Slashdot Mirror


Marijuana Could Prevent Alzheimer's, New Study

Chickan writes "'A puff a day might keep Alzheimer's away, according to marijuana research by professor Gary Wenk and associate professor Yannic Marchalant of the Ohio State Department of Psychology. Wenk's studies show that a low dosage in the morning of a certain canavanoid, a component in marijuana, reversed memory loss in older rats' brains. In his study, an experimental group of old rats received a dosage, and a control group of rats did not. The old rats that received the drugs performed better on memory tests, and the drug slowed and prevented brain cell death.' My fine university's dollars at work!" Maybe it works even better in combination with brain-preserving sips of coffee.

47 of 807 comments (clear)

  1. Dude... like... what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Marijuana is memory enhancing? What?

    1. Re:Dude... like... what? by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Funny

      As I recall the black plague was caused by mice and rates delivering fleas to the predators.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    2. Re:Dude... like... what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      More likely is that it stimulates retrograde signaling pathways, which are implicated in the formation and maintenance of long-term memories.

      This is because the chemical receptors of neurons implicated with this process are stimulated by "endo-cannabinoids", or, molecules created by the brain which are chemically similar to THC found in cannabis. Ingesting THC (in one form or another...) will stimulate these receptors, which then triggers neurons to fire.

      When you stop to consider that an Alzheimer's afflicted brain has major damage going on, and then also consider the implications of neuroplasticity along with this induced retrograde signal propagation, it could be seen that by stimulating neurons that are failing or near inoperable, their information could be transferred to healthier tissues, and retained, rather than simply "lost."

      It's a bit like running FSCK on your brain, in an attempt to recover data from bad sectors.

    3. Re:Dude... like... what? by Curtman · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's a bit like running FSCK on your brain

      It's a lot like that. The last joint I smoked got me really fscked up.

    4. Re:Dude... like... what? by shaitand · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is a misnomer anyway. The old studies showing that marijuana causes memory loss were refuted long ago. In fact, almost all of the supposed negative effects of marijuana use were reported by one biased research team and their work can generally be dismissed outright.

      There is a short term memory impairment caused by consistent regular high dose usage but it returns in an extremely short period of time after discontinuing marijuana use. The memory effects of years of marijuana use are reversed after as little as a month of discontinuing use.

      The real negative side effects of marijuana use are 'a false sense of well being' *scratches head over that being considered negative*, the aggravation of already existing heart conditions, and the ability to cause and/or exacerbate lung conditions/cancer. The last is actually caused by the inhalation of smoke and can be avoided by using other means of ingestion.

      Whole marijuana, like any other herb, will NEVER be considered a legal treatment for any condition by the AMA or FDA for Alzheimer's or anything else. The medical profession as a whole does not recommend natural supplements and herbs, they prefer prescription medications that are composed of purified and isolated chemicals.

      The best that can be hoped is that prohibition and prosecution will be stopped against those using, posessing, distributing, and selling what is a fairly harmless herbal supplement. Addiction rates and known side effects (and liklihood of incidence) pale in comparison to over the counter medications like ephedrine, cough syrup, and asprin; not to mention prescription medications.

  2. Rational by Rinisari · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have yet to hear/see a rational reason why marijuana is still illegal.

    1. Re:Rational by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because America is divided between people who hate risk more than they love freedom and people who hate hippies more than they love freedom.

    2. Re:Rational by Nursie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "So, you get pulled over and they decide you're baked. They can't really prove it because there is no "immediate intoxication test"

      So we'll develop one, and in the mean time continue to use co-ordination and driving ability. driving without due care and attention is still an offence regardless of whether you're baked or not. Believe me, the market will fill this niche in seconds. This is just another stupid excuse.

      Hey, where's the roadside test for vicodin? Prescription codeine or morphine? Dextromethorphan?

      Thought not.

    3. Re:Rational by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So, you get pulled over and they decide you're baked

      If they can't detect any impairment, then what's the problem? If you're significantly impaired, it's going to be obvious. Otherwise you should just be sent on your way.

      Everything I've seen on the effects of marijuana on driving indicate that yes, it's mildly impairing, but that impairment never reaches a level equivalent to that of a 0.8 bac. So if it's legal to drive under a similarly impairing amount of alcohol, it should be ok to drive stoned. Also, unlike alcohol, marijuana users know how impaired they are, and compensate. This is why marijuana is *underrepresented* in accident statistics.

      Personally, I'm of the opinion that all driving while intoxicated laws are inappropriate. Either you're driving recklessly or not. If you are, go to jail. If not, go home and sleep it off.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:Rational by Absimiliard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've seen people smoke so much they ended up in mental hospitals.

      Proof of causality please.

      I've seen people breathe so much air that they ended up addicted to heroin. In fact I've never met a heroin addict who didn't breathe air first.

      Such a basic logical flaw, I'm sure you can do better.

      -abs

    5. Re:Rational by dragonsomnolent · · Score: 5, Informative

      I will merely point out that according to the FDA rules for a schedule 1 narcotic, something has to meed all of the following requirements:

              (A) The drug or other substance has high potential for abuse.
              (B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
              (C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

          Does Pot have a medical use: Yup, check out marinol (the THC pill). Bang, struck from schedule 1 right there. It has a currently accepted medical use in treatment for HIV and cancer patients. Not to mention that it could be prescribed off label for a multitude of things (low doses for anxiety, insomnia, etc.) I have in the past smoked and it is a neuro-seditive. Side effects? Yeah, smoke too much, you get paranoid, short term memory lapses, etc. Same with alchohol though, in addition, you can die from alchohol poisoning (and yes it would be possible to OD on THC, but I don't think anyone could stay concious long enough to smoke that much, you'd have to have a high dose IV drip of it or something).
          The simple fact of the matter here though is the FDA keeps it illegal not for medical reasons, but political ones. No one wants to be the one who gets smeared for "caving to the drug cartels", despite the fact that the best way to take them out is to take away thier products and sevices. In addition, the DuPont family paid a lot of money back in the day to keep people using wood pulp for paper so they could keep selling thier chemicals. For a good read, check out "Ain't Nobody's Business if I Do" by Peter McWilliams. Available for online reading.

      --
      I got nuthin
    6. Re:Rational by tsalmark · · Score: 5, Informative

      It is often assumed that, in the US at least, marijuana was made illegal to protect alcohol profits. here is one link: http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/12/22/whyIsMarijuanaIllegal.html

    7. Re:Rational by scubamage · · Score: 5, Informative

      No offense, but wtf are you talking about? Safer? The LD50 of THC is somewhere in the range of 25 POUNDS of crystalline reagent grade product. Its physically impossible to overdose on marijuana - you simple can't fit 25 pounds in your bloodstream. No other pain killer or appetite stimulant has that sort of LD50. It is about as safe as you can get - even safer than sugar.

    8. Re:Rational by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ARGHHH

      Please stop making this ridiculous argument. Beer is easy to make at home, but is legal and taxed. Food is easy to grow at home, but is legal and taxed in some (many?) states. Clothes are easy to make at home, but are legal and taxed in some (many) states.

      The evidence flies in the face of this absolutely retarded claim.

    9. Re:Rational by scubamage · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's a circular argument. You're saying it should be illegal because they don't have a means to test for it as an illegal substance. If its legal, your argument dissapears. No offense, just sayin :)

    10. Re:Rational by just_another_sean · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't consider any of the reasons you provided as "rational". "We can't control it, we can't tell if your on it when your driving" are not good reasons to me. If a cop can't tell that you are impaired by giving you a field sobriety test then the any thought of arrest should end right there. The reason a cop can tell a raving drunk but has difficulty determining if "smiley" is high is because alcohol significantly impairs your physical coordination while marijuana does not. I don't recommend driving while intoxicated on anything but I would much rather take my chances with people who are "baked as hell" and driving then people who slam 6-10 drinks in a bar and then get behind the wheel.

      I have four children; I'm much more worried about them out drinking with people then smoking. Hell, I'm more worried about them smoking tobacco then I am about them smoking marijuana.

      Not to stereotype you but I would have thought a guy with a /. handle of Garcia (not to mention the low id) that runs a website called Lazy Lighting would be a little more enlightened on the relative dangers between alcohol and marijuana. Screw the "we can't keep teh childrenz from smoking" rhetoric, the only real reason they have is the trillions you mentioned at the end of your post. America needs to wake up and realize that the emperor wears no clothes.

      --
      Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
    11. Re:Rational by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      you have one data point. that's fine. its a real data point, at least.

      yours is NOT typical and people should know that. most users don't get 'baked' and drive right away. I've never known anyone like that - not ever.

      otoh, its VERY common to drink and drive - even without waiting at all.

      choice: would you rather be in the passenger seat of someone who had 2 joints or 2 beers? 1 joint or 1 beer?

      I'd take the NO BEERS choice, please, alex. seriously. and the difference is: when you are drunk, you often can't know if you are too impaired to drive. with pots you know. you really do - and it never fully blocks your thinking (that's just BS).

      ever break up with an SO and drive? its not much different. ever get fired from a job and have to drive home? that is the level of 'impairment' (distraction) that you might have if you were high and drove. is it illegal or 'dangerous' to drive while you are emotionally distraught (the 2 examples I used) ? no, of course not.

      look at the driving and not what's inside the person's body or mind. if you care about 'distractions' and safety hazzards you'll pull over all the arguing couples or the families that have to shout at their kids in the back seat. THOSE are the dangerous distracted drivers. pot users are just easy targets but its not any kind of justice to go after light drug users. its just EASY to say 'we are fighting crime' when in fact, they are only raising more revenue (indirectly).

      take the unsafe drivers off the road but pot users are not always unsafe drivers. no correlation at all - its all just made up shit by LEOs and their ilk. talk to those who know this stuff fist hand and you'll see its all just social programming to keep the status quo.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    12. Re:Rational by p00dl3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, vaporization is far more efficient than combustion. The material is heated to the point where the organic volatiles (cannabanoids and terpenes) go through a phase change from semi-solid to gas. Because they are not being combusted (burned) more of the active compounds reach the bloodstream. Conversely, fewer harmful compounds are taken in, thus making vaporization less harmful. Oral consumption (when combined with a lipid carrier such as butter or chocolate) is one of the most efficient methods of use, although the effects are somewhat delayed when compared to smoking or vaporizing. Wow, $200. You clearly have not been to the market since the 1980's. High quality cannabis, consisting of seedless female flowers, goes ~$400/oz in most parts of the country.

      --
      De minimis is teh suck.
    13. Re:Rational by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's funny...

      My job is very intellectually challenging, and pushes the bounds of my memory daily. And I smoke pot every day, even regularly before I go into work. And yet... I'm still seen as the best person we have there, and I'm constantly picking up everyone else's slack, most of whom see pot as such a bad thing. In fact, I'm the only one there that I know of that ever even smokes it at all...

      Not only that, but a large group of people I know (some friends and some not) decided to do our own little experiment: smoke pot and study for a college exam. We couldn't find any correlation at all. I wish we got this published, but we were somewhat paranoid about someone coming after us for it, what with it being illegal and all.

      Physically, there might be something, but I, like many people I know, have difficulty doing our daily exercise routines without smoking pot before hand (mostly psychological reasons that is the reasons we smoke pot in the first place).

      Your argument doesn't make sense to me at all.

    14. Re:Rational by conureman · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Because the burden of proof is on those that believe that it's harmless rather than those that don't believe it to be safe. Which is just the way that it should be."
      This is why greasy fast food will never be legal. Which is just the way that it should be.

      --
      The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
    15. Re:Rational by xappax · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Perhaps, but is growing /good/ pot as easy as throwing seeds out in the backyard? I mean, you can make hooch in the bathtub - you can even make it in prison. But it's not very good. For that matter, you really can grow tomatoes by throwing seeds in your back yard, but how many people do that instead of buying them for $excessive at the supermarket?

      Growing good, potent cannabis takes time and effort the same way making good wine does, which means there's easily potential for corporate commoditization. Never underestimate people's willingness to buy things they don't need to.

    16. Re:Rational by p00dl3 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Cannabis was renamed by white US politicians as "marijuana" to associate it with itinerant Mexican laborers. It was claimed to cause madness and violence in the "daker races". It was claimed that it caused "our" white women to seek relations with "negroes". Criminalizing it was a way to control the Mexicans and the blacks. Thelonius Monk was banned from playing New York clubs because he had a "marijuana" conviction and had his club card pulled.

      --
      De minimis is teh suck.
    17. Re:Rational by spidercoz · · Score: 5, Funny

      and a job

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
    18. Re:Rational by spidercoz · · Score: 4, Funny

      right on man. the only way I got through differential calculus in college was by going to class stoned every day. it just didn't take sober

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
    19. Re:Rational by LithiumX · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Please stop making this ridiculous argument. Beer is easy to make at home, but is legal and taxed. Food is easy to grow at home, but is legal and taxed in some (many?) states. Clothes are easy to make at home, but are legal and taxed in some (many) states.

      Beer is doable, but not all that easy to make at home. You have to build at least a minimal apparatus, and you have to employ some fairly stringent (for a home environment) anti-contamination protocols. It takes time, and the end result usually ends up tasting a little better than horse piss. It's fun (and mine quit tasting like horse piss after a few tries), but not something that will ever be common. Regardless, you are still limited to a very small setup for tax reasons.

      Food is food. Apart from subsidies, the growth of food is not very regulated (if for your own consumption). It's about as fundamental a right as there is. Food is also different - you're taxed on profit, but food itself is largely untaxed. Therefore grow all you like.

      Clothes are not easy to make at home, at least nothing you'd wear outside. It takes skill and a minimum of equipment. It's not that difficult to build this skill, and brief "homespun" fads have hit the country many times since the Revolution, but on the whole clothing is something that you can rely on never being made at home - except for the statistically small hobbyist, and those who can't afford new clothes. Also, prohibiting clothes made at home would be extremely difficult to provide a reason for, no matter how much any industry screamed for it.

      There are a number of reasons why cannabis was illegalized - and most of the common ones you hear are actually true to one extent or another, but none stand out much on their own. Taxation, immigrant paranoia, easy enforcement results, propaganda, and actual honest public health issues. However, brewers were one of the main original impetuses that got the ball rolling, so protecting profits was a major initial cause.

      Note that, even today, the alcohol industry is STILL one of the primary sources of funding for anti-legalization. It's easy to see why.

      --
      Do not confuse "Freedom of Choice" with "Free Will".
    20. Re:Rational by WiseWeasel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Come out to the west coast for a while sometime. Marijuana is very much a part of mainstream culture in several parts of this country, and people already take the drug to very unhealthy/unproductive levels, only outnumbered by those who consume it responsibly. What we're doing now has approximately zero effect on keeping a lid on the substance, and the only real consequence of the current prohibition is that a vast, vast underground economy, one that dwarfs large sectors of legitimate agriculture in many states, is allowed to grow and prosper, at the expense of the government's ability to tax and regulate this trade. Even for harder substances, criminalization is hardly an intelligent way to deal with most of these cases of abuse, when medical intervention would be so much more appropriate than tossing someone in jail. The current drug policy in the US is completely indefensible, and is only allowed to continue due to the political sensitivity surrounding the issue, thanks to propaganda campaigns that were able to find a sizable target of gullible people in this country. Still, marijuana is very much a part of mainstream culture in many parts of the US, and trying to fight it with laws only serves to call the value of law enforcement into question. If you were looking for a way to alienate a large portion of the population from the law, then the War on Drugs is a tremendous success.

      --
      "I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)
    21. Re:Rational by asdfghjklqwertyuiop · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why is it illegal. Because it is a mind altering drug, which can easily be abused (recreational use of this drug is abuse), Being in an altered state of mind isn't productive to society, as well as health concerns.

      None of those are valid reasons why it or any such things shouldn't be personal, individual choices in a free society.

    22. Re:Rational by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes. For more information I suggest you look into Prohibition in America. It basically created organized crime and made a lot of people, Al Capone being one of the most famous, very rich. For more further reading, also check out what happens to prices of goods once they go from being sold legally to being sold on the black market.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    23. Re:Rational by Eggplant62 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I know a ton of people who use marijuana on a regular basis who also show up for work consistently, do an excellent job, work overtime and then some. So, um, wanna come up with an argument against that?

      I've seen people sling around the same old tired arguments against pot since was 16 and first learning about it and trying it, back in the mid '70s. Problem is, not enough people have tried it. Most people who are against pot talk out of their asses without a lick of experience.

    24. Re:Rational by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Perhaps, but is growing /good/ pot as easy as throwing seeds out in the backyard? I mean, you can make hooch in the bathtub - you can even make it in prison. But it's not very good. For that matter, you really can grow tomatoes by throwing seeds in your back yard, but how many people do that instead of buying them for $excessive at the supermarket? Growing good, potent cannabis takes time and effort the same way making good wine does, which means there's easily potential for corporate commoditization. Never underestimate people's willingness to buy things they don't need to.

      As someone who has both grown dope and made homemade hooch (and grown tomatoes, for that matter), I can attest that growing good dope is *much* easier than than making good booze. This is not taking into account the risks of legal issues.

      Making truly good beer or wine requires a lot of equipment as well as broad knowledge of fermentatation, sanitation, transferring liquids with minimal oxygen exposure, and a thousand other factors that can produce "off flavors". Distillation is even more intensive to do truly well. You can make bad booze without much trouble, but making something comparable to (or possibly even better than) commercial products takes a serious amount of will.

      The difference between growing good pot and bad pot, all growing conditions being equal, is simply genetics. No, it's not as simple as "throwing seeds in your back yard" but then neither is growing good tomatoes really either. But if you can provide the necessary light and nutrients to bring a female cannabis plant to mature flowering, whether indoors or outdoors, the potency of your product will virtually entirely depend on the plant's genetics. A novice grower can likely grow better pot than he/she can buy with good seed, but the most experienced grower in the world can't make Sour Diesel from ditchweed seeds.

      The real skill in growing pot is how to achieve good yield, and of course, navigating the the minefield of legality. While not *everyone* who smokes bud would grow it if it were legal, people like me who know how to grow it already could grow lots and give it away to friends just like people do now with their tomatoes and zucchini.

      I've always felt that a main reason why such a stupid law persists is that there is simply far more money in it being illegal than could ever be profited or taxed out of it in a legal market.

    25. Re:Rational by truckaxle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm of the opinion that all driving while intoxicated laws are inappropriate. Either you're driving recklessly or not. If you are, go to jail. If not, go home and sleep it off.

      Really! Sometimes the indication that someone is driving recklessly is when they plow into the side of a car, killing and maiming the occupants.

      Drunk driving laws and enforcement do save lives and prevent many needless tragedies as they statistically highlight those that are most likely to be involved in an accident - they should be tougher if anything.

    26. Re:Rational by Khyber · · Score: 4, Informative

      Because America is divided between people who hate risk more than they love freedom and people who hate hippies more than they love freedom.

      WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      The REASONS are DuPont and other companies that hemp was a major threat to, like the cotton industry, paper industry, oils industry, and more. Hemp had a virtual monopoly because it's so damned useful. In fact hemp oil was still the STANDARD recommended machine lubricant during the WWII era.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    27. Re:Rational by harry666t · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's simple.

      1. You smoke marijuana

      2. You realize that God loves you, that you don't need anything else to be happy, that everything is a vibration and the whole living universe is One

      3. You become less and less attached to physical goods and material stuf, you stop caring about possesing things and instead focus on spiritual growth

      4. You become a very poor source of profits, because you spend much less money, if any at all

      There's of course another side effect of being more enlightened, which is: not fitting into the structure of the society. And this is the biggest threat to our current "order". You are much harder to control. To lock in a cage full of shit painted gold.

      Oblig. movie: "Equilibrium".
      Oblig. YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX1CvW38cHA

    28. Re:Rational by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here you go...

      Gee, wonder why the fucking Constitution was written on HEMP paper...

      The US Government has such bullshit hypocrisy on this "War On Drugs": Hemp For Victory

      --
      ALL Law is based on Contract Law.

    29. Re:Rational by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you grew it yourself and never sold any, there would be no reason to tax it. You aren't taxed for growing things, you are taxed for selling things (or providing a service).

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    30. Re:Rational by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 4, Interesting

      wild tobacco is almost hallucinogenic and non-addictive whereas commercial tobacco is just addictive because of its extreme nicotene content.

      Sorry, but that's simply incorrect. From "Growing the Hallucinogens":

      Uncured tobacco is very potent -- the Indians who used it would often pass out after as little as one cigarette, and "communicate with the gods." This type of tobacco should be smoked with caution. The danger here is death from overdose rather than addiction. When used as a ritual narcotic it is not smoked often enough to result in addiction.

      And Wikipedia's entry on wild tobacco:

      Wild tobacco is native to the southwestern United States, Mexico, and parts of South America. Its botanical name is Nicotiana rustica. [snip] "Nicotiana rustica" is the most potent strain of tobacco known to man it is commonly used for tobacco dust or pesticides.

      Note that article quotes a nicotine content of 6.5% for Y1, while the entry for Nicotiana Rustica claims 9%; in other words, the wild variety contains more nicotine than the cultivar specifically bred for a high nicotine content by tobacco companies.

      Finally, New World Encyclopedia's entry on tobacco:

      Nicotine is also a powerful psychochemical, which acts on the nervous system. In large doses it can be a hallucinogen. In smaller doses it affects the functioning of the nervous system in various ways, as well as affecting the circulatory and endocrine systems. These effects are considered pleasurable and desirable by tobacco users.

      The hallucinogenic compound in wild tobacco is nicotine. It isn't addictive is because it simply isn't possible to smoke wild tobacco in the same quantities as the cured tobacco used in cigarettes without dying; or, looking at it the other way, cigarettes are addictive because they aren't strong enough to have a hallucinogenic effect, so you can chain smoke them and remain conscious.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    31. Re:Rational by falconwolf · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I always thought that marijuana has never been legalized, is because no one can ever remember where they left the petitions!!!

      Hemp AKA marijuana was legal to begin with in the US. Many of the USA'a Founding Fathers were farmers who grew hemp. The first three presidents of the USA George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson all grew hemp on their farms. Thomas Jefferson once said farmers should be required to grow hemp, however he couldn't propose such a law because he knew that it would violate the farmers' rights. Hemp was only made illegal with the passage of the Marijuana Tax ACT of 1937. Yet even then it wasn't compleatly illegal. During WWII the federal government's Department of Agriculture produced the movie "Hemp for Victory" and showed it to farmers to encourage them to grow hemp. Besides the oil from hemp seeds, hemp was used to make cloth, cords, and rope.

      Falcon

  3. Well that's good news! by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now they'll be able to remember how to get to the cheese in that maze again! Maybe they should replace the cheese with Cheetos though?

    --
    Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
  4. Full Text of the Research Paper by Ohio+Calvinist · · Score: 5, Informative

    The full text of the research paper is available at-- http://faculty.psy.ohio-state.edu/marchalant/pdf/marchalantetalneurobiolaging2008.pdf on the co-author's Departmental website. Might be helpful since TFA is an article out of the University's student newspaper which tends to be a little light on details (speaking as an alumni).

    --
    Forgive my spelling from time to time. I'm often posting during short breaks.
  5. The Dude by rirugrat · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

  6. Rats aren't people by indytx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, you can swap possible long-term memory loss for probable short-term memory loss. I'll wait for the large, double-blind study after they've isolated what exactly in the marijuana, if anything, reduces the risk of Alzheimer's. Meanwhile, there have been recent reports that coffee and red wine could reduce the risk of Alzheimer's. Seems like a safer, not to mention legal, alternative to experimenting on yourself by breathing smoke. Most doctors will agree that any smoking is harmful, and before you say that it can be eaten or steeped like tea, carcinogens can still cause cancer even if not smoked.

    --
    Make love, not reality television.
    1. Re:Rats aren't people by ChienAndalu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      and before you say that it can be eaten or steeped like tea, carcinogens can still cause cancer even if not smoked.

      Thats true. Luckily there aren't any carcinogens in the cannabis oil itself, which is just like any other plant oil you might use in your household. It just has an additional psychotropic component.

      So no, you do not have a point.

  7. Um...I forgot by hyades1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Marijuana doesn't prevent Alzheimer's so much as give you little, reversible doses of it with every joint. So when the Big A comes along and tries to eat your brain, your brain just goes, "Oh, this again. Glad I remembered to pick up the Cheese Doodles".

    It's a training thing.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  8. Enforcement of different laws is irrelevant by Brain-Fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So you are saying that illegal-to-drive-while-baked is difficult to enforce.

    That utterly fails to justify making it illegal to use when not driving.

    You are merely punishing the law-abiding citizens because a *different law* is difficult to enforce (and will be broken by the criminals anyway).

    That is irrational.

  9. Off Schedule I by Xelios · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Marijuana, Schedule I:
    Findings required (from Controlled Substances Act):

    (A) The drug or other substance has high potential for abuse.
    (B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
    (C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

    None of these conditions are met for marijuana, so why isn't its Schedule I classification being challenged in court?

    --
    Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
  10. Ainslinger's Campaign late 30's by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Alan Ginsberg wrote a reasonably scholarly treatise a few decades ago called "The Marijuana Papers" detailing the campaign of Harry J. Ainslinger to portray marijuana smokers as some deranged combination of heroin and speed addict. Nobody knew any differently, and the media channel was rather narrow in the late 30's when Ainslinger used the weed as a plank in his senatorial campaign. We would somehow need to unravel and counter that in order to repeal the damage. I'd suggest you're right, that some form of education campaign is in order here.

    And marijuana wasn't actually rendered illegal in subsequent legislation, it was simply given an egregiously high federal tax per ounce on its sale. By avoiding the tax, traffickers were able to be pursued by federal rather than state authorities, thus its entrenchment in federal pursuit.

    It was postulated that since the perception was that only blacks smoked hemp, the idea of this "social disease" being transmitted cross-culturally implied a form of sanction for racism, and thus appealed to the fearful white anglo-saxon protestant (WASP) that made up most of Ainslinger's voter demographic in 1938.

    Anyway, if you can find a copy it makes very interesting reading.

    --
    Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
  11. Re:marijuana laws were also, originally, racist by falconwolf · · Score: 4, Informative

    the first and third presidents of the USA, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson grew hemp on their farms. The second president John Adams wanted to use hemp as a cash crop.

    Yeah but they weren't smoking it. Marijuana generally refers to dope not rope

    When hemp was outlawed drug warriors called it marijuana to confuse people. In testimony before congress Dr. James Woodward speaking for the AMA said the AMA did not know that the "killer weed from Mexico" that was called marijuana was hemp. The AMA only learned what was being talked about was in fact hemp 2 days before the hearing. He further stated "We cannot understand yet, Mr Chairman, why this bill had been prepared in secret for two years without any intimation, even to the profession" that it was being prepared.

    Falcon