Casual Marijuana Use May Damage Brain

[Xeones]

Not very surprising; but it's hard to have a serious discussion about the matter when you have people claiming it's some sort of 'miracle drug' that is completely harmless as well as 'curing' cancer and a whole host of other ailments.

The problem is I don't think I've ever seen an unbiased study on it. You either have misleading/blatant lies saying it does horrible things or you have a bunch of stoners saying it's amazing. With the legalization we may see some increased proper studies but at this point you're not going to have an intelligent discussion on it.

[Gheld]

So you are saying this will be pretty much like most forum threads about any topic? Because that pretty much sums up most interactions on the internet.

Marijuana threads follow this template a lot more strictly. Up to and including the whole "me pointing out strict template for marijuana threads and somebody trying to suggest all threads go that way".

[Kathandira]

Marijuana threads follow this template a lot more strictly. Up to and including the whole "me pointing out strict template for marijuana threads and somebody trying to suggest all threads go that way".

LOL True indeed.

I mean, it is a very controversial topic that people take pretty seriously (oddly enough). Seems like when a thread about something controversial comes up, the conversation really is almost a copy and paste template. It's like we can read the Matrix!

[Xargoth6634]

I don't think that "it damages you" is a good justification to forbid someone from doing something.

Really, you don't? Because that seems like pretty good justification to me.

[Gheld]

LOL True indeed.

I mean, it is a very controversial topic that people take pretty seriously (oddly enough). Seems like when a thread about something controversial comes up, the conversation really is almost a copy and paste template. It's like we can read the Matrix!

It's not even controversial. Most people support legalization these days.

Most people also don't believe it's completely harmless.

But people who do something under the belief that it's harmless, when confronted with contradictory information naturally get knocked into an aggressive death-spiral of cognitive dissonance.

Then you have people who want it to be illegal, but are unable to prove that it has a societal harm significant enough to warrant it's illegality; who spiral into a blazing trail of strawman arguments.

The end result is a double helix of derp.

[Symphonic]

I don't think that "it damages you" is a good justification to forbid someone from doing something.

At what point do you try to stop people from doing something?

"You are hereby required to wear a hard hat at this construction site."
"Why?"
"You could be damaged by accidents at the workplace, something might fall and hit your head."
"You can't make me, that's not good justification to force me to wear a hard hat!"

Lol

The whole point is more information to help spur discussion on the topic of legalizing marijuana. Wouldn't you want to know the facts of what things do before accepting them? This study isn't trying to stop people, it's essentially saying that changes take place, and more research is necessary, but from their limited participants, you may want to be cautious before your brain is fully developed.

[Kathandira]

Really, you don't? Because that seems like pretty good justification to me.

Don't use aspartame as a sugar substitue, or acutane for your acne, oh don't use bleach in your bathroom unless it has really good ventilation. What ever you do, don't smoke cigarettes. The list goes on, i'm sure each of us can list many things which are perfectly legal that can cause you great harm. Many things aren't even legal if you use it correctly. They are just legal with their potential side effects.

[Hraklea]

Really, you don't? Because that seems like pretty good justification to me.

There's a lot of things that damages you and you're allowed to do nowadays because "the society ruled that the [risk of] damages is worth it". My problem with that is that I don't think it is wrong to use my risk evaluation to decide what you can or cannot do.

For instance, listening to loud music for a long period of time reduces your hearing, but it is not a crime. The same goes for using the computer for too long without taking a break. The same goes for sedentarism. The same goes for extreme sports. The same goes to eating too much "bad food". Do you think it is fair for me to forbid you to listen to music to the volume you like because I don't think it is worth for you to damage your ears? Do you think it is fair for me to force to practice a sport because "I know you'll thank me later!"?

I don't think it is fair for me to have the right to remove your freedom of taking risks because I think they're not worth it. I don't own you, and I should not have that right.

[Kathandira]

Call it a strawman, tired old argument if you wish. But I will always stand by the idea that if Cigarettes are legal to purchase, and alcohol is legal to consume. Then so should Marijuana.

I know it is a played out response. But I really don't see anything wrong with the comparison.

[Hraklea]

At what point do you try to stop people from doing something?

"You are hereby required to wear a hard hat at this construction site."
"Why?"
"You could be damaged by accidents at the workplace, something might fall and hit your head."
"You can't make me, that's not good justification to force me to wear a hard hat!"

Lol

I don't think I ever should have the right to force you to take safety measures because I like them. Read my previous post. I don't own you. You should be free to do things that I consider stupid. Who am I to say that my standard of what is ok and what is dumb should be the followed by everyone?

The whole point is more information to help spur discussion on the topic of legalizing marijuana.

I agree. I'm not "against the study". I'm against forbidding marijuana because "it might be dangerous".

[crunk]

id be interested in a better study like this, but, like the this study itself says the results are fairly inconclusive. they should do a follow up 2-3 months later to see if the effects are persistant, and, the study should be done over the course of a couple of years.

i'd also be interested in seeing similar studies done for other legal drugs like caffeine, alcohol, nicotine, and all that crazy shit they put in energy drinks. because while it might be true that marijuana has an impact on the brain we as a society have already deemed it acceptable to fuck with our own biochemistry to certain points.

[chazus]

Wait.. they tested TWENTY people in one area, of one type? The sample size almost literally could not get any smaller, outside of saying "We didn't actually test this at all"

I can pretty much guarantee (Without even doing any actual research myself!), on average, that most people who smoke pot regularly, in college, probably have less brain cells on average. You know what people who smoke that much pot in college also do? They drink! They do stupid stuff! Now, granted, not everyone who smokes pot does. And not everyone who doesn't smoke pot, also doesn't drink or do stupid stuff. However, there IS a correlation between drug use of any kind, and other vices (Smoking, drinking).

A sample size this small, in that acute an area, just begs to be torn apart.

The headline literally says "Cannabis Use is Quantitatively Associated" QUANTITATIVELY? I feel like these researchers don't even know what that means.

[devark]

here's a nice study: http://www.jci.org/articles/view/25509

[Tradewind]

Why are they testing BAAHHHSTAAAHHN'ers for Brain Damage??? Damage done already science.

[OneSent]

I don't even smoke weed, and I call bullshit.

The story flip-flops every few months anyway, depending on the media's mood. "Marijuana found to cause brain damage." And then next month "New research has found that marijuana has therapeutic benefits."

Blah, blah, blow it out your ass.

[Al Gorefiend]

Were the college kids polled of equal intelligence prior to the research? Im inclined to believe the kids who choose to smoke marijuana already have some form of brain damage to even begin trying it.

[Gheld]

I don't even smoke weed, and I call bullshit.

The story flip-flops every few months anyway, depending on the media's mood. "Marijuana found to cause brain damage." And then next month "New research has found that marijuana has therapeutic benefits."

Blah, blah, blow it out your ass.

Maybe there are multiple chemical components to marijuana, some of which are harmful and some of which have medical benefits. *shock* *gasp*

[crakerjack]

Well considering you can't do full scale government supported tests on marijuana and it's effects on the brain due to legal issues, this study and all the others claiming there's actual severe damage to the brain are utter bullshit. Simple as that.

[Gheld]

Well considering you can't do full scale government supported tests on marijuana and it's effects on the brain due to legal issues, this study and all the others claiming there's actual severe damage to the brain are utter bullshit. Simple as that.

Plenty of "government supported tests" have been done on marijuana. In fact most of the research is publicly funded at this point because the govenrment makes the laws; it doesn't follow them. Do you think some statistics student in a state where it's illegal is going to just pass some doobies around at a party and publish the results with his name and address on it?

[Tradewind]

Plenty of "government supported tests" have been done on marijuana. In fact most of the research is publicly funded at this point because the govenrment makes the laws; it doesn't follow them. Do you think some statistics student in a state where it's illegal is going to just pass some doobies around at a party and publish the results with his name and address on it?

Well if he has brain damage, yeah!