Slashdot Mirror
Twins Study Finds No Evidence That Marijuana Lowers IQ In Teens (sciencemag.org)
sciencehabit writes: Roughly half of Americans use marijuana at some point in their lives, and many start as teenagers. Although some studies suggest the drug could harm the maturing adolescent brain, the true risk is controversial. Now, in the first study of its kind (abstract), scientists have analyzed long-term marijuana use in teens, comparing IQ changes in twin siblings who either used or abstained from marijuana for 10 years. After taking environmental factors into account, the scientists found no measurable link between marijuana use and lower IQ.
I always wonder what kind of parent would allow their kids to be tested like this. If the study found that it did decrease intelligence, they just damaged their kid for the rest of his/her life. And for what? To justify teens using marijuana?
Great news for every slashdotter who spends a chunk on weed after getting paid for all that rockstar coding.
There's a difference between IQ and giving a damn. How did they measure motivation, or paranoia, or the other things that anyone who's ever been around dedicated long-term stoners can plainly observe without needing any sort of formal study?
And, did this ten-year study make use of the contemporary high-test dope, or the sort of stuff that was more commonly used ten years ago?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Predictably, it did find much lower attendance and test scores for these pot heads.
Kidz! Just Say No!
Yours,
The Ghost of Nancy Reagan
Teen-agers should not be smoking cannabis. Legalize and regulate it like alcohol... 21+
... my kid was always stupid, then? Well, shit. :(
This sig intentionally left blank.
Marijuana is still a drug and still federally illegal. Inferring from the writing on the wall and assuming it shall be legal within my lifetime, it is still a drug and hence its use should be restricted to legal adults. Why do we care about the impact on teens? I'd be more concerned about the impotence in men or the respiratory damage of the smoke.
From the abstract:
Because of the infeasibility of studying this phenomenon experimentally, it is unclear whether the association can be causally attributed to marijuana use itself or is instead the result of confounding factors. We approach this issue quasiexperimentally using longitudinal samples of adolescent twins.
Wonder if there are any twin studies that detail the life outcomes of stoner/non-stoner twins? That would be more useful I think.
We used a quasiexperimental approach to adjust for participants’ family background characteristics and genetic propensities, helping us to assess the causal nature of any potential associations. Standardized measures of intelligence were administered at ages 9–12 y, before marijuana involvement, and again at ages 17–20 y. Marijuana use was self-reported at the time of each cognitive assessment as well as during the intervening period. (no drug test to confirm usage or non-usage?) Marijuana users had lower test scores relative to nonusers and showed a significant decline in crystallized intelligence between preadolescence and late adolescence.
The people in Flint, Michigan are about to gain a first hand appreciation of what lead does to cognitive abilities.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Roughly half of Americans use marijuana at some point in their lives, and many start as teenagers.
I think this is the first time I've heard of people skipping their teenage years...
-Zapp Brannigan
-- Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.
... huhuhuhu ... huhu ...
There seems to be an implication here that twins have identical IQs. I don't think that is valid and it strike me as more likely that the twin with the lower IQ is the one who elects to abstain from wacky weed and the twin with the higher IQ is burning out brain cells until they get down to their sibling's level.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
I always wonder what kind of parent would allow their kids to be tested like this. If the study found that it did decrease intelligence, they just damaged their kid for the rest of his/her life. And for what? To justify teens using marijuana?
There are some stunning health benefits to using cannabis for sufferers of numerous ailments, including but not limited to seizures chronic pain (of various kinds), nausea, various sleep disorders, and perhaps most importantly, many forms of cancer. Before putting a teenage cancer patient on a course of Simpson Oil to treat their disease, it is useful to know if the tradeoff for a potential cure is going to be a loss of innate intelligence, and to anyone facing such a choice, the results of these studies could be very important in their decision making process.
"Marijuana users had lower test scores relative to nonusers and showed a significant decline in crystallized intelligence between preadolescence and late adolescence..."
But one that will no doubt get handpicked and reworded and passed on to the masses by the many that like to indulge, unfortunately.
They look basically the same. It turns out that marijuana doesn't turn your brain into a fried egg. Who knew?
"Roughly half of Americans use marijuana at some point in their lives, and many start as teenagers. Although some studies suggest the drug could harm the maturing adolescent brain, the true risk is controversial."
Using 'Americans' as an example that marijuana does not effect maturing adolescent brains is really pushing it.
This just in: Having a twin provides a natural immunity to the IQ-reducing properties of marijuana.
"When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years." - Mark Twain
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
Dude, you go take the test. I'm staying home and getting baked.
Have gnu, will travel.
I know that pot and tobacco don't really compare in many important ways, but from a scientific standpoint tobacco use is vastly easier to study. I point this out because it is actually difficult to quantify how much pot - or more critically in general, THC - a user really takes in over a unit of time. By comparison if someone says they smoke a pack of cigarettes a day we have really a pretty good idea how much nicotine, tar, etc is being taken in.
It's nice to see a more statistically rigorous study, but the difference in amount of pot usage that people do is very significant, as is the quantity of THC per gram of pot.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Actually it does. Nobody is going to seriously suggest that thermodynamics is in danger of being overturned (for large systems at least). Hint: AGW relies on very easily tested pieces of thermodynamics and atmospheric science (properties of CO2 and radiative physics). You can prove it yourself in your basement.
You are perhaps confusing Cannabidiol (CBD) with cannabinoid of which THC and CBD are but two examples. There are nearly a hundred cannabinoids, and the human body contains an endocannabinoid system that uses many of them.
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
Everyone who didn't believe the bullshit they spewed.
If anything, that scaremongering campaign was detrimental to the whole drug prevention. Because kids ain't as dumb as these people. Or at the very least as dumb as these people think. The idea was "we scare the kids straight". And that backfired badly. Because kids tried weed, noticed that hey, it ain't killing me. And in turn came to the correct realization:
They're bullshitting me.
Of course this led to them ignoring the warning. And doing the same that the idiots did: Lumping all the drugs together.
And today we have problems with really damaging drugs, drugs that cause serious addiction and serious impairment, drugs that are actually destructive to our kids. Because we decided that crack and weed are all eeeeeevil and you must not tough them!
Fuck those scaremongers. Instead of teaching our kids about what's what, they were fed lies. And they saw through it. Why did you expect them to listen to you when you tell blatant lies?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Gambling used to be illegal almost everywhere in the US. Gambling was addictive, it ruined families, it caused all manner of social ills.Then governments figured out how much money there was to be made from lotteries and casinos, and now gambling is legal and casinos and lotteries are everywhere.
I think the very same thing is going to happen with cannabis. Colorado made about $125 million in tax revenue on weed last year. There are going to be a whole lot of other state governments that see that and start doing whatever it takes to get their hands on that revenue.
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
Given I have not knowingly been acquainted with smart people who smoked pot, I must presume the potheads I know were already stupid before they started? That should explain at least some of the attraction...
I don't buy this at all. Know several very bright guys who started using it and had a strIng decline in performance in school. Several dropped out and two started having psychological issues
What we're discovering is that everything they said about it is a lie. It was started by Richard Nixon, to use as a tool against the evil jazz musicians. It was perpetuated by entrenched interests like the for-profit prison system that is designed to maximize recidivism and can force its captive labor population to work for 75 cents a day. It is by far the biggest crime committed against the American people, with a financial impact in the trillions. And it is the perfect crime -- no one responsible for it or who profited from it will ever admit they were wrong, much less be held accountable for their actions.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
So I assume any results are quasic-correct or quasi-useful or quasi-meaningful.
Just another study cited by stoners to make them feel good about their failure to mature.
All of you drug addict pieces of shit need to go fuck yourselves. You can fake studies to justify your addiction, but in the end you're a strung-out junkie fuck who should go kill yourself.
And today we have problems with really damaging drugs, drugs that cause serious addiction and serious impairment, drugs that are actually destructive to our kids.
Like alcohol, right? Right?
That isn't how twin studies usually work. In this case, one twin decided to smoke marijuana, while the other did not.
I doubt that. One twin got caught and claimed the stash was entirely theirs. The other twin said, yeah, thats not mine. Later when alone they both lit up.
Adults who had used marijuana as teens were studied.
No, adults who SAID that they had used marijuana as teens were studied. How many of them were honest about it?
> After taking environmental factors into account, the scientists found no measurable link between marijuana use and lower IQ.
While MJ may not lower IQ, from the people I have met there is a strong correlation between MJ and low IQ.
..for longer than I've had my Slashdot UID. If it hurt my IQ, I didn't notice.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have backups to corrupt.
If it's something that pregnant women are advised against to use, like cigarettes and alcohol beverages, then it's something that a healthy person can live without.
More importantly is the impact on lucidity.
If you are under the influence of marijuana, odds are your capability to make decisions has been impacted.
For example, you're at a party, somebody first offers you some alcohol and you have a drink....LUCIDITY LEVEL DOWN.
Then, somebody offers you some marijuana and you inhale...LUCIDITY LEVEL DOWN.
Then, somebody offers you something else that's harder, you totally think you're in control, but you want to be friends with all these pretty people so you say what the hell. LUCIDITY LEVEL DOWN TO A POINT WHERE YOUR LIFE IS RUINED BECAUSE THE CRACK/COCAINE/HEROINE YOU JUST INGESTED TOOK OVER YOUR LIFE. Marijuana sales/marketers are certainly behind these articles being published and it exploits the weaknesses of our HUMAN NATURE. I would certainly keep my radar on about these individuals writing about such crap: Nicholas J. Jackson, Joshua D. Isen, Rubin Khoddam, Daniel Irons, Catherine Tuvblad, William G. Iacono, Matt McGue, Adrian Raine, Laura A. Baker. These guys might attempt to write another "twins-study finds no evidence that coffee provides beneficial effect for staying awake and promoting bowel movements". I would prefer to use their articles to wipe my bum after a bowel movement after drinking my coffee.
MORAL OF THE STORY: make your ancestors proud, value your life, keep your lucidity. There is nothing worth your while being around those people offering you so-called poisons legal or not. Go home to your family and thank God you're still alive with your whole head screwed on right. Attempt to contribute to society in meaningful ways.
What! :-)
I've known two young men who were very heavy cannabis users. Both were incredibly intelligent - among the smartest guys I ever met. However, both became manic depressive and that only got worse over time. Eventually both of them (who didn't know each other) committed suicide. Hard to unravel cause and effect, and only two data points but it's made me very wary of heavy pot use. The occasional smoke, not a worry, but habitual use is a killer, I believe.
What they really found was There was no measurable ink between the two. Now the editors are trying too hard.
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
What would be interesting is plotting the career progression of long-term marijuana users. Besides, the current crop is hundreds of times more potent, the use of which can lead to memory loss and psychosis, even long after they stop using.
And at a time when doing well in school peaks in importance. Forget IQ, what's the effect on going to college?
Did the abstainers ever use? Maybe they permanently baked themselves from just a few tokes in their teen years. There might be a limit to the damage, so the ten year tokers don't seem more damaged.
So one twin gets stoned and the other is pure as the driven snow? The clean twin gets a little baked from the "twin connection" and the twin smacked on the wacky tobaccy gets to use the smart twin's brain a little. It balances out.
I personally believe marijuana usage should be legalized. It's no more harmful than other substances like alcohol or tobacco for example. That being said, I would strongly discourage my kids and friends from using the substance. Granted this is just my personal anecdotal evidence, but any of my friends, or anyone at all I know that has ever smoked pot on a regular prolonged basis seemed to have been completely robbed of any serious ambition. It seems like nothing really much mattered to them anymore, they were perfectly happy being mediocre people. Go home, chill, and smoke pot. Just my personal observations, not scientific facts.
They couldn't find a difference because they gave up after about 2 hours of research and decided it was easier just to light up, chow down a box of ring-dings and call the study complete.
Ya that's it. So, I have to ask, based on the fact this is not news for nerds, why is this posted?
Is it because you are a consumer of POT and u got a rise out of the content of the story?
SOULKILL=the things I publish under the Direction of DHI, kill the interested soul..
Since you are the publisher of this nonsence, can you back any of it up?
Is this nature.com?
When will you be back on your meds, so I can find some enjoyable, relevant reading material?
Moving past that, because this website is also ready by Minors, are you or your parent company (which you represent) promoting illegal usage of various products by minors?
I could go on and on, bottom line is, wake up before it's too late..
It's embargoed until the journal is released.
Man, this is almost as old as prostitution. Twins switching with one another. How do we know that didn't happen?
Fuck! I'm an only child. I'm screwed!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rHm8GbTHyE
I smoked for 10 years. I've quit for 3 years due to career necessity. Stoners don't have a low IQ. Some do... But I know plenty of people that are dumbasses on their own.
Most non-smokers believe that getting high makes you lazy and fat. When i started at age 18, I lost 70lbs in 6 months and routinely worked out every day. A year after I started smoking pot, I was the best shape in my life. My artwork was and craftsmanship was peaked out with technique and focus. Even my college grades increased because I was able to focus very very well for short bursts.... Versus barely about to focus at all sober. My problem solving skills gained from smoking weed also. Mainly because I'd think outside of the box.
My friend was just as much of a Stoner as I was and he had an accident when he was young that resulted in him gaining photographic memory. He was a walking PDA.
On the flip-side, being high does make people have different decision making skills that can lead to them doing really stupid things... I will admit I haven't always made great choices when I was high... But I know I made some good choices in those days of red-eyed stoner-Dom. If nothing is gained from smoking, measuring weights and dealing with money is.
Seriously, why would anyone lie? Did you even think through your argument
You are clearly not a scientist. When doing a scientific study you need to be able to measure how good your result is not merely cross your fingers and hope that it is accurate. Why would people lie on a poll about voting in an election? I don't know but given the number of polls which get things very, very wrong there is clear evidence that they do.
With marijuana there used to be a stigma attached to having smoked it. Perhaps the more intelligent twins realized that this was no longer case but that the less intelligent ones did not? When you are doing a study on intelligence and you are relying on that intelligence in the first place to get accurate data you have a bias problem.
How do the consequences of long-term use of cannabis compare to the consequences of long-term use of alcohol and nicotine? Disclosure: I ask this as an eighty-year-old retiree from Harvard University with lung cancer married to a woman who is a seventy-year-old alcoholic retiree from Harvard with lung cancer who has a sister with lung cancer and whose pulmonologist is a dead man walking with lung cancer. I started smoking when I was thirteen, my wife when she was sixteen. Do we get high? No. Did we used to get high? Of course, fifty years ago. Why did we quit? Well, as far as we can tell, pot is non-addictive and we just got tired of it. Why didn't we also stop drinking and smoking? Well, nicotine and alcohol are *unbelievably* addictive, as far as we can tell. You can't cold-turkey those two drugs. I still smoke a pipe and my wife still drinks wine. We have a neighbor with lung cancer who still smokes cigarettes. We had a neighbor who died of lung cancer 23 years after he quit smoking tobacco. By comparison, the only thing dangerous about cannabis is that it's illegal. "Gateway drug"? Bullshit. *Every single narcotics addict*, without a *single* exception, has been born. BIRTH is the *real* gateway drug!