New Study documents the brain damage caused by marijuana

[pakeha]

I'm from Nebraska. When we shoot things, it's because we want to eat em' or make them leave our boyfriends alone.
~Penny

 

[manofthesea]

Here's an interesting website on the topic. The first entry is particularly ironic. Marijuana can be derived from hemp--which was also used to make rope, a vital commodity in the age of sailing ships.

*George Washington and Thomas Jefferson both grew hemp. Ben Franklin owned a mill that made hemp paper. Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence on hemp paper.

http://www.naihc.org/hemp_information/hemp_facts.html

Now we know where those silly notions of equality and liberty come from...

 

[RedRatSnake]

Once and for all dispelling the myth that pot is 'harmless' to it's users

Just another study to tear apart and laugh at while token on a fattie.

" Scientists from MCRI, Melbourne University and Wollongong University compared MRI scans of the brain for 59 people who had been using marijuana for an average of 15 years to 33 healthy people who had never used the drug "


Tim

 

[ServiceSoon]

The argument that there are other activities that are legal that are worse for you is a flawed argument. Does anybody know why?

The argument that establishment A, B, etc condones such activities makes such behavior more or less acceptable is flawed. Does anybody know why?

I'm from Nebraska. When we shoot things, it's because we want to eat em' or make them leave our boyfriends alone.
~Penny

I'm in love.

 

[The Dark Lord]

You're free to explain the "logic" of banning marijuana while at the same time permitting the far more dangerous drug, alcohol to be sold to anyone who is old enough.

 

[Dinwar]

http://www.naihc.org/hemp_information/hemp_facts.html

Now we know where those silly notions of equality and liberty come from...

See, when I was living in Alabama I lived next to a paper mill. It wasn't nearly as fun. Smelled oddly minty when it combined with the grass and the 120 degree heat (though that may have just been my brain frying).

The argument that there are other activities that are legal that are worse for you is a flawed argument. Does anybody know why?

Because it's devastating to your case?

The argument FOR prohibition is "Pot harms you". Therefore, if other activities do equal harm without being illegal, we can conclude that the criteria at minimum is inconsistently applied. And when there is inconsistency, there's almost always hidden motives. An examination of the laws involved shows that those motives are clearly Puritanical moral codes that people tried, early last century, to impose on everyone, Puritan or not. Since I'm not a Puritan, and we have separation of Church and State in the USA, and the false argument present can't stand on its own, we can pretty much toss out that line of reasoning for prohibition.

The argument that establishment A, B, etc condones such activities makes such behavior more or less acceptable is flawed. Does anybody know why?

Argument from Authority.

Now, the argument that you get to tell me what I do in the comfort and privacy of my own home because I'm too stupid to make rational choices is flawed. Does anyone know why?

The argument "It's harmful, therefore we should outlaw it" is flawed. Does anyone know why?

Patronizing, pretentious questions in place of substantive arguments is a flawed discussion technique. Does anyone know why?

 

[Piggy]

Once and for all dispelling the myth that pot is 'harmless' to it's users, Australian researchers have documented scientifically the brain damage caused by smoking pot

http://www.medicaldaily.com/article...mage-memory-learning-drug-habit-addiction.htm

It didn't seem to slow Carl Sagan down much, now, did it?

Personally, I find cannabis, when used in moderation, to be beneficial, but detrimental when used to excess.

Similar, I suppose, to recent finding regarding alcohol.

 

[Piggy]

Science trumps anecdote...isn't that how it works with critical thinking?

Keep in mind, please, that anecdotes -- accurate ones, anyways -- are facts.

And studies are studies. They have their limitations.

It is never a good idea to ignore facts in favor of universal applications of the results of any particular study.

I've seen people steer their lives into the rocks because they wanted to get high every day. On the other hand, I've known regular smokers who have remained highly functional, earning six-figure salaries and managing multi-million-dollar projects.

It all depends on how you're built.

For some folks, weed is a trap that holds them in a cycle of self-indulgence.

For others, it's a way to calm an over-active mind and allow them to relax and get some sleep.

 

[Piggy]

You're free to explain to the "logic" of banning marijuana while at the same time permitting the far more dangerous drug, alcohol to be sold to anyone who is old enough.

Don't forget that we're also free to feed our children fast food every day if we want to, thereby guaranteeing health problems.

 

[Lowpro]

Everything about this is stupid. Dinwar has a point in that the study is interesting however dosage should always be considered. However we also have to consider that on any dosage there is an effect on the brain and it seems to be for the worse. Temporarily or permanent hasn't been decided.

So is weed bad for you? Such a study would at the most say "kind of" because we don't know recovery and we don't if the reactions are actually bad for you.

I don't like weed so I don't smoke it, but I also don't like the after effects of alcohol and I drink all the time with no ill side effects. I don't think there's a fair policy to be determined just yet.

Personally I think smoking weed is as fine as drinking, and I think both are stupid decisions and stoners suck a lot. If I could I'd punch every stoner in the face really hard.

BTW I typed this after coming home from the bar, so screw you stoners!

 

[asydhouse]

See, when I was living in Alabama I lived next to a paper mill. It wasn't nearly as fun. Smelled oddly minty when it combined with the grass and the 120 degree heat (though that may have just been my brain frying).

Because it's devastating to your case?

The argument FOR prohibition is "Pot harms you". Therefore, if other activities do equal harm without being illegal, we can conclude that the criteria at minimum is inconsistently applied. And when there is inconsistency, there's almost always hidden motives. An examination of the laws involved shows that those motives are clearly Puritanical moral codes that people tried, early last century, to impose on everyone, Puritan or not. Since I'm not a Puritan, and we have separation of Church and State in the USA, and the false argument present can't stand on its own, we can pretty much toss out that line of reasoning for prohibition.

Argument from Authority.

Now, the argument that you get to tell me what I do in the comfort and privacy of my own home because I'm too stupid to make rational choices is flawed. Does anyone know why? The argument "It's harmful, therefore we should outlaw it" is flawed. Does anyone know why? Patronizing, pretentious questions in place of substantive arguments is a flawed discussion technique. Does anyone know why?

Hear hear! Well said!

 

[asydhouse]

Everything about this is stupid. Dinwar has a point in that the study is interesting however dosage should always be considered. However we also have to consider that on any dosage there is an effect on the brain and it seems to be for the worse. Temporarily or permanent hasn't been decided.

So is weed bad for you? Such a study would at the most say "kind of" because we don't know recovery and we don't if the reactions are actually bad for you.

I don't like weed so I don't smoke it, but I also don't like the after effects of alcohol and I drink all the time with no ill side effects. I don't think there's a fair policy to be determined just yet.

Personally I think smoking weed is as fine as drinking, and I think both are stupid decisions and stoners suck a lot. If I could I'd punch every stoner in the face really hard.

BTW I typed this after coming home from the bar, so screw you stoners!

Joking or not, what you just said is so dumb I would call you a twat if I wasn't a nondrinker and a midnight toker.

And as Bill Hicks reminded us: All that music you love to get down to? Real high!

 

[Mike!]

Everything about this is stupid. Dinwar has a point in that the study is interesting however dosage should always be considered. However we also have to consider that on any dosage there is an effect on the brain and it seems to be for the worse. Temporarily or permanent hasn't been decided.

So is weed bad for you? Such a study would at the most say "kind of" because we don't know recovery and we don't if the reactions are actually bad for you.

I don't like weed so I don't smoke it, but I also don't like the after effects of alcohol and I drink all the time with no ill side effects. I don't think there's a fair policy to be determined just yet.

Personally I think smoking weed is as fine as drinking, and I think both are stupid decisions and stoners suck a lot. If I could I'd punch every stoner in the face really hard.

BTW I typed this after coming home from the bar, so screw you stoners!

Stoners rarely, if ever, want to punch anyone, but drinking makes you want to punch a stoner, really hard... What's wrong with this picture?

 

[Jaxe]

Stoners rarely, if ever, want to punch anyone, but drinking makes you want to punch a stoner, really hard... What's wrong with this picture?

Is it because stoners are the ones that get laid, while the drunks get shot down?

 

[ServiceSoon]

Because it's devastating to your case?

The argument FOR prohibition is "Pot harms you". Therefore, if other activities do equal harm without being illegal, we can conclude that the criteria at minimum is inconsistently applied. And when there is inconsistency, there's almost always hidden motives. An examination of the laws involved shows that those motives are clearly Puritanical moral codes that people tried, early last century, to impose on everyone, Puritan or not. Since I'm not a Puritan, and we have separation of Church and State in the USA, and the false argument present can't stand on its own, we can pretty much toss out that line of reasoning for prohibition.

Personal responsibility is the guiding light that I try to follow. My position is decriminalization or legalization. With that said, I agree that it's important that the state be consistent and logical in writing it's laws. However, paternalism is an important construct of our society. Why do you think pot was frowned upon by Puritans?

Although the discussion is about pot, how would you then draw the line at other drugs? Legalize it all? Perhaps the distinction is a substance that is physically addictive, but caffeine is physically addictive.

Argument from Authority.

Now, the argument that you get to tell me what I do in the comfort and privacy of my own home because I'm too stupid to make rational choices is flawed. Does anyone know why?

The argument "It's harmful, therefore we should outlaw it" is flawed. Does anyone know why?

Patronizing, pretentious questions in place of substantive arguments is a flawed discussion technique. Does anyone know why?

Patronizing? I apologize if you took my question after my comment in such a manner. It was an honest question. I could't conceptualize the reason why I felt that way and I was hoping somebody would chime in and help me, but you've done quite the opposite haven't you

I think I got it, how about this. It's like disagreeing that murder is wrong simply because that was the church's position. I know most here are organized religion haters and it's normal to take a jab at them as often as they can, but I think making this connection isn't worthwhile.

Come on, just because you are in the comfort of your own home doesn't mean you are free to do that which you want.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

From the OP link:

Scientists from MCRI, Melbourne University and Wollongong University compared MRI scans of the brain for 59 people who had been using marijuana for an average of 15 years to 33 healthy people who had never used the drug.

That's a pilot study, small sample size.

While the results may be refuted or confirmed with further research, it bothers me how many skeptics fail to look at the actual study rather than the just taking the conclusion at fact value.

How did they control for other variables? With such a small sample size, the data comparing people who smoked a lot as teens to those who started later must have been an even smaller sample size. How much memory loss are we talking about here. Have you seen a generation of walking zombies out there resulting from the very common use of pot in the 70s?

I await more definitive studies.


Wait, what was I talking about?

 

[Mycroft]

The argument that there are other activities that are legal that are worse for you is a flawed argument. Does anybody know why?

I disagree.

It's hard to identify anything that doesn't carry some degree of risk or harm. That some amount of harm or risk must be tolerated is a given. Making comparisons to things we've already agreed to tolerate is pretty much the only rational way you can make an assessment whether any given activity meets your baseline or not.

 

[ehcks]

Ok, but this also means we need to ban tobacco, alcohol, and caffeine.

And I wouldn't have too much trouble banning aspirin, going by this tiny bit of data.

 

[Dinwar]

Stoners rarely, if ever, want to punch anyone, but drinking makes you want to punch a stoner, really hard... What's wrong with this picture?

Never understood that. I've been drunk a lot, and I've never done anything drunk that I didn't want to sober (well, barring the physiological responses). On a few occasions I've done things that I wanted to do but was afraid to do, or I ignored consequences, but drinking has never "made me" want to do something.

However, paternalism is an important construct of our society. Why do you think pot was frowned upon by Puritans?

It's an erronious part based upon the idiotic notion that some people know how to live your life better than you do. It's the old "philosopher king" concept.

Although the discussion is about pot, how would you then draw the line at other drugs? Legalize it all? Perhaps the distinction is a substance that is physically addictive, but caffeine is physically addictive.

Legalize everything, make driving while impaired automatic attempted manslaughter, and remove all legal considerations for being under the influence of drugs as mitigating circumstances. You can do whatever you want in the privacy of your own home--but the instant you hurt someone else the law comes down on you like a ton of bricks.

Come on, just because you are in the comfort of your own home doesn't mean you are free to do that which you want.

Why the hell not? If I'm in the privacy of my own home, and not harming--or even impacting--anyone else, by what right can you demand I stop? That's THE central issue here: some people believe that they have the right to dictate how others live their lives, and others don't. I'm in the "don't" category--the only people who have a right to tell me what to do are those I'm in a contractual relationship with and those whom my actions will impact. If neither exist, I'm free to do whatever I want, even if it's harmful.

The other issue to consider is how you'd know I was doing something wrong. You'd have to invade my privacy. Considering my wife and I keep the blinds closed (keeps the heat out) you'd probably have to break into our home. There is NO WAY for you to enforce these laws without violating the principle of private property. This isn't a hypothetical issue, either--it's trivial to find incidents of the War on Drugs violating the rights of people who are completely innocent, including children having automatic rifles pointed at them, patients being imprisoned for filling prescriptions, checkpoints like you'd see in Iraq, etc. So even if I agreed that paternalistic laws were a good thing--AND THEY'RE NOT, we're all adults and should be treated as such--I couldn't agree with you that they were valid on the basis that enforcement is necessarily going to violate the rights of the people you're trying to protect.

And then there's the practical issues--to whit, we've turned an industry violent. There's a BODY COUNT associated with these paternalistic laws, which only exists because we've made the business illegal. By trying to protect people from themselves we've turned them into prey for others. Paternalistic legislation when it comes to intoxicating substances DOES NOT protect people, and that's a simple fact. So even if I agreed that politicians have the right to dictate how I live my life, and I was going to ignore the horrendous violations of rights that are involved, I still couldn't agree that the War on Drugs is right on purely utilitarian grounds.

 

[ServiceSoon]

It's an erronious part based upon the idiotic notion that some people know how to live your life better than you do. It's the old "philosopher king" concept.

And yet here we are discussing how you think the laws should be. Would I be out-of-line if I compared you to a philosopher king I try to take the view that everybody wants the best for everybody and each individual person has their own ideas and experiences. Let me give Piggy some credit:

....I've seen people steer their lives into the rocks because they wanted to get high every day. On the other hand, I've known regular smokers who have remained highly functional, earning six-figure salaries and managing multi-million-dollar projects.

It all depends on how you're built.

For some folks, weed is a trap that holds them in a cycle of self-indulgence.

For others, it's a way to calm an over-active mind and allow them to relax and get some sleep.

Perhaps you, Dinwar are a part of the group that can handle smoking pot every so often or perhaps everyday, but there are people out there that can not handle it. These people will have a negative impact on society. Out of the people I know, the majority of them smoke for the wrong reason(s). Trust me, I wish personal freedom and liberty were the only constructs, but in a society as closely intertwined as ours it doesn't work that way.

Legalize everything, make driving while impaired automatic attempted manslaughter, and remove all legal considerations for being under the influence of drugs as mitigating circumstances. You can do whatever you want in the privacy of your own home--but the instant you hurt someone else the law comes down on you like a ton of bricks.

I like to drive fast. Personally I don't see an issue with driving fast unless I cause damage to somebody else or their property. It's a victim-less crime after all. The issue is that faster speeds increase the risk of accidents and the amount of damage that takes place when they do occur. Professionals do studies and determine risk vs reward and set speed limits appropriately. I view the legalization of drugs in the same manner.

I know it isn't fair. Everyday I see people driving motor vehicles that shouldn't even have a drivers license. Meanwhile I can successful navigate a road coarse or operate a motorcycle, which takes more coordination and confidence. These speed limit laws are there to protect these bad drivers more than I. Sure, it increases my risk factor when I drive fast, but it increases it less than for the bad drivers. It's not fair. It would be even less fair if I was able to have a drivers license and they were not. Likewise, drugs are illegal for everybody, unless their is a medical need.

Why the hell not? If I'm in the privacy of my own home, and not harming--or even impacting--anyone else, by what right can you demand I stop? That's THE central issue here: some people believe that they have the right to dictate how others live their lives, and others don't. I'm in the "don't" category--the only people who have a right to tell me what to do are those I'm in a contractual relationship with and those whom my actions will impact. If neither exist, I'm free to do whatever I want, even if it's harmful.

The other issue to consider is how you'd know I was doing something wrong. You'd have to invade my privacy. Considering my wife and I keep the blinds closed (keeps the heat out) you'd probably have to break into our home. There is NO WAY for you to enforce these laws without violating the principle of private property. This isn't a hypothetical issue, either--it's trivial to find incidents of the War on Drugs violating the rights of people who are completely innocent, including children having automatic rifles pointed at them, patients being imprisoned for filling prescriptions, checkpoints like you'd see in Iraq, etc. So even if I agreed that paternalistic laws were a good thing--AND THEY'RE NOT, we're all adults and should be treated as such--I couldn't agree with you that they were valid on the basis that enforcement is necessarily going to violate the rights of the people you're trying to protect.

People who have their doors busted down for raids will have a new door supplied at no cost. Unfortunately, and I mean that, sometimes rights have to be violated to protect individuals. You don't live in a completely autonomous environment. Society exist and it would be impossible for your actions and thus interactions not to effect others.

Am I safe to assume that your position on euthanasia is to legalize it?

What about somebody that is depressed that wants to pay somebody else to kill them? Is there any reason for the state to get involved here?

And then there's the practical issues--to whit, we've turned an industry violent. There's a BODY COUNT associated with these paternalistic laws, which only exists because we've made the business illegal. By trying to protect people from themselves we've turned them into prey for others. Paternalistic legislation when it comes to intoxicating substances DOES NOT protect people, and that's a simple fact. So even if I agreed that politicians have the right to dictate how I live my life, and I was going to ignore the horrendous violations of rights that are involved, I still couldn't agree that the War on Drugs is right on purely utilitarian grounds.

It's your position that the war on drugs causes more harm than good? Has anybody substantiated this?