Slashdot Mirror
New Study Shows Marijuana Users Have Low Blood Flow To the Brain (eurekalert.org)
cold fjord writes: State level marijuana legalization efforts across the U.S. have been gaining traction driven by the folk wisdom that marijuana is both a harmless recreational drug and a useful medical treatment for many aliments. However, some cracks have appeared in that story with indications that marijuana use is associated with the development of mental disorders and the long-term blunting of the brain's reward system of dopamine levels. A new study has found that marijuana appears to have a widespread effect on blood flow in the brain. EurekAlert reports: "Published in the Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, researchers using single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), a sophisticated imaging study that evaluates blood flow and activity patterns, demonstrated abnormally low blood flow in virtually every area of the brain studies in nearly 1,000 marijuana users compared to healthy controls, including areas known to be affected by Alzheimer's pathology such as the hippocampus. According to Daniel Amen, M.D., 'Our research demonstrates that marijuana can have significant negative effects on brain function. The media has given the general impression that marijuana is a safe recreational drug, this research directly challenges that notion. In another new study just released, researchers showed that marijuana use tripled the risk of psychosis. Caution is clearly in order.'"
Interesting how science denial has a per-subject ideological bent.
Lord knows that shit is bad for you, but I don't need anybody trying prevent me from enjoying a few fingers of fine rum after a long day at work.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Modern Psychology believes that drug use is a form of self-medication. People will instinctively gravitate to things that make them feel better.
Article states causality has not been established... it's just a BS correlation.
Don't breath because you're oxydizing your genes, and farts pollute air ... you're breathing ... oh well
Only a complete moron would think that a recreational drug that alters your mood and brain chemistry is 'safe'.
Doesn't matter if it's alcohol or THC, these work by fidgeting with things in the brain that should obviously be left alone (for the sake of health - I think the recreational value is apparent).
We don't do surgery for the fun of it, we don't do blunt force trauma for the fun of it, why should altering our insides via drug or drink be considered 'safe' when no other internal alteration is, and who could possibly be dumb enough to think so?
As with all things that alter mood and consciousness, the devil's in the dosage. These results, even if accurate, reflect heavy, long-term use by people predisposed to sit for studies.
Even alcohol and pain meds are more effective when used sparingly.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
I know lots of people who drink and this doesn't seem right. Sure, they can be a little goofy at the time of use, but other than that they are completely functional. They're productive, have high paying challenging jobs, one is a biochemist, and their recreational use of drink doesn't seem to make life difficult for them. If the study is looking at impairment at the time of use, how do they equate this to, say marijuana. If someone is really high, I doubt there brain is fully functional at the time either. I don't think drinking is detrimental in any way.
My mother and sister _both_ died from drink. Is that enough anecdotal evidence for you?
No sig today...
I remember in the mid 90's in high school they showed us pictures of exactly this. They had scans of normal brains showing their blood flow, compared to the brains of various drug users. They looked like Swiss cheese. Some looked like carved out pumpkins... each drug had its own appearance.
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
According to Daniel Amen, M.D., 'Our research demonstrates that marijuana can have significant negative effects on brain function.'
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
The Amen clinics have been accused of using questionable techniques (https://www.quackwatch.org/06ResearchProjects/amen.html and others, just google for information on them). This isn't to say that the data isn't true, but this result hasn't been confirmed by replication of the results by other researchers or more accurate scanning methods.
It's in the Bible!
Drugs are fun. That's why.
But sometimes their effects are not fun. Sometimes their effects hurt other people. Nobody really gives a shit if you drink a beer or smoke a joint. But we do care when your use of those drugs causes undue risk or actual harm to others. We do care if you are not yet an adult and may not fully understand the consequences of your choices.
You're going to die, I'm going to die, everyone dies from something. Life is about having fun.
So you are arguing that we should hurry up the process of dying because we're all going to die anyway? Life is not all about having fun. That's an extremely immature and selfish attitude.
Drugs aren't for everybody, but people like drugs
People like all sorts of things but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have any rules to keep everyone safe.
treat drug abuse as a medical condition, not crime; that approach has failed.
Not that simple. Sometimes drug abuse is just a medical condition. But often drug abuse causes people to hurt others which is (and should be) a crime. See the difference?
You do what you want. Stop telling other people what's good for them.
I'm not telling people what is good for them. I'm telling them what is bad for other people. I honestly don't care if a consenting adult uses recreational drugs PROVIDED they do not hurt anyone else in the process. Problem is that people that abuse drugs are rarely able to avoid hurting others. Want to drink responsibly? Fine. Want to drink and drive? Hell no - now you are a risk to others. Your right to play with recreational drugs stops when it becomes a threat to the safety and well being of others.
But "people with serious neuropsychiatric people who used cannabis have low blood flow to the brain" is both less clickworthy and less politically useful than "OMG pot rots yr brain!"
And I love this: "As a physician who routinely sees marijuana users..." Yeah, that's called "a physician". Cannabis use is common, every physician has seen patients who has used it.
Both Amen and this methodology are poorly regarded. He's in the addiction treatment industry -- look at this is an old marketing pitch of his quoted in a Quackwatch article:
OHOH, Officials at major psychiatric and neuroscience associations and research centers say his SPECT claims are no more than myth and poppycock, buffaloing an unsuspecting public.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
It would be interesting to see if the route of administration results in different effects. More research is needed. I would imagine that oral ingestion could have a less pronouced cerebral vasioconstricion.
Interestingly enough, a cup of Coca leaf tea will increase blood flow to the brain.
I respect the right of anyone to do whatever they want to their own bodies. There is no one single chemistry, nor one correct response regarding these issues.
Peace.
There is a reason we are particularly squeamish about handing out legal medicine that works on brain chemistry
I don't think so, bud. Tell your primary physician that you don't feel like yourself and are depressed a lot, and they have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM giving you a antidepressant/re-uptake inhibitor. Hell, they even perscribe such to help stop smoking. That is just antidepressants. Make your way to a psychiatrist and there is no end to the antidepressants, mood stabalizers, antipsychotics, benzodiazapines, etc not to mention drugs like depakote that not only treat seizures and mania, but also migraines. Do you like coffee? Do you know how caffeine "works on brain chemistry"? Get your agenda straight here
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
Is this low blood flow the underlying cause of reefer madness?
Does it also exist in tobacco users?
Almost everything you ingest has some negative side effects in the long term and on top of that, I didn't ask Uncle Sam to be my Mommy and tell me what to ingest and what not to.
Whoever even thought that drugs were good for you? Things are bad for us, we still take them. I am not sure what the point of this is: do they think drug takers will say OMFG i did not know that? Pointless research
They could have left a voice mail message, at least I think I can get to my voice mail mailbox, before "thinning out" my blood to the brain.
What if the last three were enough to affect the results? I'm not saying that one like me could affect the outcome; I'm just sayin'
Well, I happen to think that studies like these involving recreational uses of substances are just as important as those demonstrating ill effects of habitual use.
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
I know nuanced thought is going out of fashion, but you just directly equated weed and alcohol. That's dumb as fuck.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Many have death as a side effect! A little less blood to the brain is nothing compared to the miracles this drug offers. Mass media can shove it.
Korsakoff's syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There seems to be a real ambivalence towards alcohol use and abuse and yet its negative outcomes are far greater than Cannabis use. Heck we're even pushing alcohol consumption during Sunday brunch!
For medical use, marijuana shouldn't be anymore dangerous than any controlled substance or do you want to ignore opioid abuse.
For recreational use, it would be advisable to understand the consumption limits of marijuana, like we have for alcohol.
When we have a complete picture we can make informed decisions.
*reads*
*nods*
*reads*
*nods*
*blinks*
Nnno no no, you! Like. Have a slow brain flow.
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
Instead of this fairly small and limited scope, finger waving "study", why not study statistics where it is not only legal, but has been for a long time?
So, there's a downside to marijuana? OMG alert the press! Tell everyone! Don't talk about cigarettes or alcohol, though. Big companies need that money.
I love how they say, "...the media". The media tries to tell us all the time that marijuana is just horrible and that, "it's illegal for a reason!". How about you let us, as the free people of the US, decide whether we want to smoke it or not? We do the same fucking thing for nicotine and alcohol.
Hypocrites.
I call BS. There are endless studies on the effects of alcohol and cigarettes. You are only upset because it posits there might be a downside to something you enjoy doing
Where I live there is now a 10 Meter rule where you can't smoke or vape within 10 meters of an entryway or bus stop. They also tax alcohol a lot to keep us from drinking too much of it. Meanwhile they are planning to decriminalize marijuana (which I'm ok with as long as it gets the same 10 M rule)
Really, we should be allowed to do what we want provided no one else has to have our choice but we should also be kept fully informed of the potential consequences of our life choices.
Anecdotal, I know, but the few marijuana users I have known had little drive in their lives (career, education, hobbies). I always wondered whether their personality type caused the use of marijuana or vice versa (or neither). I wonder if this study might explain that.
The ban on marijuana in the US was, from day one, a completely ad-hoc political decision. It never had anything to do with the drug's effect on the brain. Ban alcohol before you talk about the disadvantages of marijuana legalisation with a straight face.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Every intoxicant has risks, some choose the one with lower risks. Cannabis is safer than alchohol in nearly every possible measure of safety.
Viagra also decreases blood flow to the brain. Man has a penis and a brain, but can only use one at a time!.
Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
Your only example of a drug hurting others is alcohol. Show me the devastation caused to families by the scourge of marijuana. Oh, you can't. Cheers.
It's trivial to show pretty much any drug causing harm to others including marijuana. Some drugs are more dangerous than others and cannabis is less dangerous than many but there is clear data showing that its use can result in negative health and economic consequences to others in some circumstances. Used responsibly it presents little danger but it is perfectly possible for use of cannabis to result in harm to others. I would regard cannabis as less dangerous than tobacco cigarettes or alcohol but that shouldn't be interpreted as presenting no danger. Even something as safe as aspirin can be dangerous if used improperly or to excess.
Per the World Health Organization:
"Cannabis impairs psychomotor performance in a wide variety of tasks, such as motor coordination, divided attention, and operative tasks of many types; human performance on complex machinery can be impaired for as long as 24 hours after smoking as little as 20 mg of THC in cannabis; there is an increased risk of motor vehicle accidents among persons who drive when intoxicated by cannabis."
"Cannabis used during pregnancy is associated with impairment in fetal development leading to a reduction in birth weight;"
I haven't seen this as reported by any credible media source.
In fact any serious article I've seen generally at least mentions the health risks from abuse and mental impairment when driving/operating machinery, at a minimum.
Maybe they needed to add that bit in to make their research appear novel?
I think it's something that's been obvious for decades, those who smoke heavily tend to end up with dulled wits. I have a couple acquaintances in that category, you can make a joke and 5 seconds later they finally figure it out.
On the other hand, those that I know who are occasional smokers never appear to lose that sharpness to their thoughts.
Once again, moderation is key to just about everything in life.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
(Posted anonymously for obvious reasons)
I was diagnosed 4 years ago with stage IV colon cancer. I did all the traditional treatments (12 rounds of intense chemo, 6 weeks of radiation daily coupled with an oral form of chemo, multiple surgeries, etc.). When it spread to my lungs I had yet more surgery (biopsies, which with lungs is major surgery), and more rounds of chemo. The tumors were at that point widespread, inoperable, and unresponsive to the chemo that was otherwise killing me. Finally my oncologist agreed I had to stop chemo or die, and I was given less than six months to live.
I did 5 months of intesnse Rick Simpson Oil treatment (http://phoenixtears.ca/), mostly because my wife wanted me to not give up and there really was nothing left to try. I didn't expect it to work, and if my wife and my oncologist hadn't both been encouraging me to give it a go, I wouldn't have. It was a miserable experience, being "beyond high" for more than five months (because of the damage 18 rounds of chemo had done, it took 150 grams rather than the 60 it usually takes).
But, I've now had three scans that show the cancer is GONE, I am in complete ("full") remission. The nodules throughout my lungs are dead, there is no sign of other cancer anywhere in my body, and in a few months, if it continues, I go from full remission to officially cured.
By marijuana.
If this were widespread, it would spell the end of several lucrative pharma industries. Oh, by the way, my oncologist admitted that they're required to sign numerous contracts forbidding them from mentioning any treatments other than chemo, radiation, surgery, or hospital-approved drug trials to any patient, and even though more and more of them are aware of the curative value of cannabis oils (especially in the palliative care area where they've given up all hope, and people are going into full remission), they are forbidden from telling their patients.
Unfortunately stories like mine are all anectdotal. The FDA absolutely refuses to consider any study that might indicate a curative value for marijuana. And guess who's running the FDA these days ... yup, that's right. Big Pharma insiders.
Until politics gets out of the way of science, and stops preventing research, there will be no true science on this subject (in the United States anyway). Meanwhile opioids are approved for widespread use on the basis of one article,written by a Big Pharma employee, claiming with no evidence, and no peer review. that opioids are "non-addictive," and how the rest of the industry pounces on that, cites it, and pushes their agenda forward. Funny how big pharma has such a ridiculously low bar for their "science," while real cures for numerous severe deseases, including most late-stage cancers, are held to an impossible standard ("prove it, but we won't allow any studies!") and then dismissed as "not scientific."
I'm alive today because of cannabis, specificlly highly concentrated cannabis oils. Hopefully someone out there who needs it will read this, and not be dissuaded by those wh will no doubt quote doctrine (with no evidence of their own), dismissing this amazing medicine.
Is this really a shock? Seriously, is this cause or effect? Did they have low blood flow before using?
My only point was that anecdotal evidence is completely worthless.
Weed is bad, weed kills, it's just a question of percentages.
Some people are OK on weed, some turn into worthless stoners with mental health problems. I don't know the relative proportions but saying weed is 100% harmless is dumb as fuck.
nb. I personally think it's less harmful than alcohol, most other people probably agree. I'll vote for total legalization of weed just as soon as a good roadside weed-detection kit has been widely deployed to the police.
No sig today...
I find this article and the one two stories down really explain a lot together. When people say they are high on Jesus, they are not kidding! Very low blood flow to the brain.
This is just another attempt to define, in threatening terms, another risk for smoking marijuana. We already *know* that smoking marijuana isn't risk free and for some people can be even riskier.
But all of this is a distraction -- marijuana prohibitionists want, and actually need, the debate for legalization to be oriented around the *safety* of marijuana use, both demanding an artificial high standard of safety not applied to other substances and trying to demonstrate unique and insidious risks from marijuana use.
But this isn't really what legalization should be about. We have ample scientific and more importantly, long-term public use, evidence of the relative safety of marijuana. The debate about legalization is about the *failed* nature of criminal prohibition as public policy. Prohibition has been an utter failure, costing trillions of dollars, sacrificing civil liberties, poisoning the relationship between the police and the public, discrediting public health warnings on more dangerous drugs, and all the the while totally and utterly failing to deliver anything remotely resembling the elimination of marijuana use.
It doesn't work. It costs a fortune. Trying to make it work erodes civil liberties. Nobody believes anyone who spins scare stories about marijuana. Prohibition of marijuana is one of the worst public policies advanced by every possible measure.
... the autism-hating, custom EpiPen-hating, Musk-hating Slashdot troll!
The new studies that show new, ominous sounding but nebulous effect of Marijuana use are beginning to appear. They always appear whenever Marijuana laws are being relaxed. The same thing happened in the UK a few years back when the police said they would no longer actively pursue arrests of Marijuana users. These studies are to be ignored. Legalization and governmental control of who can purchase and grow Marijuana are both enlightened and necessary to move forward. The anti-drug laws and their deleterious effects on individuals and society must first be eliminated before their past effects can be reversed. Legalize and then empty the prisons of those jailed exclusively for possession, use, and sale of Marijuana. Make it illegal for companies to test and discipline/fire their employees for substances found that have been confiscated from their employees' bodily fluids. This needs to be the real deal, otherwise it will be reversed in a heartbeat.
Ban alcohol before you talk about the disadvantages of marijuana legalisation with a straight face.
No, please don't. We tried that and it was a horrible failure, just like the drug war.
Enigma
If you have a great product that can't be patented by the Drug companies what do you do?? You smear the product's reputation!! End of story.
If the US were more of a republic, it wouldn't bother me because in a more republican state these people (and many of their supporters) could not even vote. However, if we do go full on legalization we will need to veer strongly toward the more pure republic model from the trend toward more "democracy" in order to keep legalization from becoming a crippling effect on our system.
Really... you're going with "drug users should not be allowed to vote"... jeezus it really is the 1980s all over again.
Someone had to do it.
but if I want to use a drug for any purpose I should be able to.
Right. As long as I don't have to pay for the consequences. Say goodbye to Narcan and UBI.
Have gnu, will travel.
And also hairy palms!
We call it smoothe.
Actually, just the opposite, the study found nicotine increased the effect. " Individuals who use both marijuana and nicotine also have lower hippocampal volumes and lower immediate/delayed story recall compared to non-users [29]. Addition- ally, cannabis use is thought to interfere with memory formation by inhibiting long-term potentiation [30]."
It may be the smoke the blame rather than the cannabanoids. Also keep in mind the marijuana group had a psychiatric diagnosis of Cannabis use disorder, meaning most smoked a lot and regularly.
Most people arrested for DUI are significantly over the limit. Signs of intoxication on the roadside is enough for an arrest while a blood test is run. And beside that there is no real magic number for THC. Secondly borderline cases for THC intoxication don't seem to be particularly dangerous, and it tends to induce behaviors that counteract the intoxication.
But what provision do these treaties have allowing for a ruling that commerce within a country shall be treated as international trade, analogous to Wickard v. Filburn?
So, the implication here is that these are serious side effects compared to the benefit that the users get. Note that it's easily proven that sugar and salt harm, often fatally, far more people but we tolerate them due to the benefit.
Let's try a little word substitution to make a point.
State level sex legalization efforts across the U.S. have been gaining traction driven by the folk wisdom that sex is both a harmless recreational activity and a useful medical treatment for many ailments. However, some cracks have appeared in that story with indications that sexual activity is associated with the development of mental disorders and the long-term blunting of the brain's reward system of dopamine levels. A new study has found that sexual activity appears to have a widespread effect on blood flow in the brain. EurekAlert reports: "Published in the Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, researchers using single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), a sophisticated imaging study that evaluates blood flow and activity patterns, demonstrated abnormally low blood flow in virtually every area of the brain studies in nearly 1,000 sexually active adolescent males compared to healthy controls, including areas known to be affected by Alzheimer's pathology such as the hippocampus. According to Daniel Amen, M.D., 'Our research demonstrates that sexual activity can have significant negative effects on brain function. The media has given the general impression that sex is a normal and safe recreational activity, this research directly challenges that notion. In another new study just released, researchers showed that extensive sexual activity tripled the risk of psychosis. Caution is clearly in order.'"
If the US were more of a republic, it wouldn't bother me because in a more republican state these people (and many of their supporters) could not even vote. However, if we do go full on legalization we will need to veer strongly toward the more pure republic model from the trend toward more "democracy" in order to keep legalization from becoming a crippling effect on our system.
You apparently don't know what the word "republic" means. Hint: it's not somehow opposite "democracy". I suspect you think it means what's properly called "representative democracy", though it sounds like you don't like even that.
A republic is a state operated in the name of the people. A democracy is a state controlled (directly or indirectly) by the people. A republic doesn't have to be a democracy, and a democracy doesn't have to be a republic, but you can have democratic republics, and the United States is one. (For contrast, the UK is a democracy but not a republic; North Korea is a republic but not a democracy; and Saudi Arabia is neither).
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
"I should have sovereignty over my own body."
Cuz reasons?
Did you bring your body into existence?
Look, we've basically bred two major variants: one is high in CBD and one is low in CBD.
If you are using it for pain medication it has a lot of CBD and not much THC. The CBD counteracts the paranoic effects at high dosage, and is much more mellow.
If you are using it to get high, yes, that would be the other variant, high in THC and low in CBD.
It's like comparing different medications.
Stop freaking out. Stop listening to studies funded by the alcohol and tobacco companies that regard this as a competitor. Those rarely replicate the results they tout.
And stop taking it if you're under 21. Especially before tests, seriously, that's the stupidest thing ever. Save it for winter or spring break. And don't drive drunk or buzzed. If you think you might be either, you are. Duh.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Duh...thanks Captain Obvious :)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
No way!!!
we are particularly squeamish about handing out legal medicine that works on brain chemistry.
Tell that to my wife, whose psychiatrist lets her choose her own drugs and dosage levels. Mind you, this has ultimately worked out for her since she's been doing so under my guidance rather than his (and he has acknowledged the improvement, as well), once he got her to try the wrong dosage of the right drug and I worked with her to find the correct dosage. She went from note being able to get out of bed without hours of coaxing to running a successful print shop in less than 3 months.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
You don't want this dope head behind the wheel unmedicated with a migraine. Just saying.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yeah... I've seen this before... from those claiming brain research, versus real stories from those who do.
Most people arrested for DUI are significantly over the limit.
Citation, please?
And beside that there is no real magic number for THC.
Maybe we should consider coming up with one?
borderline cases for THC intoxication don't seem to be particularly dangerous, and it tends to induce behaviors that counteract the intoxication.
I could make the same argument for alcohol. I used to go out to the bars and drink and drive home when I lived in Florida. Never had a problem because I recognized that I was a bit drunk and concentrated on my driving.
It works great, unless there's something else to distract you. Like another person in the car.
Exactly how marijuana is used might be a factor. Smoking gets you lots of combustion byproducts: carbon monoxide, etc. Vaporizers and edibles do not. I'd like to see the breakdown, and maybe compared with cigarette smokers as well. Maybe it's the THC that is causing the effect reported, but maybe not.
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Of all the pro-legalization groups I follow, not one of them claims that marijuana is harmless. They claim it is *relatively* harmless, i.e. less damaging to individuals and society than other common choices such as alcohol. It's not a "safe" choice, it's a less dangerous one.
If this is true, and assuming you're happy to let people use some recreational drugs in moderation (e.g. alcohol), it follows that marijuana should be one of the legal options.
https://youtu.be/1pzoJVnPblI
It's been widely known that use of cannabis affects blood flow in THE ENTIRE BODY.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
This work goes beyond the normal logical confusion of "correlation implies causation." It's just a really poorly designed experiment. A better experiment would have compared blood flow in brains of people who have never used marijuana and them had them use marijuana and then again measured blood flow. (This also lacks a control but at least it measures something useful. And I spent all of five seconds coming up with it and I'm not in the field. So.....)
So what's wrong? Maybe people who have abnormally low brain blood flow are prone to using marijuana, perhaps even to _increase_ blood flow, but less than perfectly. And instead of _causing_ psychosis, maybe people who are psychotic are prone to using marijuana. I know people who have told me that they need to use marijuana to feel normal, and maybe normal for them means non-psychotic.
http://www.amenclinics.com/blo...
Considering that the longest time I've ever spent in a hospital, and the worst health damage I've ever had, was from a Tylenol overdose, I'm not impressed that cannabis is a significant health threat to me. It does help considerably with my joint and back pain from years of construction work though...
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
+1, keep up the good work using your brain regardless of how much bloodflow was required. Part of the pattern here is "non-normality implies negative results". Just because something is different doesn't necessarily mean it is bad. Especially when, as @limaxray pointed out- you can verify the false theory by simply looking outside and realizing the sky isn't in the process of falling (except when it literally is, not that that matters)
I was talking about this specific effect on the brain. Everyone knows that all sorts of studies have found tobacco to be unhealthy in many ways, ditto everything else listed. What I want to know is if this specific effect they see in marijuana is a common effect with other things or is it specific to weed and does it mean anything in terms of long term health?
Rastahs engage in hair fantasy, one of them being non washing it and letting dandruff and allowing other insect parasites. Was this correlated in the study? I think it renders their study useless. I mean, I do see live Rastahs and they do explain and speak of it because it is not badly seen but on the contrary it is macho AND natural! You do not have to be a Rastah to get parasited if for them it is not a religious imperative but a natural concomitance. What I knew is that THC produces increases in blood pressure, which is one of the disadvantages other contrary studies have published against its use. Contradictory statements! You will not get truths till you legalize because in the 70s all these studies were just primitive and non existent and while penalized you will only get people treated as criminals.... Do you understand this last point?
Not to seem like a science denier but this is crap. If you did science...detail the purpose of the study, the methodology used, the controls, the detailed results and the peer review that duplicated or contradicted the results. And what they mean. Also reveal who commissioned the study and who put up the money. Then it's science. Until these conditions have been met it's simply advancing and agenda. So fuck off. And on the other hand...on a non scientific take...thousands of years of use and no one noticed anything wrong until Harry J. Anslinger came along to start the ball rolling. Again. Fuck Off.
So, it's beneficial with respect to strokes. (not that kind of stroking, you dirty bastards :)
I never understood why people keep pushing for legalizing pot, while nobody even dares to bring up LSD. LSD is far more of an "intelligent" drug than pot could even be. Pot is for idiots who just want to "chill" and "have a good time". LSD can actually change a person, overcome abusive experiences and achieve enlightenment. Ah, and it's not addictive. Ah, and it's the safest "drug" ever, probably safer than green tee, assuming you should have a non-LSD person with you to make sure you don't want to go out of a window (but if you limit yourself to 150-300 ug you'll be fine). My version is that the government knows just how useful LSD could be for the general population. They are afraid that people might become too "enlighten" to go through their bullshit policies anymore, reason why everything about LSD is banned. Why aren't they banning smoking or alcohol? Those are doing far more damage than LSD could ever do.