Smoke weed, turn into a pothead? Not so fast.

[bemildred]

Los Angeles Times Opinion LA blogger Paul Whitefield argues that a just-released study reporting differences in the brain scans of marijuana consumers versus non-users may just validate the stereotype that those who ingest the substance become "potheads."

However, a careful review of the study finds nothing of the sort.

What did the study find? Using high-resolution MRI imaging, scientists identified specific changes in aspects of brain morphometry (specifically gray matter density, volume and shape) that was correlated with marijuana exposure of more than 10 joints per week. (Because researchers performed only a single MRI session, they could not say definitively whether these changes were, in fact, caused by cannabis or whether they existed before subjects' use of the plant — a key point that the study's lead author recently felt the need to publicly reaffirm in light of numerous media reports that erroneously claimed otherwise.) Notably, however, these changes did not appear to be associated with any overt adverse effects in cognition or behavior.

or instance, both the cases (20 marijuana users) and controls (20 non-users) were recruited from local universities, undermining the notion that the alleged potheads were any more academically challenged than their non-using peers. Further, as summarized by HealthDay: "Psychiatric interviews revealed that the pot smokers did not meet criteria for drug dependence. For example, marijuana use did not interfere with their studies, work or other activities, and they had not needed to increase the amount they used to get the same high."

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-marijuana-study-potheads-blowback-20140418,0,3261687.story

[roody]

1. Pothead here for over 30 years.

There is NO WAY I could smoke 10 joints per week! Not even 7.

[bemildred]

2. Well, but what if you iike your new brain?

That's what I want to know? Did they think of that?

[roody]

3. Doesn't seem like they did. eom

[bemildred]

4. Yep. Know-it-alls, one trick ponies. You have to be this way or it's wrong somehow.

Conformists. We knew what to do with them back in the day.

[AAO]

7. I love my new brain - I just have trouble finding it sometime.

[BlueStreak]

5. A person has to be pretty high to deny the impact.

There certainly can be a debate about how long-lasting the effects are. And there can be a scientific research about how much permanent damage is done. And the strength of addiction is certainly a valid question.

But to deny that there are no impacts seems really silly to me. I can choose to continue to drink even though I know the many adverse health effects. I don't deny those effects.

I'm in favor of people having the freedom to get high as long as they don't endanger anybody else in the process. But really, I don't need an MRI to know that a person smoking 10 joints every week has some brain impairment.

[AAO]

8. I've been a pothead for 42 years. Couldn't be in better health.

[RainDog]

9. And yet - actual research indicates you are wrong

But your incorrect assumption is entirely understandable because you live in a world that has been exposed to propaganda regarding marijuana for more than 80 years. The brain impairment you have is the result of culture, not anything you physically imbibed, because you make assumptions based upon lies meant to lead you to think such an idea. Maybe a culture of lies leads to brain impairment - or thought impairment.

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.

Even those doing this research were surprised at their findings because they, too, have breathed in the propaganda that our govt. has produced for decades.... in fact, our taxpayer dollars fund a bureaucracy whose purpose is to lie to us about scientific evidence and promote junk science as evidence.

...if you want to know something that demonstrates impaired functioning of a body (politic) - it's the reality that every president who has served this nation since FDR has had to sign on to promoting these lies - or else be sent packing (hello, Carter.)

"This finding enables us to see a marginal level of safety, if those studies prove that cannabis can be effective," Grant tells WebMD. "If we barely find this effect in long-term heavy users, then we are unlikely to see deleterious side effects in individuals who receive cannabis for a short time in a medical setting, which would be safer than what is practiced by street users."

Here's the actual study - http://www.cmcr.ucsd.edu/images/pdfs/Grant_2003.pdf

All that said - 11 joints seems like heavy use, to me, not light or moderate.

[BlueStreak]

10. You're saying I can't recognize a pothead?

I'm not arguing permanent damage. That's an open question. But people who smoke every day do not have brains functioning at a high level -- ever. But some of them probably think they do.

Personally whenever I was high, I was pretty aware that I wasn't functioning normally. That's the point of getting high, after all.

[RainDog]

11. You said brain impairment was a given

When studies indicate it is not.

Permanent damage is not an open question - you didn't bother to read the meta analysis I provided - or the other one provided in the editorial at the link.

Or you have a blind spot due to your inability to look at empirical evidence - you do not have any empirical evidence to indicate levels of brain function at high levels being reduced by marijuana use, either. This functioning would depend upon the task and the level of functioning of the user prior to the use of cannabis.

Twice now you use assumptions based upon limited knowledge to claim something is true - when there is no proof it is true.

Tell me, do you think the person who invented the jazz solo was impaired while doing so? Do you think the person credited as the most important influence on jazz through his skills in highly complex brain function - you need to know something about jazz and music in general to know I'm what I'm talking about in this regard - jazz musicians are, overall, more skilled than orchestral/symphonic musicians in the use of music theory - anyway, if you think you function better without marijuana than the person who did this - who used marijuana virtually every day of his life - well, that's another example of the way you lack the knowledge to understand that differences expressed in relation to marijuana may have to do with the user, not the use.

That person, btw, was Louis Armstrong.

[BlueStreak]

12. I said pot smoking impairs the brains of the user. I didn't say it was permanent.

People who smoke every day seem pretty slow to me.

I don't have an opinion about whether that is permanent or not.

[RainDog]

13. one more time

from you:

A person has to be pretty high to deny the impact...There certainly can be a debate about how long-lasting the effects are.

I don't need an MRI to know that a person smoking 10 joints every week has some brain impairment.

I'm not arguing permanent damage. That's an open question. But people who smoke every day do not have brains functioning at a high level -- ever.

I am disputing those words - including this latest one that says smoking mj impairs the brain of the user (again)

I am telling you that Armstrong used mj to deal with the racist society in which he was forced to function and AT THE SAME TIME demonstrated the capacity to learn skills, expand upon skills, and demonstrate those skills over and over again while smoking most every day of his life (his admission) for the majority of his life.

In fact, he wrote an autobio about this reality that he called "Gage" (a slang word in his time for mj.) This autobio was censored because it presented a positive view of marijuana from a high-functioning member of society.

The research that is the reason for this exchange also demonstrated high functioning (in theory) among the users as well because they were all in college, doing work, showed no mental impairment in brain function - all while using 11 cannabis cigarettes a week - something I would label as heavy, not light, use.

You seem to be unable to understand that I have repeatedly demonstrated your assumption is false because you keep repeating it.

Difference does not mean impairment.

Whether someone should drive a car or not is another issue - related to that task. Other tasks could be put into that same category - like using heavy machinery (which people are not supposed to do either - driving, etc., with legal medications too - but we don't stop people from doing this until they demonstrate actual impairment in function from doing so.)

The altered brain sensory experience of mj is not impairment in and of itself - function/task matters, as does the ability of the user doing one thing or another.

I could not use marijuana until the cows come home and I will never attain the level of high functioning that Armstrong obtained while high. His ability, his mental mapping of harmonics, his quickness of mind demonstrated with improvisation all demonstrate this reality.

I think maybe you are limiting your view of this to issues such as driving, rather than actual brain functions for a variety of tasks, and this is why you don't understand what I'm saying.

Not everyone who uses mj is the stereotypical "pothead." Chong himself ran a company while making a lot of money pretending to be a stereotypical pothead. The reality is something else entirely. He was acting - making fun of SOME PEOPLE who don't have a lot of higher brain functioning going on in the first place - and not b/c of mj. They would be stupid in other ways, iow, not just stereotypical stoner ways.

This stereotype, however, is, again, part of the propaganda.

do you know who else has used mj every day of his adult life for years and years? Irvin Rosenfeld - who is a broker and a frequent participant when committees call hearings about the medical value of cannabis.

He has smoked 115,000 govt. supplied joints in his lifetime. He has offered himself for medical study to places like the NIDA - but they don't want to publicize the reality that this highly successful person with a very difficult disease has not only survived but thrived by smoking marijuana every day of his life. Since the 1970s.

He says, btw, it causes no impairment - he drives, sails - he also says it doesn't make him high. fwiw.

http://irvinrosenfeld.com/

[BlueStreak]

15. Lots of artists have considered themselves more creative when doing drugs

Artistry is not generally a high cognitive function. Don't make the mistake of equating eliminating inhibitions with cogitation (i.e. IQ points) They are two entirely different brain functions.

Satch might have made more interesting music while high, but that isn't the best way to negotiate a contract.

Carl Fontana was one of the greatest jazz trombonists ever. Sadly he died of Alzheimer's Disease a few years ago. But he performed nearly up to the end and the reports I heard were that he was still brilliant even though there wasn't much cognitive ability left. Here's a video of the great one. I don't know exactly when this was recorded, but considering the normal course of the disease, he undoubtedly had some impairment at the time of this video. But one wouldn't notice that by listening.

One of the comments reads "The choice of this number was really poignant.Carl alas died of Alzheimers Disease and at the time of this concert there were signs of Carl already having this condition. ". I can't vouch for the time line or the accuracy of that statement, but I think this was probably in the 1998-2002 range and Carl passed in 2003. I notice he didn't improvise nearly as much as he normally would, so he as probably aware of his declining faculties.

[RainDog]

16. You don't know what you're talking about

creativity is most certainly a higher brain function - just because it doesn't involve sitting down doing a standardized test is no indication of higher brain function.

Alzheimer's influences brain functioning - but, in this case, Fontana was still able to access his functional memory. What this demonstrates is that his alzheimer's had not progressed to a point that he was unable to perform.

It has nothing to say about higher brain function related to marijuana. The reality is that people like Richard Branson, one of the richest businessmen in the world - consume cannabis and go about their lives without impairment.

Sagan wrote about the value of cannabis, for him, when thinking about specific problems he was working on at a particular time during his research.

There are countless examples across a variety of disciplines that indicate marijuana use is not the equivalent of brain impairment.

You present an example of someone with alzheimer's and pretend this is some rebuttal - it's not.

eta: that you try to make in insinuation that Louis Armstrong only considered himself to be creative while using mj indicates a lack of understanding regarding his importance in music history - world music history.

maybe propaganda causes brain damage - i.e. makes it really difficult to see above the ideological walls that constrain thinking.

[BlueStreak]

17. I am a professional musician. I think I do know what I am talking about.

A symphony musician follows precise instructions. That engages many of the brain centers that are greatly impaired by drug and/or Alzheimer's.

Improvisational jazz, especially when performed by an old master like Carl, is a lot closer to the brain stem. In fact I have had groups perform at Alzheimer's centers where the the residents got up and started dancing and singing -- the staff said they hadn't been even minimally responsive for months before that.

I don't care if you want to get high. That's your own business as long as you don't endanger anybody but yourself. But if you think that doesn't impair your brain function, you are nuts. That impairment may or many not be temporary. I don't know. I don't care. If it destroys brain cells, that's your right.

[RainDog]

18. LOL

You are not stating any situation that does not employ the idea that memory is involved in such responsiveness. The brain maintains plasticity and the ability to perform functions across areas we assume control one function or another- this, too, has been demonstrated in various ways.

You also assume I am talking about myself - another factually false statement.

You then make an absolutely stupid statement about me based upon false assumptions to insult me - when again, THE STUDIES INDICATE THAT YOU ARE WRONG.

Go read the freaking studies linked in my earlier post and in the one from the OP at the link that show marijuana does not cause brain impairment, please, rather than resort to pettiness when you can't prove a point.

I'm sick of trying to explain the false assumptions in your thinking in every post you have made regarding this issue in your responses to me.

It's boring.

[roody]

20. You don't know who smokes or vapes every day.

[father founding]

14. Whats good for the goose

They should do the same test on Death stick suckers.

[TlalocW]

6. The other red flag should be only 40 people in the experiment

That's the kind of "experiment/study" that leads people into believing vaccines cause autism.

TlalocW

[seabeckind]

19. Bullsh!t "study"

It's propaganda, plain and simple. There have been 3 threads on DU on this thing that I've seen, one I commented on before:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=781025

It's a ploy to get the ignorati who bought into the reefer madness all riled up. One more of the moves to divide the people with fake controversies.

My bet is that it is backed by the anti-legalization crowd who make so much money from the war on drugs, ie, prison system, "justice" system, lawyers, etc. Big bucks in this war.

Heaven forbid we should actually deal with society's real problems in real ways.

Now I see references to this "study" popping up all over the place ... crime problems, drug driving, education...blaming pot for everything from loss of religion to warts.