Post #385,651
1/22/14 2:21:15 PM
1/22/14 2:23:15 PM
|
You cite a single study from last year
...that arrives at a conclusion you've been flogging since Hector was a pup, and you proclaim that science—not just Dr. Sylvia Raver, but science, that magisterial edifice of disciplined empirical authority—now "tells" us what you, formerly a voice in the wilderness, have been scolding the rest of us about all along.
Now tell us honestly, if Dr. Raver (an obvious Ecstasy fiend) had published a paper reaching the contrary conclusion, if her mice had grown up to be productive, tax-paying rodents with first-rate cortical oscillations, would you be brandishing her study while loudly repudiating your former stance on this issue? You would not, I suspect, and if someone else cited its authority you would find risible the notion that all of "science" now perforce undercut your beliefs.
No hard feelings. It's not a hot-button issue for me, and as you observe, we are leagued on the same side of several more important matters of public policy. I'll just close by repeating that almost everyone I know in my generational cohort smoked marijuana pretty regularly from the ages of about fifteen to twenty-five, and among those with whom I've remained in touch (including several who still indulge) I've seen no evidence of impairment after almost half a century. These are, to all appearances, largely prosperous, happy, well-adjusted and cultured individuals. And yes, I've met burnt-out stoners of my own age who have made little of their lives, but these might just as easily have ended up as drunks.
cordially,
Edited by rcareaga
Jan. 22, 2014, 02:23:15 PM EST
You cite a single study from last year
...that arrives at a conclusion you've been flogging since Hector was a pup, and you proclaim that science—not just Dr. Sylvia Raver, but science, that magisterial edifice of disciplined empirical authority—now "tells" us what you, formerly a voice in the wilderness, have been scolding the rest of us about all along.
Now tell us honestly, if Dr. Raver (an obvious Ecstasy fiend) had published a paper reaching the contrary conclusion, if her mice had grown up to be productive, tax-paying rodents with first-rate cortical oscillations, would you be brandishing her study while loudly repudiating your former stance on this issue? You would not, I suspect, and if someone else cited its authority you would find risible the notion that all of "science" now perforce undercut your beliefs.
No hard feelings. It's not a hot-button issue for me, and as you observe, we are leagued on the same side of several more important matters of public policy. I'll just close by repeating that almost everyone I know in my generational cohort smoked marijuana pretty regularly from the ages of about fifteen to twenty-five, and among those with whom I've remained in touch (including several who still indulge) I've seen no evidence of impairment. These are, to all appearances, largely prosperous, happy, well-adjusted and cultured individuals. And yes, I've met burnt-out stoners of my own age who have made little of their lives, but these might just as easily ended up as drunks.
cordially,
|
Post #385,653
1/22/14 2:43:45 PM
|
There are more studies with similar results.
Here's another one: http://www.northwest...-poor-memory.html
Many studies were based on heavy use for two or more years. There are lots of those showing lasting damage, and I suspect any study involving teenagers drinking 6 beers a day for two years would conclude that heavy drinking for two years is equally damaging to neurons. I have not looked for such studies. What was "new" about the Maryland study was that (AFAIK) that was the first one to show lasting brain alterations (damage?) from only light use for a short period of time. Also, AFAIK, there is no study showing the same effect from alcohol. I think the most honest thing that can be said by anyone is, "I don't know with certainty that light, temporary use of pot is worse for you than light, temporary use of alcohol. But we are learning that pot might be much more dangerous for you depending on your brain maturity level at time of use."
My point is, making the affirmative claim that "pot is no worse than alcohol" requires evidence. And there isn't any. Not yet. But recent studies suggest otherwise. There's not enough firm ground (imo) to stand on to make a definitive statement one way or the other. Anecdotes don't suffice - not for me and not for you.
I'm glad there are no hard feelings. I certainly have none. It's not a hot button issue for me anymore either. Perhaps its my age. Perhaps it's that, as you observe, the country's gone to hell in a handbasket on such a scale in so many other more important areas that this one pales in comparison. Would things were good enough that either of us could get excited about this issue.
|
Post #385,688
1/22/14 9:09:43 PM
|
"No worse" is an impossible measure
It is DIFFERENT. And before you start to spew, keep in mind, I AGREE that young males should stay away from it until age 25. Kind of like young males should not be allowed to drive cars without being speed limited to under 30 MPH (just review the insurance company payout and death rates for supporting hyperbole). The problem is that it is impossible to enforce that type of law, so you either get draconian all or nothing laws.
On the other hand, it is not physically addicting, at least not in the manner of alcohol. No DTs on withdrawel. You can't OD on it (no forgetting to breathe). Stoned drivers are slower and MORE careful than drunk ones. I don't claim zero effect, it certainly slows down reaction time but they seem to compensate better. You won't pass out and then start puking and die from breathing your vomit. It does not destroy your liver. It does not cause Korsakoff's syndrome. It does not fuel aggressive behaviour. It does not (blah blah blah (lots of known problems with alcohol)).
So people put a list of pros and cons, and then say "no worse" as a way of showing how they feel about it as compared to alcohol from a total societal impact.
You will hang on to your shizo study, and say: THIS TRUMPS ALL OF THAT.
So no point in arguing, but it seems like you are ignoring a shitload of issues surrounding alcohol in you attitude.
|
Post #385,700
1/23/14 10:34:52 AM
|
I don't have any illusions about alcohol.
I can just barely remember going to my 54 year old grandfather's funeral that was most definitely caused by liver failure due to alcohol. In my own family, I've seen it destroy three marriages and cause innumerable health problems. I've also seen four kids left motherless and two orphaned by pot.
This new research on pot is worrisome to me, though. Brief, light use in adolescents might result in permanent brain alterations? Even I didn't suspect that. Then there's the trans-generational impact study this year. The closer we look, the scarier this gets. This all seems tightly correlated with adolescents. I think you are dead bang on limiting to age 25 and up (including alcohol and driver's licenses - hell, you can get a glider's license at 16 and a powered pilot's license at 17 and I think that's nuts).
That's probably the geezer in me and my way of saying, "Kids these days."
|
Post #385,767
1/24/14 8:21:11 PM
|
Jake Ellison at Seattle PI - the Pot Blog...
http://blog.seattlep...juana/#10529101=0
But why is marijuana associated with schizophrenia?
ThatÂs what researchers are trying to figure out, and there have been three key studies, recently published, that point in two different directions, which is why I chose to start this story as I did. Rather than blast out headlines that contribute to the whipsaw, head-jerking of ÂYes it does! and ÂNo it doesnÂt! letÂs start with what none of this research does.
None of the research on cannabis and schizophrenia establishes or disproves a causal link. No research has proven that ingestion of the chemicals in marijuana causes physical damage that results in clinical psychosis (as opposed to just thinking someone is stupid or nuts).
What two of the research articles IÂll bring up do establish is a correlation between marijuana use and the presence of brain structure anomalies found in people with schizophrenia. The third research finding establishes that there is no strong correlation between cannabis use and schizophrenia.
[...]
So, if this risk of schizophrenia is proven, will that stop the forward progress of legalization?
Just a guess here, but IÂm gonna say, Nope. Voters donÂt appear to think that marijuana is good for you Â
they appear to be voting it in because it isnÂt any worse, at least, than alcohol and the war on drugs causes more social and personal damage than the drug itself.
Legalization is not creating marijuana use nor a market for it. After decades of prohibition, use has even slightly increased over that time. So itÂs not like folks are going to suddenly stop using because of some bad news on the research front. And until people decide to stop using cannabis, weÂll be right where we are with a raging black market and prisons full of non-violent offenders.
Â
after all itÂs taken decades to reduce smoking, and alcohol consumption seems totally unimpaired by the litany of body and brain killing side effects.
HereÂs that paragraph from professor Robin Murray, from KingÂs College London:
It is difficult to look at the relationship between environmental and genetic factors, but we have examined that question in relation to cannabis. We now know that there is an interaction between the catechol-O-methyl transferase gene (COMT), which some regard as a susceptibility gene for schizophrenia, and cannabis consumption. People with the Val/Val variant of COMT are much more likely to develop psychosis if they abuse cannabis in their adolescence, but there is no evidence that people with the Val/Val genotype of COMT actually take more cannabis than the rest of the population. So itÂs not that the cannabis consumption is a manifestation of predisposition to schizophrenia. Rather, cannabis consumption interacts with genetic susceptibility to schizophrenia. The result is that the majority of the population can abuse as much cannabis as they like and donÂt come to much harm. But a vulnerable minority, about 25 percent of the population, is prone to psychotic reactions if they take regular cannabis (Caspi et al., 2005).
[...]
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #385,771
1/24/14 9:03:31 PM
|
I suspect that's true of lots of things
Behavior or food A doesn't make you x% more likely to experience outcome B, rather x% of the population is susceptible, and behavior/food A is the trigger.
--
Drew
|
Post #385,801
1/25/14 2:18:06 PM
|
FWIW.
Doesn't appear that the whole relative safety thing has been worked out then, does it?
;0)
|
Post #385,812
1/25/14 6:22:05 PM
|
Sure it has
Do a genetic check for the 25%. Then let them determine for themselves if they want to throw the dice, fully informed.
|
