal activity."

cause of death, iow, was NOT actually noted as an overdose of cannabis. the reason why is because it is physically impossible to depress the heart/lung function via cannabis ingestion in a human because of the amt needed to achieve this end. It is physically impossible to consume enough cannabis in one sitting to overload endocannabinoid receptors.

In other words, you're lying. Either you don't know enough to realize you're lying, or you're lying in order to spread disinformation.

But you seem to think this qualifies as a valid claim. And you think this puts a lie to the reams of evidence that demonstrates the basic non-toxicity of cannabis?

LOL.

And you're claiming this man consumed more than a pound of marijuana in a few hours time? 40,000 times the amt of cannabis considered a, say, pipeful of cannabis? Do you REALLY want to make that claim?

Here's the scientific explanation of cannabis toxicity:

"Animal tests have revealed that extremely high doses of cannabinoids are needed to have lethal effect. This has led scientists to conclude that the ratio of the amount of cannabinoids necessary to get a person intoxicated (i.e., stoned) relative to the amount necessary to kill them is 1 to 40,000. In other words, to overdose, you would have to consume 40,000 times as much marijuana as you needed to get stoned. In contrast, the ratio for alcohol varies between 1 to 4 and 1 to 10. It is easy to see how upwards of 5000 people die from alcohol overdoses every year and no one EVER dies of marijuana overdoses."

And this is the wiki on it:

THC has an extremely low toxicity and the amount that can enter the body through the consumption of cannabis plants poses no threat of death. In lab animal tests, scientists have had much difficulty administering a dosage of THC that is high enough to be lethal. It also appears that humans cannot die from ingesting too much THC, unless it were introduced into the body intravenously (See also: Intravenous Marijuana Syndrome). Indeed, a 1988 ruling from the United States Department of Justice concluded that "In practical terms, marijuana cannot induce a lethal response as a result of drug-related toxicity."<13>

According to the Merck Index,<14> the LD50 of THC (the dose which causes the death of 50% of individuals) is 1270 mg/kg for male rats and 730 mg/kg for female rats from oral assumption in sesame oil, and 42 mg/kg for rats from inhalation.<15>

The ratio of cannabis material required to produce a fatal overdose to the amount required to saturate cannabinoid receptors and cause intoxication is approximately 40,000:1;<16><17> It is extremely difficult to overdose by smoking marijuana; a typical marijuana "joint" contains less than 10 mg of THC, and one would have to smoke thousands of those in a short period of time to approach toxic levels. According to a 2006 United Kingdom government report, using cannabis is much less dangerous than tobacco, prescription drugs, and alcohol in social harms, physical harm, and addiction.<18>

In other words, the govt of the UK disputes this article's claim, even. The articles lies b/c it tries to elide the difference between consumption of cannabis in one event that would produce a toxic response (which, as noted above, would be pretty much physically impossible) and the claim that this person consumed a lot of cannabis over a lifetime.

But this article came out when the UK was about to reschedule cannabis. this article also came out during the whole "cannabis causes psychosis" propaganda campaign as well. That, as I've noted below, was shown to be nothing but lies... even tho it was reported in the British press again and again - even on the BBC.

So, yes, I think you have an agenda. I also do not think you are worth my time. In fact, I think you're rather pitiful if you think this is evidence of anything other than your own willingness to participate in lies.

You already demonstrated, below, that you didn't even bother to take time to even look to see if something was actually cannabis or a synthetic or whether it was available in the U.S. when you made the erroneous claim that it is legal and available here.

So, this is the second lie you've posted on this thread.

so, yeah, I'm finished with you. you haven't contributed anything of value on this thread. bye.

[boppers]

154. Bye!

Reading comprehension tip:
Cannabis is not cannabinoids, and cannabis is not THC. Mixing the three as if they were equal things creates confusing results. Oh, and one is more than zero. (both for drugs derived from cannabis, and deaths found to be caused by cannabis).

Also, "cause of death" is not "verdict of death". If the verdict is "misadventure", how is "misadventure" lethal? What's the LD50 on it?

"overload endocannabinoid receptors."...There's more than one way to die.

But hey, I can see this is a matter of faith for you, so I'll refrain from disrupting further.

[RainDog]

157. thanks for the info

because, as I previously noted, I am aware of the difference between cannabis and cannabinoids. You, however, have already demonstrated that you have a lose relationship to facts or research, if you have any interest in it at all.

which cannabinoids are you trying to claim caused toxicity?

or do you claim to have "secret knowledge" of the other 60 cannabinoids that the people who do research into this substance do not claim to have - and that no medical examiner would have either?

you're making a bullshit claim to say that cannabis toxicity is a valid cause of death simply because of a high level of cannabinoids in someone's system. And, yes, I am claiming that the cause of death listed was bullshit as well. wait, I back that up... if this person was injecting cannabis, I could accept that cannabis could be the cause of death - because that is the only way scientists who study this have EVER been able to come up with a possible cause of death from the use of cannabis.

but this article did not state that, did it?

you've really worked hard to find one ridiculous claim and now you're going to try to milk it for all the bullshit you can squeeze from it when the preponderance of evidence demonstrates, as I quoted, there it is virtually impossible to overdose on cannabis.

If you look at a preponderance of SCIENTIFIC evidence and then look at an article from "The Western Mail" - which, if you read the article, does not indicate any evidence of death from cannabis and try to pretend this article rises to the same level of authenticity - you're simply full of shit.

The article noted the man had a "high level of cannabinoids" and thus was listed as a cause of death. It doesn't indicate this level corresponded to the level of "cannabinoids" or, actually, THC that was been accepted by those who have done research into this issue as the accepted level that would cause death. There is no other cannabinoid that is considered a possible cause of toxicity. Or is this, again, your "secret knowledge?"

Do you really think this one claim obliterates the REAMS of accepted scientific evidence that indicates cannabis is virtually nontoxic means that you have somehow made a point, other than to demonstrate your own level of contempt for science?

[boppers]

163. A few points:

"which cannabinoids are you trying to claim caused toxicity?"

I'm not. Cannabis has many, many, more substances in it, than cannabinoids. That's part of why I was pointing out the differences.

"or do you claim to have "secret knowledge" of the other 60 cannabinoids that the people who do research into this substance do not claim to have - and that no medical examiner would have either?"

It's not secret. It's common knowledge that plants are made of numerous compounds. In addition, the way one uses the plants affects which compounds are involved.

Here's a quick explanation for comparison: Nicotine doesn't cause cancer. It just plain doesn't. It's also been shown to have many health benefits. Study after study showed the benefits of nicotine, as well as benefits of many other compounds found in tobacco. It's the same game tobacco companies pulled, claiming benefits of compounds when they were tested in isolation.

That doesn't make smoking cigarettes safe.

"you're making a bullshit claim to say that cannabis toxicity is a valid cause of death simply because of a high level of cannabinoids in someone's system."

I'm not making that claim. You seem to be making a claim (that I am making that claim), and then trying to rebut it. That's a strawman.

"if this person was injecting cannabis, I could accept that cannabis could be the cause of death - because that is the only way scientists who study this have EVER been able to come up with a possible cause of death from the use of cannabis. "

Again with the absolutes, and grand sweeping statements. To point out the absurdities of making such arguments, I will first state three absurd ways one can be killed with cannabis:
1. Force fed with cannabis, blocking the airway, leading to suffocation.
2. Blunt force trauma to the head with a compressed brick of cannabis.
3. Suffocation from being in a room with burning cannabis until the oxygen was depleted.

Absurd, yes? Hang with me for a second, and I'll explain my point:

You know how most people die of acute alcohol poisoning?

Hint: It's not liver failure. It's not a heart attack. It's suffocation on their own vomit.

You're creating a straw man, claiming that because cannabinoids, and THC, have low toxicity, that cannabis use isn't potentially lethal.

The problem with that argument is that when you start using cannabis, you're ingesting, or smoking, or vaporizing, or (whatever), many more compounds than cannabinoids.

edit to add:

And when you're high, and do stupid things, or can't wake up to do smart things (like not suffocate), the cause of death may be that you passed out because you were too stoned to drive, too drunk to drive, or whatever, and ran your car into a wall, but the cause of the death wasn't the wall.

[U4ikLefty]

164. you should've quit while you were behind

but thanks for the popcorn-eating fun...lol!!!

[killbotfactory]

152. People can overdose on water if they try hard enough

The point is that fatally overdosing on cannabis is extremely difficult (if possible at all, barring other factors), while it is trivially easy to fatally overdose on legal off the shelf drugs like cold medicine, pain relievers, alcohol, or nicotine.

[bemildred]

167. And that is one of the ways in which the article is bad.

Science is not speculation either. The OP is all about fear mongering, not science.

[krabigirl]

67. No drugs shills be usex by kids..including the ritalin they peddle.

Not sure why this news is shocking. I didn't start until i was 18, stopped when i was 25, now just enjoy a brownie now and again. However, in the twilight of my life, you bet i will be using cannabis to ease my pain.

[flamingdem]

78. Yes, pot is bad but according to a double blind test LSD is great for young people! nt

[LawnLover]

81. Does it mention that these problems go away when the users stop using?

There are no LASTING effects.

The anti-pot propaganda is staggering and hasn't really changed since I was in high school. I remember seeing a health documentary about a man who injected marijuana into his veins. Really. Seriously. They actually expected us to believe that.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

84. I Can Debunk This Nonsense Easily

High there! I’m not sure who tried to get this party started without me, but I’ve brought an ounce of some sticky Strawberry Cough and a ten-year education in the way “science” gets abused by the government and private industry to produce results that are in no way reflected by reality. So let’s roll one, fire it up and pass this kutchie ‘pon the left hand side until we can manage to debunk this little piece of nonsense, shall we?

There are a lot of places to start if we wish to rip this bogus study to shreds; many of you have very properly pointed out the fact that it has never been peer reviewed. I find it interesting that the smugly self-satisfied clowns who crow “I told you so!” on this thread do not seem to understand this foundational, basic concept of research and the increase of scientific knowledge. Lack of peer review alone should relegate this idiocy to the dustbin of propagandas past.

One of the immediately obvious indicators of bias is linguistic: to break the groups into “chronic smokers” and “healthy subjects” is so obviously self-predictive that its use is offensive to anyone who has ever sought to create accurate and truthful scientific research. This simple choice of words is a dramatic indication that we have been presented with propaganda instead of information.

The fact that this work was conducted by a Harvard PhD is no indication of reliability, either. For those of you unfamiliar with Big Pharma’s funding of questionable “science” from this institution, I highly recommend researching the life and career of Joseph Biederman, the man single handedly responsible for the massive over-prescription of controversial anti-psychotic drugs to children as young as infants . Biederman has taken millions in handouts from the industry and has described himself in public interviews as “God” (really, look it up). His work and career were made at Harvard.

The single most effective technique these “researchers” into the detrimental effects of cannabis use is to blur the lines just enough to create a space where they can claim marijuana has devastated lives and minds. If you read this study and others like it you will notice immediately that due to the construction and process of the study any type of control is impossible. These subjects were not screened or controlled for the use of any other substance including alcohol (which is MUCH more likely to lead to difficulties in cognitive function with early use) or prescription narcotics. That isn’t science – hell, it isn’t even in the same neighborhood as science.

One of the most telling moments of the WebMD article is where the “researcher” claims that not only is the damage “irreversible” but that cannabis is “somehow modifying” their brains in ways that we “don’t understand”. Again, anyone who believes that real scientists use language like this really needs an education!

Laboratory, peer-reviewed science has proven cannabinoids, the active components in marijuana, not only have dramatic neuro-protective effects but actually stimulate the growth of neurons in the hippocampus. Not only does this “researcher” have absolutely no evidence that her study was uncontaminated or unbiased, not only does she work for an institution that is happy to allow its staff to take money from interested industry but she can’t even demonstrate HOW the effects she claims have occurred! Correlation without causation proves absolutely nothing; this is doubly so when one considers the total lack of variable control within this study.

This “research” is nothing but another piece of junk science from a long line of professional shills. In the 80s, Ronnie Raygun used to quote the research of other “experts”, who “proved” cannabis kills brain cells by suffocating monkeys with carbon monoxide, counting their dead brain cells and claiming it was caused by cannabis. Raygun actually claimed in a speech that smoking a single joint caused more brain damage then exposure to an H bomb (It’s really too bad, Ronnie: cannabinoids work wonders for Alzheimer’s patients….)! “Dr” Gabriel Nahas used to claim that smoking pot would make teenage boys grow boobs while simultaneously shrinking their testicles: again, this propaganda was proven totally false and Nahas is globally considered a fraud and liar.

More recently, researchers have claimed that smoking marijuana at any age doubles an individual’s risk of schizophrenia! This nonsense depends upon an idea that the American people are too stupid and lazy to do a little research: the largest study of this subject ever conducted (over 60,000 people) showed that while cannabis use has risen dramatically over the past few decades, the instances of schizophrenia and psychosis have stayed level. It doesn’t take a genius to realize those numbers do not add up at all.

It is very sad to see how many of the posters here are able to completely abandon any ability for critical analysis they may have initially possessed when presented with fraudulent “science” that appeals to a rather pathetic sense of smug self-satisfaction. The crowing of “see, we told you pot makes you stupid” only proves to me how easily you are fooled and manipulated. There are not very many of you in this crowd who even seem to understand the basic precepts of scientific research and publishing and even fewer of you who have actually done any research on this subject before you begin telling dedicated, lifelong activists that they don’t know what they are talking about. You mistake the propaganda indoctrinated into your minds from an early age with intelligence, common sense and science when in fact they are none of these worthy topics: they are nothing but lies.

As a final note, just to answer the smart ass in the thread above: yes, I do have an advanced degree, draw a very healthy salary and drive an expensive sports car. Your clichés and prejudices are both foolish and inaccurate: I use cannabis every day in many forms and, like most of the cannabis users I know personally, live a very healthy, happy and successful life.

I’m sorry to shatter your smug little self-satisfied group grope but someone had to do it. It was really getting annoying.

[Dreamer Tatum]

87. So wait...a poster called "BakedAtAMileHigh" and with a pot leaf avatar

...is questioning whether the science is sound and the results are unbiased?

Um, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Whew. Thanks for the best laugh I've had all week. I LOVE when people are completely ignorant of their own irony.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

88. what a weak response to a detailed post

Jesus, that response is the best you can do? Name calling and ad hominem? No wonder you Prohibitionists are failing miserably.

Do you EVER bother to use facts or science of do you just insult people?

[Dreamer Tatum]

91. Sorry. Your credibility on the matter is exactly nil.

Great - you use and enjoy pot. Have fun with it.

My only point is that ANY study that finds the SLIGHTEST ISSUE WHATSOEVER with pot will be immediately savaged by people here who (a) probably haven't read the study, and/or (b) dismiss any research in favor of the Sample of One, and/or (c) dismiss findings out of hand on the mere SUSPICION that it was funded by someone with an agenda. I'm in favor of legal pot, but I am not so stupid as to reject any and all claims that it just MIGHT cause health issues for some people.

And your post is pretty much proof positive of my point, so I thank you.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

93. again, insult and ad hominem are NOT science

I sincerely doubt you even read my post: you use dishonest attack methods to discuss science and logic. You personally insult people you have never met and have obviously done zero research on the subject.

It isn't my credibility that is at question here, Bunky. Listen, I'm willing to bet you can hear calliope music following you everywhere you go.....

[Romulox]

89. Argument ad hominem betrays yours lack of a coherent response. nt

[Dreamer Tatum]

92. But BakedatMileHigh or whatever had NO ad hominem content whatsoever?

Good lord. It's stupefying, the relationship some people have with pot. Whatever. Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

94. you don't really undertand how ad hominem works, do you?

Rock on, brave internet warrior! There is no fooling you! :eyes:

[Dreamer Tatum]

97. Just challenged you to get specific about your critique. Put up or shut up. Or toke up, I guess.

You have access to the study and are dead certain that it's bogus. Prove it to me. And don't try to snow me - I'm a PhD researcher, too.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

101. you still need to read more carefully

[Romulox]

108. An "ad hominem" argument is one that attacks the SPEAKER, rather than his argument

It's clear by the way you've used it that you don't know what the phrase means.

"It's stupefying, the relationship some people have with pot."

Indeed. :hi:

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

90. Can You Disprove ANYTHING I Posted? One Single Thing?

I'm waiting, loudmouth.

[Dreamer Tatum]

95. Can you PROVE anything you said?

Your post is a collection of sarcastic spitballing and prognostication.

I'm a PhD scientist as well - feel free to use any and all jargon you need to critique the study in question. Please at least try to be scientist and focus on the experimental design, any factors you find to be confounding, the sample size, the power of the test statistics, observational equivalence to other hypotheses, contrary evidence from other studies, and so forth.

In other words, be specific. And be scientific. You claim it's bogus, so feel free to rip it apart AS THOUGH you're peer reviewing it.

(I'll let you slide on your clear bias.)

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

96. I think that "Uh-oh" oughtta be yours, Bunky.

You're lying about your credentials, I suspect. If not, you're a lousy f**king scientist.

I don't have time to do any research for you: you're on your own with this one; I will however point people in the proper direction if they wish to discover this material on their own. I will list a few sources here so people can study these but I have to get to class, so the rest is up to you.

As far as the anti- tumor and neuro-protective effects of cannabinoids, including Delta 9 THC and cannabidiol, I highly recommend starting with the work of Dr. Manuel Guzman, whose peer reviewed work has been published in repsected journals around the nation, including "Nature". Here is alink to his groundbreaking review "Cannabinoids: Potential Anti-Cancer Agents" from 2003:

http://www.nature.com/nrc/journal/v3/n10/abs/nrc1188.html

Here is a bit on cannabinoids' neuro-protective effects:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v413/n6855/abs/413527a0.html

An endogenous cannabinoid (2-AG) is neuroprotective after brain injury

David Panikashvili1,2, Constantina Simeonidou1, Shimon Ben-Shabat2, Lumír Hanus caron2, Aviva Breuer2, Raphael Mechoulam2 & Esther Shohami1
1. Department of Pharmacology, Medical Faculty, Hebrew University, Jerusalem 91120, Israel
2. Department of Medicinal Chemistry and Natural Products, Medical Faculty, Hebrew University, Jerusalem 91120, Israel

Traumatic brain injury triggers the accumulation of harmful mediators that may lead to secondary damage1, 2. Protective mechanisms to attenuate damage are also set in motion2. 2-Arachidonoyl glycerol (2-AG) is an endogenous cannabinoid, identified both in the periphery3 and in the brain4, but its physiological roles have been only partially clarified5, 6, 7. Here we show that, after injury to the mouse brain, 2-AG may have a neuroprotective role in which the cannabinoid system is involved. After closed head injury (CHI) in mice, the level of endogenous 2-AG was significantly elevated. We administered synthetic 2-AG to mice after CHI and found significant reduction of brain oedema, better clinical recovery, reduced infarct volume and reduced hippocampal cell death compared with controls. When 2-AG was administered together with additional inactive 2-acyl-glycerols that are normally present in the brain, functional recovery was significantly enhanced. The beneficial effect of 2-AG was dose-dependently attenuated by SR-141761A, an antagonist of the CB1 cannabinoid receptor.
Let's see, here is YET ANOTHER PEER REVIEWED STUDY that proves cannabinoids kill gliomacells, a rather nasty form of brain cancer:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18339876
Cancer Res. 2008 Mar 15;68(6):1945-52.
Cannabinoids inhibit glioma cell invasion by down-regulating matrix metalloproteinase-2 expression.

Blázquez C, Salazar M, Carracedo A, Lorente M, Egia A, González-Feria L, Haro A, Velasco G, Guzmán M.

Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology I, School of Biology, Complutense University, Madrid, Spain.
Abstract

Cannabinoids, the active components of Cannabis sativa L. and their derivatives, inhibit tumor growth in laboratory animals by inducing apoptosis of tumor cells and impairing tumor angiogenesis. It has also been reported that these compounds inhibit tumor cell spreading, but the molecular targets of this cannabinoid action remain elusive. Here, we evaluated the effect of cannabinoids on matrix metalloproteinase (MMP) expression and its effect on tumor cell invasion. Local administration of Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the major active ingredient of cannabis, down-regulated MMP-2 expression in gliomas generated in mice, as determined by Western blot, immunofluorescence, and real-time quantitative PCR analyses. This cannabinoid-induced inhibition of MMP-2 expression in gliomas (a) was MMP-2-selective, as levels of other MMP family members were unaffected; (b) was mimicked by JWH-133, a CB(2) cannabinoid receptor-selective agonist that is devoid of psychoactive side effects; (c) was abrogated by fumonisin B1, a selective inhibitor of ceramide biosynthesis; and (d) was also evident in two patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. THC inhibited MMP-2 expression and cell invasion in cultured glioma cells. Manipulation of MMP-2 expression by RNA interference and cDNA overexpression experiments proved that down-regulation of this MMP plays a critical role in THC-mediated inhibition of cell invasion. Cannabinoid-induced inhibition of MMP-2 expression and cell invasion was prevented by blocking ceramide biosynthesis and by knocking-down the expression of the stress protein p8. As MMP-2 up-regulation is associated with high progression and poor prognosis of gliomas and many other tumors, MMP-2 down-regulation constitutes a new hallmark of cannabinoid antitumoral activity.

And ANOTHER:
http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/308/3/838.full

Results

Inhibition of Human Glioma Cell Proliferation by CBD. The aim of initial experiments was to investigate whether CBD could affect the viability of the U87 and U373 human glioma cell lines. The addition of CBD to the culture medium of both human glioma cell lines for 24 h resulted in a concentration-dependent inhibition of the mitochondrial oxidative metabolism, as determined by MTT test. The range of concentrations tested was from 5 μM to 40 μM. For both cell lines, the concentration that started to be significant was 15 μM, with a reduction in O.D. values of 20 ± 0.6% (n = 12) and 15 ± 0.8% (n = 12) for U87 and U373, respectively, as compared with the control. Further inhibition in the MTT test was observed, with 20 μM (28 ± 2% for U87 and 40 ± 3.2% for U373, n = 12), 30 μM (70 ± 3.5% for U87 and 70 ± 3.43 for U373, n = 12), and 40 μM (96 ± 10% for U87 and 94 ± 10.34 for U373, n = 12), with IC50 values of 26.2 ± 2.8 μM in U87 cells and 24.1 ± 2.16 μM for U373.

In a subsequent series of experiments, we tested the effect of a single administration of CBD (using the mean IC50 concentration of 25 μM) to the cells following their growth during a 4-day period. When the MTT test was performed daily for 4 days, we found that the growth inhibition for both cell lines (Fig. 1, A–C) was still present during this period, with a maximum effect seen at 4 days. Interestingly, these results were positively correlated with the drop in cell number in a time-dependent manner (Fig. 1, B–D), as assessed by counting the cells by trypan blue exclusion. Taken together, these findings indicated that CBD induced its effects on gliomas in a concentration- and time-dependent manner, suggesting a specific mechanism by which CBD could affect the viability of glioma cell lines.

[Dreamer Tatum]

98. Translation: "Uh oh."

Anytime you want to provide actual critique of the study, I'm game. I'm not defending it; I'm challenging you.

And I will offer you the same deal I have offered others: put $1000 in escrow, and I will send you a notarized copy
of my resume. I'll put $2000 in escrow. If I'm not a PhD with years of experience analyzing data of every stripe imaginable, you can keep all the money. Otherwise it's all mine. PM me with the escrow details and an email address, and off we go.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

99. you better read the post, Bunky.

BWAHAHAHAHA! I LOVE the cash offer made over the internet! Do you even realize what a fine joke you have made? Are you a Nigerian Prince who also needs help with his bank account???

You sure know how to prove yourself valid....:eyes:

[Dreamer Tatum]

109. Yes, we all know that the key to establishing credibility is a statement like the following:

"yes, I do have an advanced degree, draw a very healthy salary and drive an expensive sports car."

Opulence. You has it.

:eyes:

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

135. reading comprehension is NOT your thing, is it?

I mentioned those things not to brag -- and I certainly didn't post any willingness to put money into escrow on an internet forum (really pathetic) -- but to counteract the cliches and prejudices that asshats without knowledge or experience like to perpetuate.

I believe more successful people who use cannabis need to go public and make their status known -- the more Micheal Phelps, Barack Obamas, Carl Sagans (Yup, Uncle Carl was a HUGE "pothead") who talk about cannabis as a way toward safe natural healing and wellness, the less power uninformed loudmouths have over culture and society.

So yes, I may have bragged a bit...but I've hopefully proven my point.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

100. Here are some more PEER REVIEWED studies, You Genius PhD, You

http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/132/11/3152.full

Microglial CB2 cannabinoid receptors are neuroprotective in Huntington's disease excitotoxicity

Summary

Cannabinoid-derived drugs are promising agents for the development of novel neuroprotective strategies. Activation of neuronal CB1 cannabinoid receptors attenuates excitotoxic glutamatergic neurotransmission, triggers prosurvival signalling pathways and palliates motor symptoms in animal models of neurodegenerative disorders. However, in Huntington's disease there is a very early downregulation of CB1 receptors in striatal neurons that, together with the undesirable psychoactive effects triggered by CB1 receptor activation, foster the search for alternative pharmacological treatments. Here, we show that CB2 cannabinoid receptor expression increases in striatal microglia of Huntington's disease transgenic mouse models and patients. Genetic ablation of CB2 receptors in R6/2 mice, that express human mutant huntingtin exon 1, enhanced microglial activation, aggravated disease symptomatology and reduced mice lifespan. Likewise, induction of striatal excitotoxicity in CB2 receptor-deficient mice by quinolinic acid administration exacerbated brain oedema, microglial activation, proinflammatory-mediator state and medium-sized spiny neuron degeneration. Moreover, administration of CB2 receptor-selective agonists to wild-type mice subjected to excitotoxicity reduced neuroinflammation, brain oedema, striatal neuronal loss and motor symptoms. Studies on ganciclovir-induced depletion of astroglial proliferation in transgenic mice expressing thymidine kinase under the control of the glial fibrillary acidic protein promoter excluded the participation of proliferating astroglia in CB2 receptor-mediated actions. These findings support a pivotal role for CB2 receptors in attenuating microglial activation and preventing neurodegeneration that may pave the way to new therapeutic strategies for neuroprotection in Huntington's disease as well as in other neurodegenerative disorders with a significant excitotoxic component.


http://gradworks.umi.com/32/57/3257522.html

Neuroprotective effects of cannabinoids in a mouse model of Parkinson's disease
by Price, David Alan, PhD, THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AT SAN ANTONIO, 2007, 0 pages; 3257522

Abstract: Parkinson's disease (PD) is characterized by extensive degeneration of dopamine (DA) neurons residing in the substantia nigra pars compacta (SNc) and the accompanying neuroinflammatory response. Important cellular mediators of neuroinflammation include activated microglia and reactive astrocytes. Together, these events (i.e. midbrain DA cell loss and neuroinflammation) appear to be progressive, resulting in a self-perpetuating cycle of neurodegeneration. Although current pharmacotherapies provide symptomatic relief, they fail to target the progressive nature of PD. Cannabinoid drugs modulate inflammatory processes and have been pursued as novel therapeutics in a variety of models of neurodegeneration. In this study, we investigated the protective effects of the non-selective cannabinoid receptor agonist WIN 55,212-2 (WIN) in mice treated with 1-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine (MPTP), a toxin-based model of PD that replicates the loss of midbrain DA neurons and glial activation observed in the human disease. WIN protected against loss of tyrosine hydroxylase positive (TH+) neurons from the SNc when administered as either: (1) a single pre-treatment 30 min before MPTP or (2) a short-term post-treatment over a 5 day period, beginning 24 hr after the last injection of MPTP. The protective effect of WIN (1 mg/kg, i.p.) pre-treatment was independent of its ability to inhibit the uptake of the neurotoxic metabolite 1-methyl-4-phenylyridinium (MPP+) via the dopamine transporter (DAT) as this dose of WIN failed to alter striatal DA clearance in vivo. Post-treatment with WIN (4 mg/kg, i.p.), 24 hr after the last injection of MPTP---a time point when MPP+ has been eliminated from the brain---significantly protected against MPTP-induced loss of midbrain DA neurons. Interestingly, genetic ablation of the CB1 receptor also significantly protected against midbrain DA cell loss, suggesting that: (1) WIN may exert its neuroprotective actions via targets other than CB1 receptors and (2) agonism at the CB1 receptor may actually be deleterious to these DA neurons and, thus, the concomitant stimulation of CB1 receptors by WIN may mask its 'full' neuroprotective potential. In an effort to identify the molecular mechanism(s) responsible for the beneficial effects of WIN, we found that the CB2 receptor, which is normally not expressed in the ventral midbrain, is up-regulated in this region 3 days post-MPTP treatment and it co-localizes with activated microglia, which stain positive for MAC-1. Agonism of the CB2 receptor with WIN (4 mg/kg, i.p.) or the CB 2 agonist JWH 015 (JWH; 4 mg/kg, i.p.) reduced MPTP-induced elevation of MAC-1 back to control levels in ventral midbrain. This effect was reversed by the CB2 antagonist JTE 907 (JTE; 4 mg/kg, i.p., 20 min before WIN). In addition, WIN administration significantly reduced MPTP-induced up-regulation of the pro-inflammatory enzyme cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2). Thus, WIN protects against MPTP neurotoxicity via (1) a DAT-dependent mechanism involving inhibition of MPP+ uptake and (2) a DAT-independent mechanism involving inhibition of microglial activation and COX-2 expression. In conclusion, cannabinoid drugs may represent a new therapeutic for slowing the progressive neurodegeneration that is observed in PD.

http://www.pnas.org/content/95/14/8268.abstract

Cannabidiol and (−)Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol are neuroprotective antioxidants

1. A. J. Hampson * , †,
2. M. Grimaldi ‡,
3. J. Axelrod *, and
4. D. Wink §

+ Author Affiliations

1.
*Laboratory of Cellular and Molecular Regulation, National Institutes of Mental Health, Bethesda, MD 20892; ‡Laboratory of Adaptive Systems, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Bethesda, MD 20892; and §Radiology and Biology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD 20892

1.

Contributed by Julius Axelrod

Abstract

The neuroprotective actions of cannabidiol and other cannabinoids were examined in rat cortical neuron cultures exposed to toxic levels of the excitatory neurotransmitter glutamate. Glutamate toxicity was reduced by both cannabidiol, a nonpsychoactive constituent of marijuana, and the psychotropic cannabinoid (−)Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Cannabinoids protected equally well against neurotoxicity mediated by N-methyl-d-aspartate receptors, 2-amino-3-(4-butyl-3-hydroxyisoxazol-5-yl)propionic acid receptors, or kainate receptors. N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor-induced toxicity has been shown to be calcium dependent; this study demonstrates that 2-amino-3-(4-butyl-3-hydroxyisoxazol-5-yl)propionic acid/kainate receptor-type neurotoxicity is also calcium-dependent, partly mediated by voltage sensitive calcium channels. The neuroprotection observed with cannabidiol and THC was unaffected by cannabinoid receptor antagonist, indicating it to be cannabinoid receptor independent. Previous studies have shown that glutamate toxicity may be prevented by antioxidants. Cannabidiol, THC and several synthetic cannabinoids all were demonstrated to be antioxidants by cyclic voltametry. Cannabidiol and THC also were shown to prevent hydroperoxide-induced oxidative damage as well as or better than other antioxidants in a chemical (Fenton reaction) system and neuronal cultures. Cannabidiol was more protective against glutamate neurotoxicity than either ascorbate or α-tocopherol, indicating it to be a potent antioxidant. These data also suggest that the naturally occurring, nonpsychotropic cannabinoid, cannabidiol, may be a potentially useful therapeutic agent for the treatment of oxidative neurological disorders such as cerebral ischemia.


http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/short/25/8/1904

Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease Pathology by Cannabinoids: Neuroprotection Mediated by Blockade of Microglial Activation

Belén G. Ramírez,1 Cristina Blázquez,2 Teresa Gómez del Pulgar,2 Manuel Guzmán,2 and María L. de Ceballos1

1Neurodegeneration Group, Cajal Institute, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 28002 Madrid, Spain, and 2Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology I, School of Biology, Complutense University, 28040 Madrid, Spain

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is characterized by enhanced {beta}-amyloid peptide ({beta}A) deposition along with glial activation in senile plaques, selective neuronal loss, and cognitive deficits. Cannabinoids are neuroprotective agents against excitotoxicity in vitro and acute brain damage in vivo. This background prompted us to study the localization, expression, and function of cannabinoid receptors in AD and the possible protective role of cannabinoids after {beta}A treatment, both in vivo and in vitro. Here, we show that senile plaques in AD patients express cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2, together with markers of microglial activation, and that CB1-positive neurons, present in high numbers in control cases, are greatly reduced in areas of microglial activation. In pharmacological experiments, we found that G-protein coupling and CB1 receptor protein expression are markedly decreased in AD brains. Additionally, in AD brains, protein nitration is increased, and, more specifically, CB1 and CB2 proteins show enhanced nitration. Intracerebroventricular administration of the synthetic cannabinoid WIN55,212-2 to rats prevent {beta}A-induced microglial activation, cognitive impairment, and loss of neuronal markers. Cannabinoids (HU-210, WIN55,212-2, and JWH-133) block {beta}A-induced activation of cultured microglial cells, as judged by mitochondrial activity, cell morphology, and tumor necrosis factor-{alpha} release; these effects are independent of the antioxidant action of cannabinoid compounds and are also exerted by a CB2-selective agonist. Moreover, cannabinoids abrogate microglia-mediated neurotoxicity after {beta}A addition to rat cortical cocultures. Our results indicate that cannabinoid receptors are important in the pathology of AD and that cannabinoids succeed in preventing the neurodegenerative process occurring in the disease.


Had enough yet?

[Dreamer Tatum]

103. I don't dispute your cut and paste skills. But I asked you to specifically critique the study.

Which you seem incapable of doing, since you spent time cutting and pasting that could have been devoted to providing a pointed critique of the study you dismissed.

Can you contrast the studies you cited with the one I challenged you to critique? If so, you're well on your way. If not, you're just just avoiding the issue.

And I'm not a genius. I'm just good at doing actual science, and I have a particular expertise at identifying charlatans.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

126. So You're a PhD Who Doesn't Understand the Importance of Peer Review?

Riiiiiight.

You sure know how to stop charlatans!

[boppers]

129. Amusing sub thread.

"Please critique this study."

<copy/paste>

"Please critique this particular study"

<copy/paste>

"No, really, I'm asking you to critique *this* study"

...

It's especially amusing because the study in question (in the OP) is about people unable to understand a game where rules change frequently.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

137. did you NOT read my first post or are you just unable to understand what makes good science???

I discredited the study directly and thoroughly. Are you another Prohibitionist who doesn't understand the importance of peer review, the reduction of bias, poor research methods and a total lack of variable control of any form?

I'm sorry but if you don't "get" any of that, there is anything anyone can do for you. The study is garbage, conducted without proper research methods or constraints, and in no way deals with the confusion of correlation and causation.

Again, amazing. You fail to comprehend even the most basic aspects of science.

[boppers]

142. You pointed out possible flaws, and made assertions.

Often without evidence, I might note.

You're basically sitting in a corner, screaming "it can't be true, because there might be these hypothetical flaws in the study"!, which is all well and good, but not exactly useful as a matter of peer review.

Lets take one, just ONE, assertion from your first post:
"These subjects were not screened or controlled for the use of any other substance including alcohol (which is MUCH more likely to lead to difficulties in cognitive function with early use) or prescription narcotics. "

Since this is an unpublished work, you should probably, oh, have some source of this information, and how it applies in this particular case. So, is this a founded assertion, or a suspicion?

Next at bat is your swipe at Harvard: Is all work done there discredited because of Joseph Biederman? And how is this a legitimate critique of this particular study?

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

102. I Just Proved My Main Point

Peer reviewed science has PROVEN that the active ingredients of cannabis exert a neuro-protective effect.

If you have ANYTHING AT ALL that disproves this decade and a half of science I would LOVE to read it.

Again, you are so full of it I can smell you in Denver.

[Dreamer Tatum]

106. And that counters the specific findings of the article how?

How do the results you cited specifically refute the article you dismissed?

I'm really just toying with you at this point. Careful scientists don't pop off the way you did at the outset, and your avatar and handle expose you as hopelessly biased as regards marijuana. I suspect the only negative aspect you might be willing to entertain about cannabis is perhaps its price.

I think it should be legal. I am just not nearly as sanguine as you in regards to its effects on the brain, nervous system, and biochemical function. It might be less harmful than many other things that are perfectly legal. It might not. I just don't know, and really, neither do you.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

141. do I really have to speak this slowly??

CANNABIS IS A PROVEN NEURO-PROTECTANT. THIS ARTICLE CLAIMS THAT MARIJUANA USE MAGICALLY (THEY CANT DEFINE CAUSATION AT ALL) CAUSES LEARNING AND BRAIN DAMAGE THAT IS "IRREVERSIBLE". THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT IT IS TRUE: THE STUDY IS BOGUS IN ITS FINDINGS, BIASED IN ITS LANGUAGE AND FAULTY IN ITS METHODOLOGY.

IF THIS IS BEYOND YOUR LEVEL OF COMPREHENSION, PLEASE LOCATE YOUR NEAREST UNIVERSITY OR INSTITUTE OF HIGHER EDUCATION FOR FURTHER GUIDANCE.

[RainDog]

105. here ya go.

maybe it's best to take this subject by subject. this will take a little time to compile all the links. I'll post this to my journal to shortcut the next round of bullshit.

Schizophrenia.

Sept. 1, 2009

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/09/01/2673334.htm

No Link Between Cannabis and Schizophrenia

(this was all the rage as a scare campaign in GB for a while)

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.

Frisher and colleagues compared the trends of cannabis use with general practitioner records of schizophrenia.

They argue if cannabis use does cause schizophrenia, then an increase in cannabis use should be followed by an increase in the incidence of schizophrenia.

According to the study, cannabis use in the UK between 1972 and 2002 has increased four-fold in the general population, and 18-fold among under-18s.

...But the researchers found no increase in the diagnosis of schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders during that period. In fact some of the data suggested the incidence of these conditions had decreased.

"This study does not therefore support the specific causal link between cannabis use and the incidence of psychotic disorders," the authors say. "This concurs with other reports indicating that increases in population cannabis use have not been followed by increases in psychotic incidence."

then this

Oct. 2009

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091022101538.htm

Minimal Relationship Between Cannabis And Schizophrenia Or Psychosis, Suggested By New Study

Scientists from Bristol, Cambridge and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine took the latest information on numbers of cannabis users, the risk of developing schizophrenia, and the risk that cannabis use causes schizophrenia to estimate how many cannabis users may need to be stopped to prevent one case of schizophrenia. The study found it would be necessary to stop 2800 heavy cannabis users in young men and over 5000 heavy cannabis users in young women to prevent a single case of schizophrenia. Among light cannabis users, those numbers rise to over 10,000 young men and nearly 30,000 young women to prevent one case of schizophrenia.

and this

Nov. 2008

Cannabis-induced schizophrenia is simply schizophrenia

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE4A26JV20081103?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews&rpc=22&sp=true

n a previous study, Arendt and colleagues found that nearly half of people who had an episode of cannabis-induced psychosis went on to develop schizophrenia within the next six years. In the current study, the researchers looked at the genetic roots of both conditions by comparing the family histories of 609 people treated for cannabis-induced psychosis and 6,476 who had been treated for schizophrenia or a related psychiatric condition.

They found that individuals treated for post-pot smoking psychotic episodes had the same likelihood of having a mother, sister or other "first-degree" relative with schizophrenia as did the individuals who had actually been treated for schizophrenia themselves. This suggests that cannabis-induced psychosis and schizophrenia are one and the same, the researchers note. "These people would have developed schizophrenia whether or not they used cannabis," Arendt explained in comments to Reuters Health.

Based on the findings, the researcher says, "cannabis-induced psychosis is probably not a valid diagnosis. It should be considered schizophrenia."

- based upon the overwhelming evidence, it appears that people with a family history of schizophrenia should not use cannabis. just as they should not use other substances. Cannabis, tho, is not the reason for their schizophrenia.

UK's Leading Pharmacological Expert on Cannabis Calls for Legalization

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11294507

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/14/cannabis-licence-legalisation-pertwee

Pertwee noted in a recent talk that there is NO DANGER TO THE GENERAL POPULATION of schizophrenia in relation to cannabis. Pertwee, btw, is the leading researcher into cannabis in the UK.

"As cannabis is clearly less harmful than alcohol, criminalisation of people who prefer this drug is illogical and unjust. We need a new regulatory approach to cannabis. The Dutch coffee-shop model is one that has been proven to work but some of Professor Pertwee's new suggestions may well have extra benefits and should be actively debated."

[Dreamer Tatum]

107. Reading now. Thank you. nt

[RainDog]

111. early studies indicate cannabis may shrink tumor cells

Project Censored, Top 25 Stories, 2001

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/22-us-government-repressed-marijuana-tumor-research/

The U.S. Government Attempted to Repress the Marijuana Cancer Research.

...The Madrid researcher (studying the tumor-reducing qualities of cannabinoids, noted in the post immediately below) said he had heard of the Virginia study, but had never been able to locate literature on it. “I am aware of the existence of that research. In fact I have attempted many times to obtain the journal article on the original investigation by theses people, but it has proven impossible,” Guzman said. His response wasn’t surprising, considering that in 1983 the Reagan/Bush administration tried to persuade American universities and researchers to destroy all 1966/76 cannabis research work, including compendiums in libraries, reports Jack Herer. “We know that large amounts of information have since disappeared,” he says.

From the Journal of of the National Cancer Institute, 1975.

http://www.ukcia.org/research/AntineoplasticActivityOfCannabinoids/index.php

Furthermore, Nahas et al. (7) showed that in chronic marihuana users there is a decreased lymphocyte reactivity to mitogens as measured by thymidine uptake. These and other (8) observations suggest that marihuana (delta-9-THC) interferes with vital cell biochemical processes, though no definite mechanism has yet been established. A preliminary report from this laboratory (9) indicated that the ability of delta-9-THC to interfere with normal cell functions might prove efficacious against neoplasms. This report represents an effort to test various cannabinoids in several in vivo and in vitro tumor systems to determine the kinds of tumors that are sensitive to these compounds and reveal their possible biochemical sites of action(s).


Researchers at Harvard published a study in 2007 that indicates cannabis cuts lung cancer tumors by 50%.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm

They say this is the first set of experiments to show that the compound, Delta-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), inhibits EGF-induced growth and migration in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expressing non-small cell lung cancer cell lines. Lung cancers that over-express EGFR are usually highly aggressive and resistant to chemotherapy.

THC that targets cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2 is similar in function to endocannabinoids, which are cannabinoids that are naturally produced in the body and activate these receptors. The researchers suggest that THC or other designer agents that activate these receptors might be used in a targeted fashion to treat lung cancer.

Although the researchers do not know why THC inhibits tumor growth, they say the substance could be activating molecules that arrest the cell cycle. They speculate that THC may also interfere with angiogenesis and vascularization, which promotes cancer growth.

Research in Spain, published in 2009, demonstrated the mechanism by which cannabis induces cancer cell death.

http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37948

Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main active component of marijuana (7), exerts a wide variety of biological effects by mimicking endogenous substances — the endocannabinoids — that bind to and activate specific cannabinoid receptors (8). One of the most exciting areas of research in the cannabinoid field is the study of the potential application of cannabinoids as antitumoral agents (9). Cannabinoid administration has been found to curb the growth of several types of tumor xenografts in rats and mice (9, 10).

Based on this preclinical evidence, a pilot clinical trial has been recently run to investigate the antitumoral action of THC on recurrent gliomas (11). Recent findings have also shown that the pro-apoptotic and tumor growth–inhibiting activity of cannabinoids relies on the upregulation of the transcriptional co-activator p8 (12) and its target the pseudo-kinase tribbles homolog 3 (TRB3) (13).

However, the mechanisms that promote the activation of this signaling route as well as the targets downstream of TRB3 that mediate its tumor cell–killing action remain elusive. In this study we found that ER stress–evoked upregulation of the p8/TRB3 pathway induced autophagy via inhibition of the Akt/mTORC1 axis and that activation of autophagy promoted the apoptotic death of tumor cells. The uncovering of this pathway, which we believe is novel, for promoting tumor cell death may have therapeutic implications in the treatment of cancer.


California Breast Cancer Research Program (from Molecular Cancer Therapeutics)

http://www.cbcrp.org/research/PageGrant.asp?grant_id=4903

Inhibition of Breast Cancer Aggressiveness by Cannabidiol

An anti-cancer agent with a low toxicity profile that can both inhibit cancer cell growth and metastasis would be extremely valuable clinically. We have discovered that cannabidiol (CBD), a non-psychotropic cannabinoid constituent of the plant Cannabis sativa, can inhibit the growth, migration and invasion of aggressive breast cancer cells in culture.

Cannabinoid compounds, in general, have low toxicity profiles. Furthermore, our preliminary research demonstrated that CBD is a novel inhibitor of a protein whose activity has been closely linked to the aggressiveness of human breast cancers; called inhibitor of DNA binding-1 (Id-1). Whether CBD can inhibit the spread of metastatic breast cancer in vivo (in the body), compared to cell culture conditions, has not been determined.

However, CBD has been demonstrated to inhibit aggressive human brain cancers in vivo. Understanding the mechanisms behind the anti-cancer activity of CBD may lead to the validation of new biological targets for diagnostics and therapies for breast cancer.

Combining Cannabinoids Enhances Inhibition of Brain Cancer Cells

http://patients4medicalmarijuana.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/combining-marijuana-components-enhances-inhibitory-effects-on-brain-cancer-2/

The study was done at the California Pacific Medical Center by researchers who combined a non-psychoactive ingredient of marijauna, cannabidiol (CBD), with Δ9-tetrahyrdocannabinol (Δ9-THC), the primary psychoactive ingredient in Cannabis. The findings demonstrated the inhibitory effect of these two ingredients on brain cancer cells when used together.

“Our study not only suggests that combining these two compounds creates a synergistic effect,” says Sean McAllister, Ph.D., a scientist at CPMCRI and the lead author of the study. “but it also helps identify molecular mechanisms at work here, and that may lead to more effective treatments for glioblastoma and potentially other aggressive cancers.”

so, that's brain, lung and breast cancer. Did you know this? If not, don't you wonder why not?

[Dreamer Tatum]

113. Gotta ask: why is it mostly illegal everywhere, then?

It just doesn't seem right.

[RainDog]

116. well, it cannot be copyrighted. Pharmaceutical cos cannot make a profit

Molecules of cannabis - ways that drugs may be delivered may be copyrighted, but the natural, herbal cannabis is a plant and, unless something nasty happens, it's not in the interests of big pharma to study it as a drug - even for cancer therapy.

that's a nasty truth about our life in this day and age.

also, the liquor lobby spends money on keeping cannabis illegal. during the drug campaigns of the 1990s, they lobbied to keep alcohol out of the campaigns geared toward children. They only wanted the "this is your brain" commercials to apply to cannabis and PAID MONEY to make that happen.

The long history of cannabis prohibition is tied to racism against the Latin and African-American populations of this nation b/c cannabis actually has shown benefits to help people to perform strenuous labor over longer periods - people smoked to relieve their aches and pains... just as cannabis is now seen as useful for the pains of rheumatoid arthritis and various neuralgias. (This knowledge also goes against the couch-locked stoner, btw... this is true for some people in some circumstances, but not the way it is for any and everyone.)

The federal govt has invested a lot of time and credibility claiming all sorts of bad things about cannabis and, even tho they do need to step away from that b.s. - it's hard for them to do b/c they want to save face.

The prison-industrial complex also makes a lot of money by keeping cannabis illegal. 50% of all drug confiscations at borders are from cannabis.

People don't want to believe that, for instance, Ronald Reagan was lying nasty ass son of a bitch (tho he was). That sort of thing.

What's also sad about this is that studies in Portugal and The Netherlands indicate that decriminalization (in Portugal it's decriminalization of ALL drugs) has led to a DECREASE in use - it's no longer forbidden fruit. Also putting money into harm reduction rather than punishment has resulted in money-savings for the govts there - they spend less money on AIDS and other health issues related to hard drugs in Portugal, for instance.

Jeffery Miron, an economist at Harvard who has studied drug war economics for years, estimates we waste $88 BILLION per year on a failed drug war - half of that on the costs of the drug war itself and the other half on what could be legal revenue.

The libertarian Cato Institute recently published a study on this very thing.

During the Prop 19 campaign, the CA chapter of the NAACP, Hispanic Groups, LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) - they have to be retired law enforcement, btw), the prosecutor who put a guy called "The Prince of Pot" (Marc Emery) in jail, and a host of others called for legalization. Why? Because, overall, the drug war is a failure, a waste of money, punishes minorities more than whites and, frankly, keeps cannabis easily accessible to kids that no one wants to see using any kind of drug.

[Dreamer Tatum]

117. I meant all over the world. Why is it illegal almost everywhere?

It CAN'T be because the US says so.

[RainDog]

118. Yes. The United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs

(which includes cannabis b/c it is wrongly classified as a schedule 1 drug, indicating no medical value... tho this is obviously untrue and has been known to be untrue for more than a decade)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_Drugs

The U.S. has pressured all other nations to agree to this continued ostracism of cannabis and modified its own laws to remain within the boundaries of this treaty.

One reason The Netherlands decriminalized rather than legalized is because to do so would put them in violation of the UN Single Convention.

In 1954, Harry Anslinger, the man who made cannabis illegal (along with the yellow journalism of William Randolph Hearst) FORCED the UN to agree to this Convention if other nations wanted the U.S. to not veto anything they put forth. Blackmail, iow.

Not all nations wanted to abide by the stance Anslinger was trying to force upon the world, but in 1961, this Convention was ratified, making cannabis illegal ALL OVER THE WORLD.

[RainDog]

119. boggles the mind, doesn't it?

when I started doing research into this, I was AMAZED at how corrupt and full of nothing but propaganda the whole campaign against cannabis has been from the start.

That's what made me start to speak out about it.

[Dreamer Tatum]

120. Other countries are far more liberal than us vis a vis prescription drug policy

so it befuddles me why France (for example) doesn't use it extensively.

[RainDog]

123. France is the leading hemp producer in western Europe

they maintained a hemp production program even during WWII. (tho not very strong.) Hemp (non-THC active cannabis) seeds have less than .03% THC content.

They have an interest in that sort of cannabis.

In The Netherlands, you can get cannabis at a pharmacy.

Germany, Canada and GB and, now Israel have all approved Sativex, which is liquid cannabis extract that is delivered as a spray for use of MS - Israel, iirc, has also approved it for PTSD.

The Veterans Administration in the U.S. is the first federal agency to approve of medical mj for vets in states that have medical mj laws.

That's 15 states and DC now, since Arizona, yet again, passed a medical mj law. (When they passed the law initally, the legislature in AZ threatened to pull any dr's license that recommended it.

DC voted for medical mj more than a decade ago but, b/c Congress has to fund DC's legislative initiatives, Congress held up funding and thus implementation of their law for more than a decade.

This is why I say that Americans are hysterical about cannabis... and it's because of a long, long, long propaganda campaign.

It's sad, really. Medical researchers are finding that many of the uses for which cannabis was prescribed before 1937 (the year it was made illegal) are valid. Many times they don't treat the disease - the ameliorate the symptoms of something, or provide a secondary line of medication - as which people who inhale cannabis vapor (without particulants) to relive the nausea that results from chemotherapy.

Cannabis is useful for, as noted before, rheumatoid arthritis, migraines, nausea, to help anorexics not starve themselves to death, as an analgesic for neuralgia, wasting from chemo, muscle spasms from MS, CP and spinal cord injuries and PTSD.

Our attitude toward this plant is crazy.

[boppers]

124. "natural, herbal cannabis is a plant"...and thus incredibly difficult to regulate drug delivery

Drugs based on cannabis have been legal for a while now, but they cost a lot, because they're tightly controlled and regulated.

[RainDog]

128. in the U.S.? really? which ones? n/t

[boppers]

132. Have a list:

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000883

[RainDog]

136. actually, only Sativex is cannabis - and it's not approved here

the others, like Marinol and Nabilone are synthetics and do not have the full component of more than 60 cannbinoids that, as research I've linked to here has demonstrated, appears to have a synergistic effect - research has shown this most definitely in the case of CB1 and CB2.

None of the others have been approved for use in the U.S.

So, actually, there is only one cannabis medicine available for prescription in the world, other than the plant, and it is not available in the U.S.

The plant, tho, is in 15 states and DC. But it is still illegal at the federal level.

[boppers]

140. Background article:

http://www.alternet.org/drugs/90469/

[RainDog]

143. It also notes that only Sativex is actually cannabis

while the others are synthetics.

It may be true that big pharma is just dying to control cannabis but the reality is that cannabis cannot be copyrighted. If they want to GM cannabis, they won't be able to b/c the Reagan era war on drugs made sure that botanists had already created hybrid strains that will not be brought under the control of the pharmas - there is already a well-developed network that will see to this. There are activists that will see to this. There is an entire state (more than one, actually) with medical growers that are already dedicated to this issue.

Sativex is copyrighted because it is processed and delivered by a spray...it is sort of like hash oil, it seems to me. (And made, as Armentano notes, in an underground facility in Canada -- 1000 feet underground, in fact, in what used to be zinc and copper mines.)

In Great Britain, GW Pharmaceuticals was allowed to grow cannabis for medical research in a compound with electric fencing, guard dogs - with headqtrs down the road from GB's secret biological weapons facilities.

no hysteria there...

One point that Armentano does not note, however, is that safe, effective natural herbal cannabis may be grown and utilized by the general population if prohibition is lifted - people can titrate their own doses easily with a vaporiser... MUCH better than with Marinol - which was one of the complaints about it. The other major complaint was/is that it contained no CBD, or CB2, which mitigates some of the effects of THC and has its own anti-inflammatory (and possibly anti-tumor) effects.

This remains a conundrum for pharmaceutical cos., however. Is the govt going to finally say it's safe but not allow people to grow their own medicine? on what grounds? how will they be able to enforce this? Even poppies are legal to grow as ornamentals in the U.S. - it's just illegal to process them into opium. Cannabis does not require processing, per se.

Another problem with allowing pharmaceuticals to create cannabis-based medicines is that the U.S. will have to admit that there is a medical purpose for cannabis (which it currently does not do) and, thus, will have to alter the UN Single Convention.

The overarching problem is that the U.S. has created a big bowl of shit that it must now eat because, whether the p.t.b. admit it or not, cannabis has medical use, this use is applicable through non-pharmaceutical means of delivery, and an overwhelming majority of Americans (70%) and people throughout the world KNOW this is the truth.

To wait for it to be profitable for pharmaceutical cos is just one more nail in the coffin for Americans to believe that their govt is about anything other than corporate control of people's lives.

[boppers]

155. "Drugs based on cannabis"

Not "drugs that are cannabis". Much as Aspirin (and it's many relatives) are not being made with willow bark.

[RainDog]

158. yes. that's what a synthetic is. I'm glad you figured that out.

[boppers]

159. You seemed to be disagreeing with #124.

Where those were the exact words I used.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

127. because of fully propagandized sheep who don't understand the difference

between science and lies. In other words, you are a fine example of the answer you seek.

[Dreamer Tatum]

133. You're still here? I thought you'd be in your expensive sports car, waving around your big bucks.

My offer is still good, by the way.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

138. oh yes, the money in escrow!

Christ, how pathetic. Keep dreaming, "doctor".

[Dreamer Tatum]

160. Anytime, any day. Annnnyday.

Bring it. I'd love some spending money.

[RainDog]

115. LaGuardia Report from 1941 Indicates U.S. Waged Propaganda Campaign Against Cannabis

Back in the 1940s, Frank LaGuardia, mayor of NYC, wanted to test the scare claims made by the anti-drug warriors that created prohibition in the 1930s because he was skeptical. (Many of these same claims are continually recycled.)

His large-scale study and report debunked the claims made by the prohibitionists. Nevertheless, LaGuardia was attacked. It turns out his report was one of a few done at the time (others were in Canada and Great Britain and in the U.S. Army) that indicated there was no danger of physical addiction or physical or mental deterioration for those who smoked over a period of years. You can read LaGuardia's study and conclusion here:

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/lag/lagmenu.htm

Since the LaGuardia Commission Report, published in 1944, our govt has known that marijuana is nothing like the claims they have made against it to justify prohibition. In spite of this reality, the Boggs Act of 1951 created harsher penalties for possession than this nation had for serial killers and rapists. The reason for this was that marijuana use was considered something done by African and Latin -Americans...and movie stars and musicians.

When a sociology professor published research in the 1950s that debunked misinformation spread by our govt., his phone was tapped, the federal govt (FBN - federal bureau of narcotics) tried to suppress his work and they also tried to get the FBI to find a way to associate this professor with the communist scare of the time. When Canada created a public service documentary that indicated the FBN stereotypes of addicts and drug fiends were lies, this govt. org. sought to ban the film. This professor (of sociology at Indiana University, fwiw) spoke out about this abuse of govt power that sought to interfere with the medical treatment of people with addictions. Finally, the ACLU, the AMA (American Medical Asso.) and the American Bar Asso. spoke out in defense of this professor and this film - and against the govt. lies.

(Out of this experience, an independent org. began that was dedicated to issues of public heath and science, rather than scare campaigns and propaganda. That group eventually merged with the Drug Policy Foundation to create the current Drug Policy Alliance - a group that still works to provide information based upon research and science.)

On its website, the Drug Policy Alliance notes that: Numerous published studies suggest that marijuana has medical value in treating patients with serious illnesses such as AIDS, glaucoma, cancer, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, and chronic pain.

The Schaffer Drug Library also contains the report Nixon commissioned to study marijuana. The (Raymond) Schaffer Commission recommended decriminalization. Schaffer was a conservative former gov. of PA, so Nixon thought he'd bought off the commission. oops. Here's that report:

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/nc/ncmenu.htm

Nixon ignored those recommendations. As revealed in his comments from his tapes, Nixon blamed cannabis use on Jews, psychiatrists, commies and homosexuals. Apparently paranoia isn't limited to some people who use cannabis.

In 1982 an 18-member committee of the National Academy of Sciences who had studied the drug laws for four years unanimously advocated decriminalizing marijuana, and eventually legalizing and regulating it, only to have Reagan’s science adviser, Dr. Frank Press, repudiate their report and successfully pressure the media not to publicize it. (This was during the time Reagan was outright lying his ass off claiming that suffocating monkeys with smoke indicated that cannabis caused brain damage.

In 1988, Drug Enforcement Administration Judge Francis Young noted: "In strict medical terms marijuana is far safer than many foods. For example, eating 10 raw potatoes can result in a toxic response. By comparison, it is physically impossible to eat enough marijuana to induce death. Marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within the supervised routine of medical care." (This was during hearings into the use of marijuana as medicine.)

Prescription drugs deemed safe by the FDA kill up to 27,000 per year. Aspirin kills up to 1,000 Americans per year. Zero deaths have been attributed to cannabis ingestion. Ever.

It is impossible to overdose on cannabis for a couple of reasons... a "lethal" does would require someone to smoke or eat more than a pound of it within a hour or so - impossible. Also, cannabinoid receptors in the brain are sparsely located in this autonomous nervous system region - the region that controls for heart and lung function. The reason barbiturates kill is because they depress heart and lung function to the point that someone stops breathing, or their heart stops pumping. This is impossible with cannabis.

(This is just general information about the relative safety of cannabis in relation to a host of other substances that are legal and considered viable for medical or other use in this nation.)

[killbotfactory]

153. Posts like this one have persuaded me to use a pot-leaf avatar

It's always good to see that prohibitionists are immune to reason, logic, and basic sense of justice.

[LanternWaste]

104. sacre bleu!

Sacre bleu! You'd think that everyone would realize by now that any study illustrating any negative side effects from this particular substance is little more than propaganda put out by those who wish to see Cheeto's and video games banned.

[Romulox]

110. A very sensible post from a committed Drug Warrior!

And just look at all the success the Drug Warriors have achieved over the last 30 years. :silly:

[LanternWaste]

112. Bless your little heart...

Bless your little heart... I'm no warrior, hardly committed, and know next to nothing about pot other than the oft-used bong I packed away twenty years ago. As a matter of course, my opinions of pot vary from "no opinion" to "someone reeks"

But if for little humor, it does illustrate the skewering effect on your sacred cow though. :P

[Romulox]

114. Nonsense. This subject is something of an obsession for you.

You have a LOT to say (almost all of it negative) about a subject which you claim to know so little about:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3732795#3733000

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x8803508#8803629

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3706086#3707280

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5369785#5370169

[miyazaki]

122. My friends from high school have trouble making complete sentences

now after smoking heavily twenty two years ago.

:shrug:

[boppers]

125. Burn-outs don't know they're burn-outs.

That's part of the whole sad conundrum.

"Hey, I'm fine, I don't have any problems, so weed must be okay!"

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

130. You Must Know "Science" Just as Well As DT!

Can we talk about the difference between science and anecdote? The importance of peer review? The fact that your "friends" probably did a lot more than smoke a little pot "twenty two years ago"??

Jaysus.

On Edit: I hope everyone who reads this thread notes that the attacks generated at the advocates of medical cannabis are ALL personal. There is no discussion of the faulty methods of the original article, no counter studies presented, no logic being used. It is literally ALL ad hominem attack, every line of it right there for you to read.

This is how Prohibitionists and propagandists always function.

[Dreamer Tatum]

161. I can see the difference between science and advocacy, Alas, you cannot.

Again, your AVATAR AND HANDLE disqualify you as a credible commentator.

[obliviously]

147. Whoa dude, now I'm like really bummed.

[wildbilln864]

148. pot studies...

http://www.scientificfactsofpot.com/studies.htm

[killbotfactory]

149. The early pot smokers they tested NEVER STOPPED SMOKING

They smoked VERY HEAVILY through whatever test they were put through.

If they wanted to test the long term effects of childhood cannabis use they should have thrown in some people who smoked while they were teens and quit later on.

It would be like measuring the effects of teenage alcohol use by testing full-blown alcoholics who have been drinking like a fish every day since high school, and comparing it to people who have a glass of wine every other night.

Although it should be noted that alcohol, despite it's legality and socially acceptable status, is far, FAR worse for you than cannabis.

[boppers]

162. Do you have a draft copy of their paper?

How do you know that some (or maybe even all) never stopped? The article linked to in the OP seems to assert that the effect was "irreversible", which seems to indicate that they had looked into reversal methods... link to a more detailed article on the study, or maybe a draft of the paper, please?

[killbotfactory]

165. This info is in the article

Try reading it next time.

[sarcasmo]

150. Who funded this, the war on drugs?