Casual marijuana use linked to brain changes

[shawn703]

Source: USA Today

Using marijuana a few times a week is enough to physically alter critical brain structures, according to a new study published Tuesday in The Journal of Neuroscience.

"Just casual use appears to create changes in the brain in areas you don't want to change," said Hans Breiter, a psychiatrist and mathematician at the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, who led the new study.

<snip>

Gregory Gerdeman, a biologist and neuropharmacologist at Eckerd College in St. Petersburg, Fla., said he has no reason to doubt the new study's findings but worries generally about marijuana research funded by federal agencies, like the Office of National Drug Control Policy, which is charged with limiting drug use. (The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health as well as the Office of National Drug Control Policy and Northwestern Medicine's Warren Wright Adolescent Center.)

"If you're getting money from the drug czar's office, that money's not going to continue if you don't end up publishing something that at least supports the general story of the danger of drug abuse," Gerdeman said.


Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/15/marijuana-brain-changes/7749309/

[MindMover]

1. Brain changes .... if this is true ... better than Brain damage ....

http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa63/aa63.htm

[otherone]

2. smoking kind bud every day for forty years is gonna change something

[MindMover]

4. For sure, and if you drank alcohol for 40 years ....

it would certainly do a lot more changing ...

[joeglow3]

70. Why do people justify one drug by saying another is worse?

[MindMover]

71. Probably because it is true ...

Do you have another reason ...?

[LanternWaste]

72. Possibly it's because one is legal to do while the other is not...

Possibly it's because one is legal to do in all 50 states, territories and protectorates, while the other is not...

[MindMover]

73. What does legality have anything to do with one drug being more destructive than another .... ?

It is not illegal to drink turpentine ....

[joeglow3]

74. I agree.....if we are discussing legality

Far as I could tell, the topic was just about the ill effects and NOT the legality.

[MindMover]

75. Ok, so alcohol is more destructive to the human body than MJ ...

Any argument on that statement ...

[FarrenH]

89. Decades of research

No compelling evidence of significant harm. Like, none. Both things are being highlighted at the same time. That cannabis doesn't cause any physical harm AND that this fact makes it's prohibition more bizarre, in light of the legality of nicotene and alcohol, for which there is ample evidence of harm, and the ease of getting prescription drugs which have more harmful side effects.

People raise them together to illuminate why tenuous studies like this, funded by agencies that relentlessly try to tarnish our perception of the substance, should be treated with extreme scepticism.

You seem to be operating from the assumption that cannabis does cause harm. Science and the experiences of literally billions of people disagrees with you.

[MindMover]

94. Well said, and welcome to DU .... nt

[RainDog]

103. And all the subjects were evaluated as "normal"

before the study began - they showed no signs of any psychological disturbance, etc.

If they did - they weren't selected for the study - so the study shows people with different sizes of particular brain areas test as healthy, functioning people.


From the science reporter at boing boing - who also writes for the NYTimes:

There's a new study out that's being touted as proof that marijuana makes you dumb. But, while the results do show differences in the brains of people who smoked pot, the conclusion about what that means is seriously flawed, writes Maia Szalavitz at The Daily Beast.

Most of the time, it's difficult to explain why scientific research or a conclusion about research results is flawed. That's not the case here. You only have to understand two concepts: "normal" and "healthy".

The 20 marijuana-smoking participants, who took the drug at least once a week, were deliberately selected to be healthy. If they had any marijuana-related problems—or any psychiatric problems or other issues—they were excluded from participating.

Are you beginning to see what’s wrong? Although the pot-smoking participants showed brain differences in comparison to the controls who were also selected to be normal— both groups were normal! If the smokers had any marijuana-related problems or any type of impairment, they would not have been included in the first place. Therefore, the brain changes that the researchers found were—by definition—not associated with any cognitive, emotional, or mental problems or differences.

http://boingboing.net/2014/04/17/neurological-differences-don.html

[FarrenH]

105. Yeah

A friend of mine who is what I can only characterize as authoritarian-left posted this study on her facebook page with the comment that, as a social worker, she's seen weed "destroy countless lives". My first thought was "Do you have any idea what you're talking about at all?". Weed? "Destroying lives"?

She went on to make claims about addiction that flatly contradicted all extant research and my considerable personal experience (I have pot-smoking friends who head up cybernetics research at major universities, ffs). The most staggering thing to me was that in the course of further discussion it emerged she had not actually *read* the study nor was she aware of how the authors conclusions were not sustained by their results. This kind of pseudo-expert, in reality-completely-fucking-clueless-bloviation from some social workers and doctors who are filtering their observations through a neo-puritan, father-knows-best lens, and despite their credentials are lack the faculty for scientific thinking (people forget general medicine and social work are applied science, not research science), drives me nuts. Especially because, while their credentials give their opinions the imperature of scientific authority, their testimonies are about as reliable as those of religious fundamentalists who claim they've seen countless cases of demonic possession.

Its Dunning-Kruger writ large. If you lack the cognitive faculties to know that your mechanism for parsing what's in front of you is hopelessly flawed, you're walking around mis-translating it for everyone else, with an unwarranted confidence. I keep thinking "people like you do more harm than good".

A dynamic I witnessed with my own eyes as a young man works like this: (1) Anti-drug crusaders come to the school and tell young people, many of whom are not particularly scientifically curious, that weed=crack cocaine. No distinctions are made. (2) Young people inevitably try weed because its ubiquitous and they're momentarily convinced by friends that they won't get "hooked" after one joint. (3) having dipped their toe in the water and realised reefer madness did not consume them, they start thinking "I was lied to". (4) Being on the left side of the Bell-curve and not of an autodidactic predisposition, they reason from that that they've been lied to about other things, like crack and (5) they get hooked on crack. And that is the ONLY way pot is a gateway drug. Its the fault of the very idiots who are trying to fight addiction with sweeping generalizations and often considerable ignorance on their own parts.

This is also why countries like Portugal, Switzerland and the Netherlands, with their vastly more honest, scientific and pragmatic approach, have all seen a drop in hard drug use, while countries like the USA and my own country, South Africa, which follows the USA like a sheep on drug policy, see almost no effect from their anti-drug campaigning. Bullshitting the kids from a position of considerable ignorance does not reduce hard drug use, it sustains it.

[RainDog]

106. I think it's good for both sides of this debate

to do "reality checks" as far as studies, etc. go - first examine your own bias as you look at any work. When I first see such things, I say to myself - maybe they have demonstrated x or y. But, so far, they haven't.

Read the actual study, etc.

I agree with you about the harm such propaganda has done as far as assessing risk, etc. When I was in school long ago I took a course that looked at licit and illicit drugs and discussed all much more dispassionately - without the propaganda.

I think that's a much better way for people to make informed decisions. But when people talk to teenagers, they mostly just want to make them averse to something, not informed about various things, unfortunately. The approach to marijuana is most like "abstinence only" education - don't talk about realities - just put horror stories out there and expect respect - but, as most of us know - that's not what happens in either situation - and the sort of education employed does harm to people, rather than help them take personal responsibility.

I also agree that harm reduction approaches are better for societies. In the U.S., the drug war is a variation on the long, long history of denying African-Americans full citizenship - and controlling African-Americans (often men) through bondage. In the U.S. we saw this with slavery, then with chain gangs in the south for almost another century, and now with arrest and imprisonment stats. The unequal application of the law is yet another way to express racism in this nation.

btw - do you speak Afrikaans? if so, dag! (I don't speak Afrikaans, but studied Dutch in the past and can understand some Afrikaans b/c of the similarities.)

an interesting aside - one of the earliest known writings about the use of cannabis related to the U.S. was from a Dutch slave trader in South Africa who wrote about its use among people who were brought to the U.S. in bondage. It was used in religious ceremonies. Back then, slaves were allowed to continue their religious practices b/c the slave traders had an us/them view. That was in the 1600s, before the U.S. even had the draconian laws that were aimed specifically at one group of people held in slavery in the Americas - but not those held in debt bondage (with lighter skin.) At that time, any person brought to the Americas could purchase freedom.

Strange way of thinking... purchasing freedom.

[FarrenH]

107. I do speak Afrikaans (as a second tongue)

It's the second most widely spoken (second) language after Zulu thanks to it being imposed on Blacks and English-speaking whites under Apartheid in the government and education spheres. A majority of Coloureds in the Western half of the country (the term doesn't have the connotations it does over there - with very few American-inspired political exceptions my Coloured friends self-identify as Coloured) speak it as a home language too. English is also ubiquitous as a second language and is the de facto lingua franca of politics and business. Afrikaans, especially spoken Afrikaans, is very mutually intelligible with Dutch, but there are signficant differences from the Malay, Scots, German, Khoisan, Nguni and other influences on the language. In fact it saw it's genesis in the interaction between Malay slaves and Dutch slaveholders (which also produced the distinct "Cape Coloured" community, of Bantu-Malay-European-Khoisan descent) and, although it's disputed, the oldest Afrikaans book is thought to be an Afrikaans Koran.

I must admit to overwhelming bias where cannabis is concerned because I've been an analyst/developer most of my life and smoked it on and off for a large part of my adulthood. I'm not smoking it right now because it does have effects on motivation and energy levels and I'm working on fairly sophisticated stuff (neural nets for work, ontological processing as a hobby project) but I've always thought of it as a much milder alternative to alcohol and occasionally actually positive for self-medication (sleeplessness, poor appetite and pain). Also just about everyone I grew up with has or does use it recreationally - engineers working on cybernetics, CEOs and directors, programmers and even one particle physicist I used to know. So tenuous claims from studies like these conflict violently with my experience. But the caution to check your biases is always welcome.

[RainDog]

108. interesting info

I know that words hold different meanings across cultures - and I defer to the preferred usage by those who have a vested interest in promoting equality - whatever the preferred terms may be, where ever those persons may be - but, yes, you do have to provide an explanation between cultures a lot of times. The only people I know who live on the African continent are in Tanzania, know others who have worked in Uganda as students and profs, and met a few people who were from or were working in South Africa. I hear it's a stunningly beautiful place. Nelson Mandela belongs to the world - one of those people who have become "world citizens."

I think the work from Robert Melamede, a biologist whose focus has been on endocannabinoids, is really interesting. The last I read, his research group was seeking funding for a study on the effect of cannabis oil as a topical treatment for melanomas. This research is inspired by his own view of the endocannabinoid system as the primary driver of homeostasis in different bodily systems (noted by the presence of endocannabinoids in each of them - omega 3s activate endocannabinoeds, etc., not just cannabis) and from "folk medicine" - people experimenting on their own, such as Rick Simpson, and just various people who tried using cannabis oil on melanomas who then photographed their results and sent them to the Dr. Melamede.

At this point, I think the use of cannabis for treatment of cancers may be one of the most significant understandings of the idea of homeostasis - other studies indicate cannabis acts upon various conditions (alzheimers, as well) to do a "cellular cleaning" by creating apoptosis - cannabis surrounds the mitochondria of these cells that are either over/under performing and deprives the cells of energy - in the case of cancer, this also deprives them of the ability to reproduce.

But, of course, I could be entirely wrong. The point, however, is such research should be allowed without all the b.s. from the drug war, worldwide - but, as you note, promulgated at the behest of the U.S.

Melamede has some talks on youtube regarding his work and his evolving view of cannabis as something like omega 3s that help the body to repair itself. He also speculates that the placebo effect occurs because people activate their own endocannabinoid systems when such occurs in studies.

I've never met anyone in academia who took a drug warrior stance - for cannabis or for other non-habituating psychotropic substances - and I think that's because methods of inquiry ask a person to be open about the value of anything, apart from the societal/cultural value imposed upon them - the reasons for those things are often about exercises of power, not about anyone's well being - and they're about moral panics, etc. Not always done with bad intent, even if outcomes are not good.

Your skill sets are far different than mine - but it takes all kinds to make an interesting world.

My interest in cannabis at this point is more about the potential medical benefits, the way it is used to perpetuate racism in this nation, and, really, just watching as a nation goes through a cultural change - a shift in "consciousness" regarding the validity of law related to one thing or another. But I think there are valid recreational uses too - with all things in moderation - and, with some things, like music - it just heightens sensitivity to wonderful things.

I think the negatives associated with cannabis are exaggerations of pre-existing issues - regarding mental health in general.

[FarrenH]

140. Just a reply to this

because I read it and had nothing further to say. Thanks for the interesting and informative perspective

[bitchkitty]

113. Thank you. n/t

[hollowdweller]

111. I'm not sure

But I'll let you know next year.

[otherone]

112. :-)

Enjoy the holiday!

[Nightjock]

3. You rock MindMover!

You said what I was going to angrily post

[MindMover]

5. We all rock together ... just don't bogart that joint .... nt

[billhicks76]

15. Loving People Every Day Also Causes Brain Changes

Alcohol kills brains and gives you cancer.

[Politicalboi]

6. Yeah, changes like

You don't need to drink beer anymore. Or shrink cancerous brain tumors. I'll take my chances, thanks for playing.

[cheapdate]

7. Calmer, more appreciative of simple joys...yes, definitely brain changes.

[RKP5637]

8. I'll take pot any day over alcohol. n/t

[seabeckind]

9. As an extra bonus...

study participant received a copy of Reefer Madness.

Calling bullsh!t on this one.

Then again, who can quibble about the extensive study size as well as the duration:

"In his study, done in collaboration with researchers at Harvard University, scientists looked at the brains of 20 relatively light marijuana users and 20 people who did not use it at all. All 40 were college students in the Boston area."

Like I said: bullsh!t

Oh, almost forgot: ""Just casual use appears to create changes in the brain in areas you don't want to change,"

"involved with emotion and motivation and some types of mental illness."

Maybe I'd want to change those parts cause it's just as likely the change is a good one.

[SCVDem]

25. That's what I thought

BULLSHIT!!

40 years experience trumps their phony study.

Nicely put seabeckind.

[scarletwoman]

10. I rec'd your OP not because I agree with the study, but because I agree with this:

"If you're getting money from the drug czar's office, that money's not going to continue if you don't end up publishing something that at least supports the general story of the danger of drug abuse," Gerdeman said.

[neffernin]

44. This

Erm... so "We aren't going to keep getting funding unless we give evidence supporting others OPINIONS regardless of whether it tells the complete science or not".

[tridim]

11. It changes culture too PTB... Booga booga!

You are all welcome to keep your brain matter pure and clean, and as close minded as you want, just don't tell me what to do, m'kay?

[mountain grammy]

12. Been a regular smoker for nearly 40 years..

lots of brain changes here, but doing fine, thanks. Like someone else said, I'll take my chances.

[mountain grammy]

67. Actually, no. I quit several times for years because of kids, jobs, schedules, etc.

I worked with people who came to work still reeking of alcohol from the night before, or who popped "legal heroin" on a daily basis. Now we're talking addictions.
Quitting cigarettes was enormously stressful, it's a very addictive product, fully legal.

But stopping pot, never really a problem. Of course, I missed it, but I didn't need rehab like many who take alcohol or prescription narcotics and wasn't nearly as stressed out as I was when quitting tobacco.

[mountain grammy]

69. Figured you were, but us old lawbreakers get pretty defensive.

[wilt the stilt]

81. not addictive is rght

I smoked tons of weed for 18 years. From 1970 to 1988. I haven't smoked much since. maybe 5 times. That being said my brain is as sharp as a tack. My memory is legendary within my company. i don't forget anything.I was the kid who memorized every sport fact. I am aslo incredibly motivated. maybe I'm a freak but I had no long term damage.

[kestrel91316]

13. Well then, there you have it: pot is FAAAAR worse than alcohol.

[demigoddess]

14. did it say anything about the brain changes from

major league football?
high school football?
college football?
being beaten up in school?
taking ADHD drugs at a young age?
domestic violence?
prescription drugs?
all those chemicals that you find in our foods, like nitrite and sulfites?
GMO foods?

[FarrenH]

16. This reeks of bullshit and Gereman's comments are extremely apposite

Sanjay Gupta's 180 degree turn on cannabis came from attending a few seminars in Europe and reading some of the very positive research being done there. And he said exactly what Gregory Gerdeman said. The US federal government has been relentlessly throwing money at research to find something - anything - that would give the veneer of medical authority to senseless policy for decades. The default response to announcements like these should be extreme skepticism.

"Changes"? How does one go from there to "harm"? The amygdala is associated with emotional reactions and memory. Color me surprised. Ordinary learning causes physical changes. Is this long term? Doubt it. I'll put money on "changes" meaning the same thing it means when you say "being in a scary situation causes changes in the amygdala". I've got an IQ above 140. The smartest people I've known have all smoked pot. Carl freaking Sagan smoked it routinely, while heading up most of NASA's deep space probe projects in the seventies.

I cannot account for why people who presumably are fully apprised of the history and innocuous nature of the substance would so relentlessly try to suppress it decade after decade. Is it really a failure to realize that strongly held misconceptions over long periods don't signal hidden truth? The same "Father knows best" mentality that has seen the USA creep to the right in recent decades? The US government seems so committed to doing the science until it yields the truth they want, in the face of decades of absent evidence and overwhelming evidence of the counterproductive effects of US drug policy, that the idea that it comes down to economic interests - of the police, of the prison system, of the pharmaceutical industry - seems compelling

[tofuandbeer]

18. +1x1000

[freebrew]

59. LaGuardia's team found the Fed's were lying when he was Gov.

Don't remember the year, long ago, before me. His team's info was suppressed as it didn't meet the Fed's standard, meaning it proved what we all now know: cannabis isn't the evil weed we were told it was.

More corruption/disinformation from the authorities. Who would've guessed?

Oh yeah, follow the money.

[RainDog]

109. here's a link about that situation

and others, with a link to the full LaGuardia report.

He and others have demonstrated the U.S. has engaged in an 80-plus year propaganda campaign aimed at American citizens.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/RainDog/43

[WovenGems]

17. "areas you don't want change"

The lie is proven by the fact no details are given. Here is how THC works. At the base of each neuron are pits and nodes. If a cell nearby is overacting then a cell sends out Endocannabinal which is picked up by the pits. THC matches this chemical so closely that we named the brain chemical after THC. This discovery answered a question I had from way back yonder. "Why does a spider crawling on me kill my buzz?". The reason is that Adrenalin causes all neurons to reset.

[jtuck004]

19. Unless it's that cheap $10/oz crap we used to buy across the border. Then maybe not.

Oh, and "

"Just casual use appears to create changes in the brain in areas you don't want to change,""

You don't know that I don't want them changed.

[Steerpike]

20. Obviously the solution

Is to smoke weed as much as possible.

I call bullshit on this post....

[WheelWalker]

24. Indeed.

[90-percent]

21. More from our MSM of misinformation and propaganda

Just more agenda driven corporate propaganda. In this case to muddy up the waters on a fairly well understood issue. And it plants the false notion for many that don't read the article that the down side of pot jury is still out. If that's true, this bogus article offers nothing more than a "scientific study" outcome that was specified in advance.

It's how so many of our self perpetuating parasitic Institutions operate. Imbecilic middle ages ignorant drug laws pay a lot of executive salaries in the for profit prison industry, and in all levels of law enforcement.

-90% Jimmy

[emsimon33]

45. Dead on! The tabacco industry, also.

[tabasco]

22. How much did the booze industry pay for this shite study?

[obxhead]

31. DEA

Booze has a strong foothold.

This is about $$$ that is "off" the books and far more valuable.

[WheelWalker]

23. Well, duh.... that's why one does it. No shit Sherlock.

And it took a brain surgeon to figure this out, lol?

[hedgehog]

60. Oddly enough, lots of people would insist that marijuana is harmless,

therefore there couldn't be any brain changes involved! The questions to be resolved are what kind of brain damage, how permanent, what's the dose relationship and what's the effect of age. I'm especially leary of the possible connection to schizophrenia.It's possible that this is a matter of activating a pre-existing tendency and/or activating it earlier than otherwise. This is an area that needs careful study.

That said - alcohol is clearly harmful to developing brains. (BTW - we know about fetal alcohol syndrome - fetal MJ syndrome?)

That said - drinking gasoline is harmful to the brain, but there is no law against it. We need to find out any and all consequences involved with smoking marijuana, and be honest about the results. After that, it's better to allow individuals the freedom to harm themselves than to distort our society with laws against something so many people use.

[RainDog]

78. here's what the research says about itself

http://jn.sfn.org/press/April-16-2014-Issue/zns01614005529.pdf

This preliminary study has several caveats. First, the sample size does not provide power to examine complex interactions such as sex differences. Because this is a cross-sectional study, causation cannot be determined...

In addition, the use of alcohol at an early age was not factored in, tho all the participants who were among the 20 participants who had used marijuana in the study also used more alcohol than those who did not use marijuana in the study - therefore the researchers stated that alcohol was considered a covariant for the study.

There were no brain scans of the marijuana users to indicate if they already had larger areas of the brain prior to marijuana use, as well. The study also does not indicate what, if anything, larger areas of this part of the brain may indicate - whether this is good or bad - tho we know in the case of alzheimers, this is good because the marijuana helps regrow brain cells.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021840545

If the study wants to imply something about addiction, the researchers should also do a study with coffee drinkers, since marijuana and coffee are considered equally addictive as substances - rather than any other, more harmful drug, to establish some baseline in this regard, as well.

The leading pharmacologist in the UK said, in 2010:

Roger Pertwee, professor of neuropharmacology at Aberdeen University, will on Tuesday tell the British Science Festival in Birmingham that making cannabis available from licensed outlets would reduce drug-related crime and cut the risk of users moving on to more dangerous drugs.

“At the moment cannabis is in the hands of criminals,” he will say. “We are allowed to drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes. Cannabis, if it is handled properly, is not going to be more dangerous.”

Although research has shown cannabis may increase the risk of developing schizophrenia in particularly vulnerable individuals, this danger does not apply to the general population, he will say. The risk could be reduced by setting a minimum age of 21 for consuming cannabis or requiring individuals to obtain a licence to buy it.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/RainDog/23

studies from Harvard published late last year: http://www.democraticunderground.com/11701551

and a meta analysis of marijuana studies have indicated that marijuana was only a risk for schizophrenia for those with existing family histories, and, therefore, existing predisposition for schizo-affective disorder:

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

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.

"An important limitation of many studies is that they have failed to distinguish the direction of association between cannabis use and psychosis," the authors write in the latest edition of the journal Schizophrenia Research.

On the other hand, the AMA has recommended that cannabis be removed as a schedule I substance so that more research can occur, again, based upon physicians' views of existing research and patient reports. But they have to couch their words so that they don't offend the DEA, etc., as you see in this link: http://www.amednews.com/article/20091123/profession/311239968/7/

All that said - of course any substance which activates existing endocannabinoids will have a temporary, at least, impact on the brain. We know, for instance, that marijuana works as an anti-convulsant for epilepsy and anti-inflammatory for MS and Parkinson's disease - and the area of inflammation includes the amygdala. Cannabis appears to be very good for the aging brain - it appears to slow aging: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021840545

Here's how it helps those with alzheimers: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4416665

Because of its illegal status, cannabis is least available to those who may benefit the most from its medical uses.

But, AGAIN, all that said - cannabis should not be legal for teenagers, just as alcohol is not. Legalizing and regulating will help to keep it out of the hands of teenagers - who can purchase mj much easier than alcohol simply b/c it's illegal and illegal dealers don't care about checking i.d.s.

On the other hand, a longitudinal study of women in Jamaica who consume cannabis as part of their folk medicine found it had no impact on children of those mothers.

here's a link to her published research: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8121737

This research provides data on the development of 59 Jamaican children, from birth to age 5 years, whose mothers used marijuana during pregnancy. Approximately one-half of the sample used marijuana during pregnancy and were matched with non-users according to age, parity, and socioeconomic status. Testing of the children was done at 1, 3, and 30 days of age with the Brazelton Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scales and at ages 4 and 5 years with the McCarthy Scales of Children's Abilities. Data about the child's home environment and temperament were collected from direct observations as well as from standardized questionnaires. The results show no significant differences in developmental testing outcomes between children of marijuana-using and non-using mothers except at 30 days of age when the babies of users had more favourable scores on two clusters of the Brazelton Scales: autonomic stability and reflexes. The developmental scores at ages 4 and 5 years were significantly correlated to certain aspects of the home environment and to regularity of basic school (preschool) attendance.

And here's a video of her discussing her work: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3135343

[WheelWalker]

85. All change is not harmful. All permanent change is not 'damage'.

It really quite depends on what is valued.

[YOHABLO]

26. So this study is going to tell people who've been smoking pot since the 60s

there will be brain ''changes''? Go study something we don't know about dudes.

[JEFF9K]

27. Liberals should be open-minded about this subject. ...

... some don't seem to be.

[tabasco]

34. Well, thanks for chming in, Mr. Helper ...

for telling us liberals how we need to be.

I'll get right on that....

[JEFF9K]

56. Sounds like you are one who is not.

[JackInGreen]

47. I'm plenty open minded

I just happen to think that the data is poorly collected and the desired discovery established WELL BEFORE the study was engaged, that's all. What would you encourage in this case, the open acceptance of poor research?

[JEFF9K]

57. Openly accepting "poor research" isn't being open-minded ...

Some people at this site will accept no negative information about marijuana. They are as closed-minded to evidence as conservatives.

[JackInGreen]

58. What I'm saying is

that this isn't evidence, it's a narrow band study that's funded by law enforcement. I would really like to be open minded about it, but I'm not trusting a fox to give me a report on the health of the hens.

[BigDemVoter]

28. Effect only on "developing brains"?

Hmmm I guess I'm pretty safe then. . . My brain has been fully developed for years. . . .

[Billy Budd]

29. smile don't worry be happy...

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, unless your own reason and your own common sense agree."
Gautama Buddha

[WheelWalker]

32. +1

[obxhead]

30. Follow the money,

it will generally say what it wants said.

[Scootaloo]

33. Isn't that the entire point of the stuff?

People don't get high to feel sober, you know

[otherone]

50. reporting what we already know

you can change your head..

[icarusxat]

35. don't let nothing happen to you...

My little brother started smoking pot in 7th grade
He is dead
nothing is what he accomplished in his life
any questions?

[They_Live]

37. I am very sorry for your loss.

And your post does pose quite a few questions actually, like how does it relate exactly to discussion at hand?

[icarusxat]

95. Brain development was stifled in his then 7th grade brain...

Last edited Thu Apr 17, 2014, 11:28 PM - Edit history (1)

btw, thank you for the condolences, he was a loving person and I always tried to make him feel that way as well.

[tridim]

53. Blame the pot. Always!!!!111

It's called Reefer Madness.

No, your brother didn't die from Cannabis. Nobody has. Ever.

[icarusxat]

96. True

It was not the pot that killed him. The pot killed his motivation to achieve. And, nothing ever happened to him.

[JEFF9K]

65. I had a similar experience with 2 close relatives ...

... there are lots of better ways to have fun than smoking pot.

[icarusxat]

97. Recent brain research

show links to the ability for the frontal lobe to reason being tied to the pleasure/pain, fight or flight regions of the brain as it develops. The reasoning centers aren't fully developed until 20-25 years of age. The interests one shows in middle school can be the beginning of a lifetime of achievement, joy, and financial success. Stunting those interests through the use of cannabis helped to create a life of living in the basement, eating junk food, and sleeping a lot. (It also created the illusion that he was good at playing music).

[RainDog]

120. Do you have links to this research?

And how that connects to any study related to marijuana?

[Starboard Tack]

118. That may be true, but is it a reason to criminalize it's use?

[RainDog]

121. people say...

I always find such propaganda tactics annoying when they're used by Fox News. I don't give someone who claims to be a liberal any more leeway when employing such tactics.

[icarusxat]

124. The article cited here actually was peer reviewed.

The most recent book I have been reading is called Focus: The Hidden Driver of Excellence which has the references you might be craving.

[RainDog]

126. I don't crave references

I expect them when anyone makes a claim about one thing or another. That's how people talk about such subjects - with the primary source documents available to check the validity of any claim.

It's called the scientific method.

[icarusxat]

128. "That's how people talk about such subjects..."

Didn't realize everything posted on a discussion board was supposed to be in
APA format...

[RainDog]

131. well

since you've tried and failed twice to deflect the issue with snark - the point is that, with the long history of lies about marijuana - I don't take anyone at their word about this or that until I can read about it for myself.

This is, in fact, "DU style."

If someone makes a claim, they can expect others will ask for the source. It happens here all the time - so the standard when someone makes a claim is to provide a source.

considering some of your statements here that intentionally misled - it only makes sense to ask you to support your claims.

have a great day.

[icarusxat]

134. Not quite certain how I have been misleading anyone...

It seems from your earlier posts that we are actually in agreement on keeping pot away from minors and keeping and eye on what the research says. Sorry for coming off snarky, spent too much time of late with APA...

[RainDog]

119. how did your brother die?

my condolences for your loss.

The way you describe him, he sounds like he was depressed. He may have been self medicating. Did he ever see a professional about his behaviors to indicate if he had a mental illness?

[icarusxat]

123. He died in a hospital after going in for a minor leg injury

They didn't realize the extent of his alcohol dependence and he went into a coma. His liver failed and he went into a coma because they failed to provide an alcohol drip. His self medicating led to a 50 point drop in his IQ...

[RainDog]

125. I'm so sorry to hear.

He was an alcoholic.

Yes, alcohol withdrawal can kill people. It's really dangerous for those who are vulnerable to alcoholism.

Many people within the addictions treatment field think alcoholism is a secondary illness and self medicating is part of this. When people go through withdrawal from alcohol and begin addiction treatment programs, often other mental illnesses are discovered.

Self medicating is common for those with mental illness, especially in this society, when many view any such behavior as a moral issue rather than a medical one.

Again, condolences.

How old was he when he died?

[icarusxat]

129. 52 is a little young in this day and age.

He went from a promising 160 IQ preteen to a barely coherent adult. So whenever I read about brain changes brought on by any drug I sit up and pay attention. I am also educated enough to know the difference between folk lore, propaganda, wishful thinking and a serious study even if it disagrees with what I have always thought. Like you, I come here to learn and not to preach, to share (as you obviously do, thanks again for the condolences) and, with any luck, find ways to help make a difference in finding positive change.

[RainDog]

130. I agree

I have sons. Neither of them uses marijuana - as far as I know - one doesn't drink or anything else - the other is engaged and isn't out doing stupid things. So I'm grateful they made it through their teens years okay.

Here's the thing with mj, from my perspective.

No 12 year old should use mj - unless it's for medical reasons - and there are valid ones, like epilepsy, adjunct to cancer treatment, etc. But I don't think 12 y/os need to use any substance, and if my sons had - they would've gotten medical treatment if needed to help them get through their teens years w/o using any substance.

I think there's some good research that makes limiting any such substances to adults - for development for some who are at risk of certain mental conditions in any case (mainly schizophrenia - mj may impact age of onset) - and just b/c, in general, teenagers can wait to be adults to do adult things.

It's easier for teenagers to get mj than alcohol - it's sold in schools. If it were taxed and regulated like alcohol for recreational use - attention could go toward keeping substances out of schools and helping those young people who need it, if they do, to make other choices at that point in life.

fwiw - avg IQ is below 110 - which would've been your brother's, from what you said. People with high IQs often have mental illness too - bipolar disorder is a common one b/c mania gives them the energy to do - and the risk taking feeling, etc. Nature sometimes gives and takes in the same measure for the same thing.

your brother would've had to have an IQ far lower than the national avg. to be barely coherent - so, again, it sounds like something else might've been going on as well. But I don't know. Your explanation would lead me to certain questions about any 12 year old. (for instance, kids who drink when very young are often dealing with abuse - they self medicate to deal with what they can't deal with.) But, people who are just curious can sometimes make bad choices, too.

I question when people make statements like yours because they're part of the history of propaganda that, imo, has been very bad for everyone.

Things that are not appropriate for a 12 year old, however, may be entirely appropriate for an adult. I don't think stories about kids who had bad experiences are any reason to prohibit adults from making choices for themselves - this, in fact, is the very definition of adulthood - taking responsibility for your own life.

I'm sorry your brother had so many difficulties.

[icarusxat]

135. Totally agree with what you say here...

As any good researcher would say, "there is need for further research..."
Qualitative, Quantitative, and mixed methods are crucial for better understanding everything that is going on. Not part of the propaganda train. And, I will avoid any postings that could be taken as "snarky" in the future.

[RainDog]

136. There's more research available on cannabis than many FDA-approved drugs

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/fda-drug-approvals-based-on-varied-data-study-finds/2014/01/21/b12d0712-82be-11e3-8099-9181471f7aaf_story.html

The Food and Drug Administration must bless any new drugs as “safe and effective” before they wind up in pharmacy aisles or prescribed to patients. But the ways in which the agency arrives at those approvals “vary widely in their thoroughness,” according to an analysis by researchers at Yale University’s School of Medicine.

“Not all FDA approvals are created equally,” said Nicholas Downing, lead author of the study, which examined nearly 200 new drug approvals between 2005 and 2012.

Researchers found broad differences in the data it took to get a thumbs up from FDA. For instance, the agency required that many new drugs prove themselves in large, high-quality clinical trials. But about a third won approval on the basis of a single clinical trial, and many other trials involved small groups of patients and shorter durations. Only about 40 percent of approvals included trials in which the new drug was compared with existing drugs on the market.

For cannabis?

20,000 published studies or reviews in the scientific literature referencing the cannabis plant and its cannabinoids, nearly half of which were published within the last five years, according to a keyword search on PubMed Central, the government repository for peer-reviewed scientific research.

Of these, more than 100 are controlled clinical trials assessing the therapeutic efficacy of cannabinoids for a variety of indications.

A 2006 review of 72 of these trials, conducted between the years 1975 and 2004, identifies ten distinct pathologies for which controlled studies on cannabinoids have been published

In fact, a 2008 meta-analysis published in the Journal of the Canadian Medical Association reported that cannabis-based drugs were associated with virtually no elevated incidences of serious adverse side-effects in over 30 years of investigative use.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/24615512-452/pot-holds-no-medical-mysteries.html#.U1nRFK1dXQU

At least 10 nations have made cannabis medicine legal for certain conditions (not a synthetic - whole cannabis plant medicine in the form of Sativex). This has been reality since 2010.

Cannabis has been used by humans for religious, health and recreational purposes for more than 5000 years. It was available to humans long before alcohol - it doesn't require processing, such as fermentation, and the history of humans indicates that cannabis spread throughout the world via the migration of humans - not by nature.

It, not alcohol, remains part of the pharmcopeia - yet alcohol is legal while cannabis is not.

This is nothing more than corruption on the part of lawmakers, and part of the history of the Republican Party's attacks on liberal voters - from its inception, through Nixon targeting "Jews, psychiatrists and hippies" by disregarding the opinion of Nixon's appointed judge to recommend policy on the subject - and the judge recommended decriminalization, fwiw, to the current prison industrial complex with sentencing law and LEO policy meant to target minorities.

There's nothing more to discuss about whether or not cannabis should be legal. It should be.

The issue now is how to get rid of any politician who does not recognize this reality.

btw, your statement that more studies are necessary is also one of the tools used by opponents to legalization when they can't argue on the merits of how bad cannabis is because "think of the children" or "it rots the brain" or any of the other arguments put forth.

[icarusxat]

137. More studies is not what I said...

Further research. This is the hallmark of good research. Knowing that we don't know every facet on a given subject, as opposed to case closed, go home nothing left to discuss...

The benefits you point out are obvious to anyone not irrevocably committed to spouting dogma provided by their handlers. As you point out so well, the knowledge of how much better life can be has been around for a long time. If aspirin were introduced today it would be banned because it might interfere with big pharma profit margins despite its safety record, health benefits, yada yada...

Further research adds to the knowledge of the benefits and dangers involved in everything we as humans are trying to understand. The more we know, the less power fools have over those who are willing to learn and grow...

[RainDog]

138. pardon. I agree. I want to see more research

in order for that to happen, the legislature needs to change bad law.

mj should be regulated recreationally through the ATF (this is the model DC has taken for medical, not recreational, in fact.)

medical use should not be taxed (this distinction is what CO is doing now.)

any tax has to stay low enough to make illegal sales not worth the effort. home cultivation should be allowed.

adults who supply teens with recreational cannabis should be subject to the same laws as those providing alcohol to minors.

And true, Lester Grinspoon, a psy/prof who had a son with leukemia, wrote long ago that mj would never be FDA-approved b/c of the way drugs are understood (isolated components, not whole plants) and noted no one would be motivated to do clinical trials for aspirin any longer b/c the cost is so great to bring anything on to the market for something you cannot copyright.

This is why Sativex has had Republican lobbyists claiming that their product isn't cannabis - even tho it is. Well, that and the reality that former Drug Czar officials under Bush, etc. are now lobbying to legalize something they previously abhorred - the pay must be good either way.

[Iggo]

36. The war's over, man.

Why you still fightin'?

[DeSwiss]

38. ....

[Jackpine Radical]

39. Daily meditation causes brain changes too.

Best outlaw it.

[tridim]

54. Life causes brain damage.

Unfortunately the obvious cure, mass suicide, also causes brain damage.

Ban life... ban everything, for the kids.

[LW1977]

40. Gonna toke up tonight after reading this..

Bite me anti-pot liars!

[byronius]

41. I remember all the Reader's Digest articles citing a constant stream of studies showing all sorts of

harm.

Later I found out they were all grad students repackaging Wolfe's original study, the one where they put a colony of baboons in a plastic cage and pumped the equivalent of 800 per day into the enclosure. 'Amotivational Syndrome' was one of those carefully-observed behavioral changes. Hmmm. Plastic cage. Couldn't be the sealed plastic cage and the low-oxygen environment.

I do think vaporization or edibles that remove the warm particles from the equation is a good thing. And moderation is probably a good idea, as it is with all mind-altering substances, including chocolate.

But pardon me if I take such research with a grain of salt. Fool me once -- can't get fooled again, I've heard. Somewhere.

[cheapdate]

42. Smoke weed and worship Satan. All hail the Dark Lord.

[workinclasszero]

43. Anti pot story brought to you by alcohol companies, bars and other legal death dealers

Using marijuana a few times a week is enough to physically alter critical brain structures, according to a new study published Tuesday in The Journal of Neuroscience.

"Just casual use appears to create changes in the brain in areas you don't want to change,"

Well thank God we still got alcohol and cigarettes to fall back on.

Oh wait..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/drunken-driving-statistics/2013/12/30/1259bcb2-6ca1-11e3-aecc-85cb037b7236_story.html

Drunk driving deaths

2011: 9,865

2012: 10,322

Increase: 4.6 percent

(Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration


Number of drivers who say they may have been over the .08 legal limit in the past year: one in five

(Source: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety)


Number of people killed in drunk driving crashes in New Year’s 2013: 140

Number expected to be killed this New Year’s: 156

(Sources: Mothers Against Drunk Driving & National Safety Council)


http://www.ncadd.org/index.php/in-the-news/155-25-million-alcohol-related-deaths-worldwide-annually

2.5 Million Alcohol-Related Deaths Worldwide- Annually

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/alcohol-causes-20000-cancer-deaths-in-the-us-annually/

Alcohol causes 20,000 cancer deaths in the U.S. annually


http://www.cancer.org/aboutus/globalhealth/globaltobaccocontrol/the-global-tobacco-epidemic

Did you know that, around the world...?

One billion people smoke cigarettes.

Half of cigarette users will die because they smoke.

Six million people die every year because of tobacco. This figure includes five million smokers, but also about 600,000 non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke.

Meanwhile NO ONE EVER DIED FROM SMOKING POT! It is also a miracle cure for some diseases and a major help in others that keeps people from becoming pill junkies on dangerous legal narcotics. So lets review...Big Pharmacy, Big Tobacco, Big Booze are all against pot plus the prison industry who wants to fill beds and of course police who want to lock up poor minority kids for the most part. I mean hell its way easier busting peaceful harmless kids for pot than going after real dangerous criminals eh?

[judesedit]

62. Don't forget the petroleum,cotton and logging industries.They made sure it became illegal in the 1st

place.

[workinclasszero]

91. Thanks for the info

Nobody "owns" pot so of course the huge companies in control of this country want to keep it illegal so they can keep selling us their inferior products that kill and maim us or aren't as good as cannabis derived products.

[Fozzledick]

46. DEA funding linked to reefer madness propaganda

Large scale epidemiological study of long term daily cannabis users finds "no observable effect on human health".

[DesertDiamond]

48. I'm sure it's possible that this is true. But it seems minor compared to the side effects of...

every man-made pharmaceutical out there.

I personally don't enjoy smoking marijuana and I will never again have a boyfriend who smokes it -- I hit my limit on that during a relationship with a guy who had been using marijuana as a daily coping mechanism since he was 14 years old, and had the maturity of a 14-year-old at 39. In that same vein, I really would like my nephew to quit smoking it; he's 41 now and he's never not stoned. It can be a crutch for some people.

BUT. I still maintain it is better than anything else that they would take instead.

[DiverDave]

49. Another horse shit study

Yeah, give us more money because, well, greed.
Who cares if we set back study? it only helps out the rabble, not our masters.

[seabeckind]

51. Saw this "study" mentioned on the snooze

I guess it's making the rounds...trying give some credibility to the anti-legalization position. I'm not sure that all the anti's are opposed for financial reasons. I think that there are many who fell for that reefer madness bullsh!t and have their position for ideological reasons.

And they're usually wingnuts. Some PRIC is using this as a wedge issue once again. Get the fox viewers all worked up so they'll vote. SOP

Then there's the study itself. Anybody who takes a look at it recognises right off that it's bogus. No where near scientific, doesn't appear to be peer reviewed, etc. But the target will never question it.

But it does satisfy one very important factor. It's a link. You know how all the time some smartass librul is saying "You got a link for that?", well, here it is. That means that any argument you might be doing shifts from the argument about the issue to an argumnet about the veracity of the study...oops, what were we talking about? SOP

Parallel? NIPCC. Trying to pretend to be real scientists.

Evil f'ers.

[seabeckind]

52. Oh, in case you haven't seen them...

NIPCC:

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to present a comprehensive, authoritative, and realistic assessment of the science and economics of global warming. Because it is not a government agency, and because its members are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, NIPCC is able to offer an independent “second opinion” of the evidence reviewed – or not reviewed – by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on the issue of global warming.

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/about-nipcc/

[rickyhall]

55. Voting Republican for 40 years

Causes people to ignore reality, too.

[judesedit]

61. That's bs. Pot smokers miss less work, are more productive & get more promotions according to other

researchers. Stop lying to the people. If you want to warn people of something, warn them of the dangers contributed to alcohol consumption. Missed work, crying the blues, vomiting, endangering other drivers, fighting, falling, hangovers, cirrhosis of the liver, just all-around obnoxiousness on occasion. Please. Pot is way safer if ya gotta take a break and let your hair down. AND....it has many medicinal uses which have been proven. Hemp makes better fuel, fabric, paper, and many other durable products that are stronger, last longer, are cleaner for the environment.

[Shivering Jemmy]

63. any mind altering drug will change your brain

and likely for a good long time.

My brain functions exactly how I want it to. Marijuana is a waste of time for me.

[tazkcmo]

76. I hear

I hear that education has the same effect on the ignorant. Shocking stuff in this study!

[jberryhill]

77. Is a shirt and tie good enough, or do I need a jacket too?

Fine. I will not use marijuana casually.

Would renting a tux help?

[CrispyQ]

79. Well then, I'm glad I don't use it casually.

[GliderGuider]

80. I've heard it causes open-mindedness.

It's no wonder the RW wants to keep it illegal.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

83. I'm surprised that a mainstream outlet actually published Gerdeman's point,

about where the research $$$$ comes from.

[leftyladyfrommo]

84. Bummer, man.

Maybe the changes are a good thing and change your brain in a good way. There are lots of people who could stand a good brain change.

[RainDog]

86. This study is questioned by a major science pub editor

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11701928

[wildbilln864]

87. consuming cannabis makes you smarter! n/t

[Iggo]

93. ...and nicer. (n/t)

[wordpix]

90. and therefore the US gov should not provide cannabidiol to cancer patients

and others. F*ck this shit. The US gov has held a cannibidiol (CBD) patent since 2003, and docs still can't prescribe it to patients except in rare cases/states like CO. CBD has been proven effective in child epilepsy (see Weed Parts 1 and 2, CNN, with Sanjay Gupta) and is promising for cancer patients (as per animal studies showing antitutor and antimetastasis properties). Yet we still can't get it.

F*ck this government, Big Pharma and Big Tobacco who apparently don't want this drug on the market.

Pardon my language, but I'm a cancer patient and would prefer CBD to the current toxic chemo I'm getting. But I can't get it in my state.

[jmowreader]

92. The name of the college kind of intrigued me...

Yes, it's named after Jack Eckerd, the Drugstore King.

Strange thing: the college whose existence was perpetuated by the founder of the oldest pharmacy chain in existence...has no pharmacy program.

[killbotfactory]

98. this isn't a very compelling study

Especially considering how much media attention it's getting.

Hmm....

[icarusxat]

99. Got the discussion going though...

Please don't misinterpret any of my earlier posts as being anti pot, anti cannabis, or anti people. The legal use and production of hemp are a good thing for all of the above noted reasons. There are no laws (other than suicide laws) against drinking turpentine or gasoline. There are laws against knowingly selling those two liquids as beverages to the unsuspecting. Although this study used a quantitative approach (measuring brain size in ways that are new) and my anecdotal qualitative story needs more research, dismissing research because you have a different opinion is the way of climate change deniers and WMD supporters, not the standard I would expect from those willing to discuss how this research might be used to make peoples' lives better.

[RainDog]

100. but this research itself notes it doesn't demonstrate causation

and, as I noted above, a science editor called out media coverage on the issue as bullshit - media is lying about this study to the American people.

The reason people are so skeptical, as well, is because the NIDA refuses to publish studies that show benefits - so any study approved by them will be skewed before it is even done, based upon the parameters the NIDA sets for funding - which other researchers have discussed to say the NIDA is nothing but a propaganda arm of the DEA.

That's scientists talking about this - they most definitely are not deniers of science. They are, however, noting the bias that exists in order to maintain the current status of cannabis within research.

They have a really bad track record, as well, for getting people to do bogus studies - such as Reagan's old brain damage research - a claim he made based upon research that falsified its actual parameters - but it was touted all over the news until it became yet another media lie. The actual research was not released until lawsuits were filed. No reputable researcher would try to hide a study - and certainly not one that had that much impact upon American political life.

Technology now exists that allows people to look at such situations - so, without a complicit media, you wouldn't see such lies.

This study is more propaganda - and we'll continue to see this as the prohibitionists grow desperate to find ways to maintain bad law - b/c they are that dishonest and untrustworthy.

[MindMover]

101. and AMEN ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024830705

[RainDog]

122. In other words

you were lying, above.

You have no research to back up anything you are saying.

Which, in fact, puts you in the camp of the science deniers, creationists and abstinence-only idiots who pretend they're talking about science when, in truth, they're lying.

I would never use a relative of mine for the purpose of propaganda - but different people have different ethical standards.

[4bucksagallon]

102. I know quite a few Ted Nugent types I used to work with.,,,,

that should thank their lucky stars for the changes pot caused in my behavior after my return home from Nam.

[arely staircase]

104. which is why I put on a tux to get high

only formal toking in my house.

[zonkers]

110. Its called the "I need Cheetos now" effect.

[sendero]

114. "brain changes"..

..... which, as of this time, have a 50/50 chance of being for the better.

[greymattermom]

115. as a neuroscientist for over 40 years, I can tell you this

everything you do on a regular basis causes brain changes.

[sendero]

116. +10000

.... the human organism is fascinatingly complex.

[WheelWalker]

117. ^^^ This

[Live and Learn]

139. +1000 nt

[MindMover]

127. This is just blatant misinformation/exaggeration and is what the prohibitionists want ...

more stupid bullshit ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024830705

""

[ChairmanAgnostic]

132. Bull. Shit.

The "study" that this pseudo article is based on has been torn apart by real science.

Do you know what their sample size was? Hand picked, no less? 20.

Plus they deliberately mangled unweighted findings just to get the result they wanted. To top it off, they argued that correlation was identical to causation.

Pity USA has no intelligent editors on staff.

[RainDog]

133. This sort of reporting is intentional

It's propaganda.

It was effective in the past b/c the internet didn't exist. Now people can immediately read the studies referenced and note that the research scientists themselves, involved in the work, noted correlation is not causation.

The American people have breached the wall of propaganda regarding this issue and immediately hundreds of outlets online call bullshit when they see it.

Here's what the drug warriors need to do: