Slashdot Mirror
Study Shows Marijuana Use In Teens Correlates To Decreasing IQ
retroworks writes "The BBC reports on a paper published in the U.S.'s Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences showing a correlation between persistent, regular cannabis use and risk of lower IQ. The study finds the risk particularly correlates use of cannabis by teenagers who use the drug "four times a week year after year." The more people smoked, the greater the loss in IQ. Reviewers of the study at King's College Institute of Psychiatry states that the data and methodology are exceptional, but she also cautions that there may be another explanation, such as depression, which could lower IQ while stimulating marijuana use. The study does not mention or rule out 'nocebo' effects, i.e. just feeling stupid for spending your teens hanging out with potheads."
Sure fucked your grammar, however.
Wait... You fucked your gramma too?
Marijuana addiction does exist in heavy users.
In a stroke of irony, Scientific American just posted an article on "digital natives" found here.
Now, who hasn't done their research?
Any behavior can become an addictive behavior. Some people become physically addicted to exercise and the endorphin rush that comes from pushing their bodies to the edge. Some become addicted to tobacco and the stimulation that nicotine gives them. Some are addicted to food. To say that marijuana addiction doesn't exist is to discount that the human body and mind can become addicted to almost any stimulation. That's not to say that all individuals who consume marijuana will be addicted but some do. So don't fully discount the potential for addiction. Some portion of the population when exposed to the ongoing stimulation will become addicted to it.
It is impossible, and this is scientifically proven, to become physically addicted to marijuana. It's just not made of physically addictive stuff. There are no chemicals which give rise to physical dependency.
Now as to the question of psychological dependency, that's a different matter however when you compare a psychological addiction to the chemical dependencies such as the endorphin rush or nicotine you are just building yourself a badly constructed argument.
Also btw you will find that the actual mechanics(the movement of the hand to mouth to take a draw of a cigarette), the behavioural aspect of tobacco , is one of the habits hardest to break. Such as recent ex-smokers being out, beer in one hand and thinking it's weird not having a cigarette....
You're absolutely 100% wrong. All mind/mood altering substance are both psychologically and physically addictive. You're confusing MAJOR physical withdrawal symptoms with physical addictiveness. See, the brain IS a physical part of the body, and the chemicals which regulate our mood and behavior are tantamount to the symptoms one will experience with withdrawal. You cannot alter the brains chemistry and not expect the body to react when you cease altering it.
Any regular caffeine user will tell you that they experience symptoms upon ceasing use. Headaches, fatigue, constipation, and irritability are just a few of the symptoms. Those sound like physical symptoms to me - so how can anyone deny the correlation between physical addiction and physical withdrawal? Just because one substance has significantly worse withdrawal symptoms doesn't mean that the lesser is somehow immune from the classification of physically addicting.
You can ask any regular (more than 4 times a week) user of marijuana upon ceasing use of any and all mood altering substances about what they experience. If they report no withdrawal symptoms (no matter how minor they may seem) they are lying.
Right. Because you like something (or someone, for that matter), and another entity releases information that's negative toward the object of your affection, there MUST be a conspiracy behind it, whether governmental, military, corporate, political ... it's the only logical option when you can't hold two conflicting ideas about what you like (that is, it can have both good and bad aspects at the same time).
(Preparing for negative moderation in 3, 2, 1...)
It's just like the people who because they like Wikileaks cannot even consider the possibility that Julian Assange may actually have f***ed a girl when she was sleeping to work around her refusal to consent to unprotected sex the night before, and that such an act would be rape.
Powell: "So, what are we doing?" Cheney: "Oh, crime." Powell: "Crime? Good, OK... crime..."