• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Smoking cannabis just once a week can damage young brains

Jango said:
What is this study supposed to prove? It is already widely held and pretty much common knowledge that brains that are not fully developed should not be exposed to marijuana, or other brain chemical altering substances.

It's sad that the people that generally **** all over marijuana are the types of people that dope their kids up on medications prescribed by doctors who typically have no idea about the long-term affects the little white pills will have on Johnny's brain, body and health when he gets older.
Click to expand...

The reality is that poorly educated people like Navy Pride by their very nature have to be told what to believe by others. That's why a natural plant is an evil abomination but the same chemicals in pill form created by a corporation are proper medicine.

I have to wonder what any of these ****s would do if their kid was diagnosed with dravet's syndrome, where the kid will seizure hundreds of times a week and the only effective cure is cannabis oil.
 
The study was funded, in part, by the fed (NIDA). That means it has to say something negative, or else it won't get that funding, and in-fact its whole purpose was likely to come up with something negative to say about MJ.
 
Zyphlin said:
The small sample size and admittedly inconclusive results are reasons to not make a huge deal out of this or think it's definitive:



Similarly however, a small sample size doesn't INHERENTLY mean it's WRONG. It's one thing to not take it as absolute proof. It's another thing to write it off completely.

I never personally bought the notion it was somehow 100% safe in all fashions anyways. I've seen enough information regarding the possible triggering of underlying mental health issues, for example, to really make such a claim.

That said, nothing in that study suggests to me...even if it was correct...that it's any more (or even as) harmful as a plethora of perfectly legal substances the government doesn't disallow a person from choosing to partake in. Nothing in the article suggest to me any reason why the substance should remain illegal, promoting a nanny state big government that expends significant tax payer funds with little significant gain.
Click to expand...

Worth noting that this is a followup study to an earlier one that showed the same trend in people who heavily use pot. So it's not the same as a stand-alone study of 40 people.
 
Ah yes.

Reefer madness Déjà vu.
 
Kobie said:
No, they're not. Another lie from Navy Pride.

Also, there are no "left-wing polls." I don't think you understand how scientific polling works.
Click to expand...

Here's a poll from DailyKos just today:

POLL
"The best way to improve economic prospects for women is to improve job prospects for the men in their lives, even if that means increasing the so-called pay gap." Can you read that statement by Phyllis Schlafly without laughing?

Yes
6% 68 votes
No
93% 964 votes
| 1032 votes | Vote

.......................

Not scientific, I agree, but a poll none the less.
 
Navy Pride said:
For all you pot smokers in denial.....

Smoking cannabis just once a week can damage young brains | Toowoomba Chronicle


  • Charlie Cooper
  • 16th Apr 2014 9:04 AM
  • YOUNG people who smoke cannabis just once or twice a week could suffer "major" changes to areas of their brain important for emotion and motivation, US scientists have said.
    In a study that challenges the idea that "casual" marijuana use is largely harmless, doctors found that young adults who used the drug only recreationally had "abnormal alterations" to the nucleus accumbens and the amygdala.
Click to expand...

*Yawn*

Carl Sagan used it for years and he turned out just fine.

Why do you want to police what people put in their own bodies?
 
Jango said:
My parents were not incompetent, they just couldn't be around me 24/7.
Click to expand...

Of course not. We snuck beer all the time.

But it was a general (and a bit snarky) comment.
 
Even if marijuana is harmful.. so what.

1) We should not be policing what adults do to their own bodies.

2) If we want to discourage kids from using it while their brains are still developing and they are too young to make responsible decisions, then we need to take control of its distribution and reduce the scope of the black market so that we can lower the availability of marijuana to minors.
 
I suppose I'm the only one against controlling marijuana access to minors. Oh well...
 
humbolt said:
Here's a poll from DailyKos just today:

POLL
"The best way to improve economic prospects for women is to improve job prospects for the men in their lives, even if that means increasing the so-called pay gap." Can you read that statement by Phyllis Schlafly without laughing?

Yes
6% 68 votes
No
93% 964 votes
| 1032 votes | Vote

.......................

Not scientific, I agree, but a poll none the less.
Click to expand...

I should have clarified that there's no left wing polls that I cite, which NP was clearly accusing me of.
 
jmotivator said:
Worth noting that this is a followup study to an earlier one that showed the same trend in people who heavily use pot. So it's not the same as a stand-alone study of 40 people.
Click to expand...

If you read your own link, you'll recognize that it was still only 97 test subjects and half of them were selected intentionally because they had schizophrenia. The article's primary claim is that it can cause schizophrenia.

That seems kind of obvious when you go out of your way to make sure half of the subjects were schizophrenics. Is anybody surprised there were some abnormal brains in that group?

Because the study results examined one point in time, a longitudinal study is needed to definitively show if marijuana is responsible for the brain changes and memory impairment. It is possible that the abnormal brain structures reveal a pre-existing vulnerability to marijuana abuse. But evidence that the younger a subject started using the drug the greater his brain abnormality indicates marijuana may be the cause, Smith said.

The groups in the study started using marijuana daily between 16 to 17 years of age for about three years. At the time of the study, they had been marijuana free for about two years. A total of 97 subjects participated, including matched groups of healthy controls, subjects with a marijuana use disorder, schizophrenia subjects with no history of substance use disorders, and schizophrenia subjects with a marijuana use disorder. The subjects who used marijuana did not abuse any other drugs.

- See more at: Marijuana Users Have Abnormal Brain Structure and Poor Memory: Northwestern University News
Click to expand...
 
americanwoman said:
Where has anyone said otherwise? I saw most people supporting here mj use except for minors, myself included.
Click to expand...

Either I worded that wrong or you read it wrong. I'm opposed to restricting access to drugs like marijuana to minors. Most people support policies that would restrict a minors right to gain access to what they desire to purchase if it proven harmful, while I'm against such things in all cases.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
If you read your own link, you'll recognize that it was still only 97 test subjects and half of them were selected intentionally because they had schizophrenia. The article's primary claim is that it can cause schizophrenia.

That seems kind of obvious when you go out of your way to make sure half of the subjects were schizophrenics. Is anybody surprised there were some abnormal brains in that group?
Click to expand...

When you are running a test to compare the brain structure of pot smokers and schizophrenics it is pretty important to include schizophrenics in the study.
 
Beaudreaux said:
From experience with people that did smoke pot when they were young, I can say I could believe it. Many of the guys I know that have smoked since they were 15-16 are, well... impaired.
Click to expand...

Based on an informal Facebook poll of the guys I spent pretty much all of high school getting drunk and high with we have the following:

One named executive (Chief Service Officer) of a regional telecommunications company.
Three chiropractors (very close friends who all decided to do the same things with their lives).
Three lawyers.
Five business executives (managing director, president, three vice presidents).
Four professionals (jobs requiring professional Masters Degree credentials).
Three small business owners.
Once Army First Sergeant.
And one stock broker who has more money than the rest of us on that list combined.

Additionally a bunch of the fellas aren't hanging off the top two or three percent of the socioeconomic ladder but they've got decent jobs, beautiful families, and it would seem they're generally pretty happy with their lives.

Sure, there are also a small handful who aren't doing so well and aren't that happy, some are drunks, some are burnouts, some never amounted to much. There's one who's in a wheelchair as a result of having run from the police on a motorcycle (while in possession of cocaine and with a warrant out for him at the time) which he crashed, and I know of two, unrelated to my FB study, who are dead as a result of substance abuse (one OD and one killed himself driving drunk).

By and large, though, looking at the above, and understand that these are guys who I KNOW were smoking pot (at least on a several-times-a-week, if not daily, basis for much of high school) from the age if sixteen through college (at least) it doesn't seem that, as a group, we've turned out significantly worse than any arbitrary cross section of American society.

I won't dispute the findings of this (alarmingly small) study, because I'm certainly not in a position to do so.

I do however question the relevance of the results.

So smoking pot when you're a kid causes an enlargement of the "nucleus accumbens".

Okay.

So what?
 
Last edited:
Kobie said:
No, they're not. Another lie from Navy Pride.

Also, there are no "left-wing polls." I don't think you understand how scientific polling works.
Click to expand...

It's just one of many things that he doesn't understand.
 
Kobie said:
I should have clarified that there's no left wing polls that I cite, which NP was clearly accusing me of.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't use the poll I cited as evidence of anything significant either. I agree the sample size in the OP poll is tiny. They did find some interesting stuff, though. We'll just have to wait until more significant studies are conducted before serious conclusions might be reached that will stand up under scrutiny. Unless there are underlying medical reasons which justify it, children and teenagers shouldn't be smoking pot anyway.
 
Henrin said:
Either I worded that wrong or you read it wrong. I'm opposed to restricting access to drugs like marijuana to minors. Most people support policies that would restrict a minors right to gain access to what they desire to purchase if it proven harmful, while I'm against such things in all cases.
Click to expand...

Children are not adults. Would you give a five year old a drivers license?
 
Geoist said:
Children are not adults. Would you give a five year old a drivers license?
Click to expand...

While it's true that children are not adults, it is incorrect to argue they don't have rights towards own person and that it is permissible for the state to fail to protect their rights due to their age. If an adult has the right to harm themselves then I have no reason to conclude that children do not have the same right towards their own person, and therefore I do not consider it right for the state to act on children by stopping them from purchasing certain goods on the open market for personal consumption.
 
Henrin said:
While it's true that children are not adults, it is incorrect to argue they don't have rights towards own person and that it is permissible for the state to fail to protect their rights due to their age. If an adult has the right to harm themselves then I have no reason to conclude that children do not have the same right towards their own person, and therefore I do not consider it right for the state to act on children by stopping them from purchasing certain goods on the open market for personal consumption.
Click to expand...

As good an example of Poe's Law as I've seen in a while.
 
soot said:
Based on an informal Facebook poll of the guys I spent pretty much all of high school getting drunk and high with we have the following:

One named executive (Chief Service Officer) of a regional telecommunications company.
Three chiropractors (very close friends who all decided to do the same things with their lives).
Three lawyers.
Five business executives (managing director, president, three vice presidents).
Four professionals (jobs requiring professional Masters Degree credentials).
Three small business owners.
Once Army First Sergeant.
And one stock broker who has more money than the rest of us on that list combined.

Additionally a bunch of the fellas aren't hanging off the top two or three percent of the socioeconomic ladder but they've got decent jobs, beautiful families, and it would seem they're generally pretty happy with their lives.

Sure, there are also a small handful who aren't doing so well and aren't that happy, some are drunks, some are burnouts, some never amounted to much. There's one who's in a wheelchair as a result of having run from the police on a motorcycle (while in possession of cocaine and with a warrant out for him at the time) which he crashed, and I know of two, unrelated to my FB study, who are dead as a result of substance abuse (one OD and one killed himself driving drunk).

By and large, though, looking at the above, and understand that these are guys who I KNOW were smoking pot (at least on a several-times-a-week, if not daily, basis for much of high school) from the age if sixteen through college (at least) it doesn't seem that, as a group, we've turned out significantly worse than any arbitrary cross section of American society.

I won't dispute the findings of this (alarmingly small) study, because I'm certainly not in a position to do so.

I do however question the relevance of the results.

So smoking pot when you're a kid causes an enlargement of the "nucleus accumbens".

Okay.

So what?
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. And, very a interesting case study, that seems to have more detail than the OP study.

In the statement you quoted, I said many, not all. And I also admitted that my experience is limited as well.

So again, thanks for giving this informative data.
 
Kobie said:
How are we defining "young people"?
Click to expand...

doctors found that young adults who used the drug only recreationally had "abnormal alterations" to the nucleus accumbens and the amygdala.
Click to expand...

Second paragraph... :lamo

Smoking cannabis just once a week can damage young brains | Toowoomba Chronicle

A young adult, according to Erik Erikson's stages of human development, is generally a person in the age range of 20 to 40,
Click to expand...

Young adult (psychology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1063161085 said:
Second paragraph... :lamo

Smoking cannabis just once a week can damage young brains | Toowoomba Chronicle
Click to expand...


The last paragraph was pretty interesting, too.


Peter Jones, professor of psychiatry at the University of Cambridge, said the study was interesting but inconclusive. "The research is limited as it is only a small study, it is not known whether the reported changes in the brain are necessarily bad. Furthermore, as they didn't measure the brains before and after, it's possible that people with a larger accumbens are more likely to take cannabis."
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom