This is a discussion thread about Marijuana, Cannabis, Weed, Dank, 420, Pot. It is currently legal in a few states, though they are regulating the usage of it.
contrary to popular belief, weed doesnt cause cancer, it's like alcohol, impairs your motor skills. that's about it.
I figure you young kids will be eventually come into contact with it once you hit your college/high school years, and it would be good to dispel some wrong and wayward thinking brought on by the government.
so please have fun, ask questions, keep it lighthearted.
For others who partake in god's choice smokes please give me some of your favorite dank
Weed is legal in a couple of states, cali, colorado. up in Canada, Vancouver has legalized weed. Amsterdam too.
It's a great experience really, not advocating you should try it, since it is also quite the expensive plant (prices are artificially inflated in legalized areas also for government control purposes)
good for you. Have fun with early onset alzheimers, short term memory loss, depression, decreased metabolism/weight gain, and myriad other effects of daily use.
good for you. Have fun with early onset alzheimers, short term memory loss, depression, decreased metabolism/weight gain, and myriad other effects of daily use.
Like any other drug, these side effects may or may not occur, and depending on the person, can be catastrophic to unnoticeable. The only effect(s) I would agree upon would be any condition / injury from the smoking of marijuana to the lungs.
Like any other drug, these side effects may or may not occur, and depending on the person, can be catastrophic to unnoticeable.
Actually these are proven to occur with long term daily use, and become progressively more pronounced the longer daily use continues. This isn't a 'might or might not' happen deal. It will happen, an overwhelming percentage of the time.
And if you really want to nitpick about might or might not's only 1 in 3 habitual smokers of cigarettes get lung cancer, yet it's a widely known fact that cigarettes cause lung cancer. Interesting huh? Especially when you are ~3 times more likely to develop the issues I described with daily, long term marijuana use, than to get lung cancer from cigarettes.
Actually these are proven to occur with long term daily use, and become progressively more pronounced the longer daily use continues. This isn't a 'might or might not' happen deal. It will happen, an overwhelming percentage of the time.
And if you really want to nitpick about might or might not's only 1 in 3 habitual smokers of cigarettes get lung cancer, yet it's a widely known fact that cigarettes cause lung cancer. Interesting huh? Especially when you are ~3 times more likely to develop the issues I described with daily, long term marijuana use, than to get lung cancer from cigarettes.
You bring valid arguments but your side is destroyed when you say "roven". NIDA states that "However, at this time, it is not clear whether marijuana use causes mental problems, exacerbates them, or is used in attempt to self-medicate symptoms already in existence." So basically, it isn't sure but has been proven in studies. Seems like a paradox but then again not all of these studies are righteous but bias, according to About.com. "Studies linking marijuana smoking to lung cancer have also been limited by selection bias and small sample size."
Simple Statistics show that you can't really trust all these "roven" facts on Marijuana.
And by the way it's not "nitpicking" it's being realistic and emphasizing both sides without taking one for the sake of debating.
Look at a few of the other scientific studies I linked to earlier please. While NIDA has some great information on their site, they are a government agency and as such fall under certain guidelines, whereas a purely scientific organization can publish their findings freely and completely.
Kind of like how I can't advertise an orange as a cure for scurvy, the government does place limitations on what it's organizations can and cannot say, and what information there has to be available prior to publication of said findings.
I looked on your links on page 30, first one stats MILD effects on brain, including appetite short term memory, second one was a study on rodents, no bother looking at that, third one once again states MILD effects on brain and stated MULTIPLE times how it may do this or that. I won't even entertain the fourth. :/
"They may act as retrograde synaptic mediators of the phenomena of depolarizationâinduced suppression of inhibition or excitation in hippocampus and cerebellum. Central effects of cannabinoids include disruption of psychomotor behaviour, shortâterm memory impairment, intoxication, stimulation of appetite, antinociceptive actions (particularly against pain of neuropathic origin) and antiâemetic effects. Although there are signs of mild cognitive impairment in chronic cannabis users there is little evidence that such impairments are irreversible, or that they are accompanied by drugâinduced neuropathology."
Basically stating: Loss of common sense, short-term memory, intoxication, more food cravings, slow senses.
"Few studies on the non-acute neurocognitive effects of cannabis meet current research standards; nevertheless, our results indicate that there might be decrements in the ability to learn and remember new information in chronic users, whereas other cognitive abilities are unaffected. However, from a neurocognitive standpoint, the small magnitude of these effect sizes suggests that if cannabis compounds are found to have therapeutic value, they may have an acceptable margin of safety under the more limited conditions of exposure that would likely obtain in a medical setting."
Third link says the same and states how it suggests, might be, may have these effects.
Sorry for triple post but Walker, your second to last link doesn't say anything about how they got the info, as in who the tested how many they tested, to get these conclusions. These could all be worse-scenario cases, and your last link didn't work for me.
Then look at this summary, from the third (I believe) link:
In summary, our results show that synthetic and endogenous cannabinoids, as well as THC, induce the phosphorylation of p38-MAPK, but not JNK, in the mature nervous system. This effect of CB1-R may contribute to the neuromodulatory role of cannabinoids. Stimulation of Schaeffer collaterals stimulate 2-AG production, which has a negative effect on synaptic plasticity in the hippocampus (Stella et al. 1997). Moreover, CB1-R knockout mice appear to have an improved memory (Reibaud et al. 1999) and a more pronounced long-term potentiation (LTP) in CA1 (Bohme et al. 2000) than their wild-type counterparts. These results suggest that endocannabinoids exert a negative effect on synaptic plasticity, perhaps as part of a negative feedback mechanism to intense stimulation of glutamatergic fibers. Accordingly, recent evidence indicates that the effects of CB1R stimulation on LTP are the result of an inhibition of glutamate release (Misner and Sullivan 1999). Nevertheless, it is tempting to speculate that the effects of endocannabinoids reported here, may also have an influence on synaptic plasticity, as p38-MAPK has been implicated in the negative effects of other agents on synaptic plasticity (Saleshando and O'Connor 2000). In addition, the possible role of p38-MAPK activation in the complex effects of cannabinoids on cell survival should be explored, as these compounds appear to have a protective effect in brain ischemia (Nagayama et al. 1999), whereas they exert antitumoral action in gliomas (Galve-Roperh et al. 2000), and, in the case of THC, may have intrinsic toxic effects (Chan et al. 1998).
What you are quoting are portions of the study dealing with the immediate effects of cannabinoids, particularly THC, on the receptors in the brain. You really need to read the entire articles to gain a better understanding, and also take into account that there is relatively limited information available on the effects of THC, however nearly all data available suggests myriad detrimental effects on the brain, particularly in areas dealing with emotion and memory.
While I do agree that the effects are minimal in comparison to many other substances, they are there, and they are very real.
While I do agree that the effects are minimal in comparison to many other substances, they are there, and they are very real.
That is all I needed from you. And I did acknowledge the long term effects as well as the short term. And I only did cite the short term because we have more precise, and real unbiased facts on it, as for the long term that is the sticky part. And like you said yourself, there is limited information and any that is conlcuded can't really be called real unless I know for sure we are dealing with large samples, and unbiased groups. I do admit these do and can take place (the effects), I'm just saying it's not sure.
Nothing is sure. But the evidence is there that it is sure enough to be a matter of concern. However, the beauty of the brain is that, if you stop ingesting such things as cannabinoids BEFORE serious damage occurs (damage to synapses and tissue) your brain can and will heal itself. Most likely not to the state it was at prior to extended use, but well enough to negate some of the negative effects.
As I said many times earlier in this thread, I understand that many of the effects pale in comparison to many other substances, and that the likelihood of developing such things isn't 100%, but I do want people to be aware that there are some very real dangers associated with cannabinoid use. Don't think that because you use a vaporizer, or that you only use infrequently, that you are safe from negative effects, because that just isn't the case.
Now that paragraph is everything in this thread summed up, regarding both sides, and is well, perfect and definitely worth quoting. Thank you MRWalker.
As it was pointed out earlier, have we found the funding for each of these studies that are being posted? To me, they are moot until I see the funding.
