Study: Marijuana use dangerous to young peoples' brains

[Simfan34]

The study conducted by professors as the Harvard and Northwestern medical schools showed that marijuana use creates significant abnormalities in the brain. Of course, the weed "scientists" here will come and say this is false, and expect us to believe them, because they're the experts and the  tenured faculty are the junk scientists

http://jn.sfn.org/press/April-16-2014-Issue/zns01614005529.pdf

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://time.com/61940/recreational-pot-use-harmful-to-young-peoples-brains/

[AkSaber]

And alcohol is bad for kids too.

And yet all the prohibitionists worship that drug.

[publicunofficial]

This is already known. It was known to me when I started smoking weed as a teenager, and it didn't stop me then nor any one else.

[Boris]

Simfan, your marihuana threads are idiotic trolling. No one is suggesting that heavy cannabis use is healthy or harmless; what we are staying is that the current situation represents poor and ineffective public policy and that cannabis is less dangerous than alcohol, jerking it to pornhub, fast food, et cetera. I didn't read through the whole article, but the ending listed several caveats with regard to causation (whereas the dangers of the aforementioned vices are indisputable).

Moreover, what exactly are the effects of greater grey matter density in our brain? Is it worse than the effects being kicked out of school or being arrested and unable to get a job? If all it's suggesting is a greater propensity for marijuana addiction than previously thought, who cares? If you drink regularly try to stop for six months and see how much more difficult it is to quit than weed.

[Maxwell]

I found a picture of Simfan:

[SWE]

inb4 Adam C. Fitzgerald

[ilikeverin]

This is idiotic, of course, because it's not a longitudinal study.  For all we or the researchers know, these brain differences preceded the marijuana use in time, and in fact are either (1) directly (on some level) causing the marijuana use (perhaps people with larger NAcc are more likely to enjoy taking risks) or (2) often co-occur with other risk factors for smoking pot (e.g., having annoying friends).  Further, the spin that the researchers are putting on the findings is ridiculous.  These differences are on the levels of gross brain structure; without knowing what is going on at a cellular level, it's not clear whether any changes that are actually occurring due to pot exposure are actually "good" or "bad".  Phoneticians like me are likelier to have more white matter in our left inferior frontal gyri (IFG - a part of what's usually considered "Broca's Area") and to have more folds in our left Heschl's Gyrus, and that's lauded as a "good thing".  But it's just as arbitrary.

[IceSpear]

I found a picture of Simfan:

I think he should probably see a doctor about his facial bone structure.

[AggregateDemand]

It's funny to me that liberals believe support of marijuana legalization includes denying the value of objective studies with scientific consensus.

Minimum age for marijuana usage should probably be 21.

[Oakvale]

Verin's post here is very good but even if this study made any sense, so what? Plenty of unhealthy stuff is perfectly legal.

[Maxwell]

Verin's post here is very good but even if this study made any sense, so what? Plenty of unhealthy stuff is perfectly legal.

Bingo.

[ilikeverin]

It's funny to me that liberals believe support of marijuana legalization includes denying the value of objective studies with scientific consensus.

Minimum age for marijuana usage should probably be 21.

Dearest AggregateDemand, I am all of these things:

• Someone who has never used pot
• Someone who has no interest in using pot
• Someone who is not even particularly convinced marijuana should be legalized
• A neuroscience PhD student

...yet I still have the criticisms I listed.

[AggregateDemand]

Dearest AggregateDemand, I am all of these things:

• Someone who has never used pot
• Someone who has no interest in using pot
• Someone who is not even particularly convinced marijuana should be legalized
• A neuroscience PhD student

...yet I still have the criticisms I listed.

If you're not convinced marijuana should be legalized, my quote does not pertain to your criticism.

[they don't love you like i love you]

It's funny to me that liberals believe support of marijuana legalization includes denying the value of objective studies with scientific consensus.

Minimum age for marijuana usage should probably be 21.

Well then you don't disagree with the Colorado or Washington laws then.

I'm opposed to the minimum age for anything being over 18, but that's mostly just based on principle.

[King]

20 person studies are truth.

[MaxQue]

I have to concur with verin. That study has some methodological flaws, mainly than correlation doesn't mean causation.

Those marijuana users have brain damage. Okay.
But, did they had use that brain damage before, and that brain damage caused the marijuana use?
Did they did other potentially harmful activities (smoking, drinking, other drugs, else....)?
Does 20 persons is sufficiant for affirming things with such clarity?

As we say usually in chemistry, we are better off waiting than another study (ideally without those flaws, but no study is perfect) confirms it. The authors are quite aware of it, the conclusion of the article is quite nuanced and invites to furhter research. It's fine work, needing to be corrobored. But, obviously, claiming than marijuana has no effects on teenagers is silly and dumb. Any legalization wouldn't include underage peope, obviously. Political world needs to ask itself what's better, legal brain damage or war on drugs and jail terms.

Already, we have Time, twisting the words of the scientist to fit their agenda (especially the art about tobacco, suger and alcohol, not talked about in the article).

[Ban my account ffs!]

I'd say poverty is a far more dangerous thing for the brains of our youth.  And yet the people screaming about marijuana are often the same ones that would just as soon put more children into poverty.

Priorities, people.  Marijuana makes poverty less miserable.  Fix poverty and marijuana will be less useful.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I'd say poverty is a far more dangerous thing for the brains of our youth.  And yet the people screaming about marijuana are often the same ones that would just as soon put more children into poverty.

Priorities, people.  Marijuana makes poverty less miserable.  Fix poverty and marijuana will be less useful.

^^^This.

Drug abuse doesn't cause poverty. Poverty causes drug abuse.

[Badger]

It's funny to me that liberals believe support of marijuana legalization includes denying the value of objective studies with scientific consensus.

Minimum age for marijuana usage should probably be 21.

Memo to Arrogant Demand: Supporting legal marijuana use by 21 year olds makes you a liberal.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

This is why marijuana, if legal, would have age restrictions just as tobacco and alcohol already do.

[AggregateDemand]

I'd say poverty is a far more dangerous thing for the brains of our youth.  And yet the people screaming about marijuana are often the same ones that would just as soon put more children into poverty.

Priorities, people.  Marijuana makes poverty less miserable.  Fix poverty and marijuana will be less useful.

The thought of age discrimination against citizens 18 or older makes my stomach turn, but so does the thought of brain damage. It may be pragmatic in the future to reduce the age to 18, if fines or criminal charges prove to be worse than the remote possibility of health problems.

I definitely want alcohol to be 18, but maybe with a Swedish system (IIRC) where people can drink in bars where they are supervised, but they can purchase alcohol elsewhere. Not sure if that will work in a country without mass transit, though.

[Adam Griffin]

The biggest surprise here is that Simfan supports tenured faculty.

[Zioneer]

This is idiotic, of course, because it's not a longitudinal study.  For all we or the researchers know, these brain differences preceded the marijuana use in time, and in fact are either (1) directly (on some level) causing the marijuana use (perhaps people with larger NAcc are more likely to enjoy taking risks) or (2) often co-occur with other risk factors for smoking pot (e.g., having annoying friends).  Further, the spin that the researchers are putting on the findings is ridiculous.  These differences are on the levels of gross brain structure; without knowing what is going on at a cellular level, it's not clear whether any changes that are actually occurring due to pot exposure are actually "good" or "bad".  Phoneticians like me are likelier to have more white matter in our left inferior frontal gyri (IFG - a part of what's usually considered "Broca's Area") and to have more folds in our left Heschl's Gyrus, and that's lauded as a "good thing".  But it's just as arbitrary.

Basically this, and that's not even mentioning the problems with marijuana users in prisons.

[ilikeverin]

Here's a study examining a different population using very similar measures that is discussed reasonably: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26925271

[Torie]

The study was of people from 18-25. That's interesting. I guess maybe if I had not smoked pot then, I would have been a justice of the Supreme Court or something. I am not challenging the study. It just doesn't comport with my personal experience really. During that time I got 3 advanced degrees.