Heavy, Long-Term Marijuana Use Associated With Brain Shrinkage

[Alonzo]

Long-term heavy use of marijuana may cause two important brain structures to shrink, Australian researchers said on Monday.

Brain scans showed the hippocampus and amygdala were smaller in men who were heavy marijuana users compared to nonusers, the researchers said. The men had smoked at least five marijuana cigarettes daily for on average 20 years.

The hippocampus regulates memory and emotion, while the amygdala plays a critical role in fear and aggression.

The study, published in the American Medical Association's journal Archives of General Psychiatry, also found the heavy cannabis users earned lower scores than the nonusers in a verbal learning task -- trying to recall a list of 15 words.

The marijuana users were more likely to exhibit mild signs of psychotic disorders, but not enough to be formally diagnosed with any such disorder, the researchers said.

"These findings challenge the widespread perception of cannabis as having limited or no harmful effects on (the) brain and behavior," said Murat Yucel of ORYGEN Research Centre and the University of Melbourne, who led the study.

"Like with most things, some people will experience greater problems associated with cannabis use than others," Yucel said in an e-mail. "Our findings suggest that everyone is vulnerable to potential changes in the brain, some memory problems and psychiatric symptoms if they use heavily enough and for long enough."

Among the 15 heavy marijuana users in the study, the hippocampus volume was 12 percent less and the amygdala volume was 7 percent less than in 16 men who were not marijuana users, the researchers said.

The researchers acknowledged that the study did not prove it was the marijuana and not some other factor that triggered these brain differences. But Yucel said the findings certainly suggested marijuana was the cause.

"STONED" FOR 20 YEARS

While about half of the marijuana users reported experiencing some form of paranoia and social withdrawal, only one of the nonusers reported such symptoms, Yucel said.

The heavy marijuana users, average age 40, said they had used other illicit drugs less than 10 times, the researchers said.

A U.S. group supporting legal sales and regulation of marijuana took issue with the findings, particularly because they were based on men who were such heavy, long-term users.

"These were people who were essentially stoned all day every day for 20 years," Marijuana Policy Project spokesman Bruce Mirken said by e-mail. "This study says nothing about moderate or occasional users, who are the vast majority -- and the (study) even acknowledges this."

"The documented damage caused by comparably heavy use of alcohol or tobacco is just off-the-charts more serious, and you don't need high-tech scans to find it," Mirken added.

Yucel said the researchers have begun new research on the effects of both short-term and long-term and moderate and heavy use of marijuana.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080602/sc_nm/marijuana_brain_dc_2;_ylt=AscxKi9tUYqpyvZbqsa817sE 1vAI

[lawless168]

Well, daily heavy use of just about anything will be damaging to you in some way... food, soda, beer, internet.......

[cronic]

Thanx 4 the article ZO
Very interesting reading
:D
http://www.debaterworld.com/images/smilies/gethigh.gif

[Wndrtch]

ffffft...cough...cough...cough!

Uh, what?

[lily]

Brain scans showed the hippocampus and amygdala were smaller in men who were heavy marijuana users compared to nonusers, the researchers said. The men had smoked at least five marijuana cigarettes daily for on average 20 years.

It's reports like this that make me glad I'm female!

[Elrathin]

The men had smoked at least five marijuana cigarettes daily for on average 20 years.

This is NOT typical nor casual usage though. Anything in excess can be bad for you.

[Osborn F. Enready]

As lawless168 said, heavy daily use of anything can and usually will have negative effects.

This just shows how marijuana is relatively harmless compared to most things, even among heavy users.

[Alonzo]

As lawless168 said, heavy daily use of anything can and usually will have negative effects.

This just shows how marijuana is relatively harmless compared to most things, even among heavy users.

I'm sorry, brain shrinkage is "relatively harmless"?

Look, I understand this study says there's a correlation, meaning people with smaller amygdalla and hypocampus may start smoking pot, but I don't think heavy, prolonged use "relatively harmless" if this is actually a cause-effect relationship. This is also in addition to the damage the smoke itself does and the risk of lung cancer.

[Truth_and_Power]

I'm sorry, brain shrinkage is "relatively harmless"?

Look, I understand this study says there's a correlation, meaning people with smaller amygdalla and hypocampus may start smoking pot, but I don't think heavy, prolonged use "relatively harmless" if this is actually a cause-effect relationship. This is also in addition to the damage the smoke itself does and the risk of lung cancer.

If you look at comparable use of alcohol, these men would be homeless, completely lacking a liver.. and who knows about the brain. No one is disputing that benig intoxicated 24 hours a day for 20 years is bad for you.

[potter]

It's reports like this that make me glad I'm female!


Why? Females go loonie without the drugs...... :evil:

"The men had smoked at least five marijuana cigarettes daily for on average 20 years."

Holy cow....why even publish stuff like this...abuse anything like this and it will eventually bite you in the butt. How about a study on how drinking 5 fifths of vodka a day will harm your brain.....a little common sense people!

[potter]

I'm sorry, brain shrinkage is "relatively harmless"?

Look, I understand this study says there's a correlation, meaning people with smaller amygdalla and hypocampus may start smoking pot, but I don't think heavy, prolonged use "relatively harmless" if this is actually a cause-effect relationship. This is also in addition to the damage the smoke itself does and the risk of lung cancer.


However since adults have a right to self determine of their own destinations and are most likely aware of the hazards of excess and smoking....why is it anyone's business again?

[Alonzo]

However since adults have a right to self determine of their own destinations and are most likely aware of the hazards of excess and smoking....why is it anyone's business again?

For one, marijuana smokers seem to often be in denial of the potential harmful effects. They don't view it as they view smoking cigarettes.

Two, many cigarette smokers recognize the harmful effects but they don't believe that they themselves will be effected by them, or they underestimate the risk.

According to the survey, while many smokers are aware that smoking can lead to serious health problems including lung cancer, many underestimate the risk of getting the disease from smoking. For example, two in three smokers underestimate the chance of developing lung cancer compared to a non-smoker and four in 10 incorrectly believe that developing lung cancer depends more on genes than anything else. Furthermore, the survey found that up to a third of smokers think that certain activities such as exercise and taking vitamins could "undo" most of the effects of smoking.(1)

http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news-1/Smokers-Remain-Unaware-of-the-Health-Effects-of-Smoking--New-Survey-Finds-6167-1/

In surveys I've seen, there is also a big difference in what people view as the risk of getting such disease in the population as a whole, and their own risks for such diseases.

And on pot:

WELLINGTON, New Zealand, Jan. 29 -- Smoking a single marijuana joint may be as carcinogenic to the lung as 20 tobacco cigarettes, researchers here determined.

Those who smoked the equivalent of one joint a day for 10 years had a 5.7 times higher lung cancer risk than nonsmokers even after adjusting for tobacco use, reported Richard Beasley, M.B.Ch.B., of the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand here, and colleagues in the Feb. 1 issue of the European Respiratory Journal.

The effect on lung cancer risk in the population-based case-control study was even greater than the one joint to five cigarettes equivalency for lung damage previously reported by the research group. (See: One Cannabis Joint Equals Smoking Up to Five Cigarettes)

Smoke from cannabis contains up to twice as many carcinogenic polyaromatic hydrocarbons and tend to be smoked without filters while inhaling more deeply, leading to higher concentrations of smoke inhaled, the investigators noted.

http://www.medpagetoday.com/tbindex.cfm?tbid=8096

Most marijuana users view it as relatively harmless.

[Osborn F. Enready]

IT IS RELATIVELY HARMLESS ZO.

The active word in that sentence is RELATIVELY.

If you use a vaporizer to consume marijuana, it cuts the risks of smoking it out almost completely.

You can also bake or cook with it.....

[Alonzo]

Osborn, relatively compared to what?

But a vaporizer, I can see how it helps reduce inhalation of smoke you already exhaled, but the bulk of the smoke I fail to see what difference it makes.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alonzo said:
Osborn, relatively compared to what?

Just about anything, but water.

Alonzo said:
But a vaporizer, I can see how it helps reduce inhalation of smoke you already exhaled, but the bulk of the smoke I fail to see what difference it makes.

When you vaporize, you don't inhale any smoke, and no smoke is created.

When you vaporize, you only heat the vegetable material to the point at which it releases the THC from the plant. The plant doesn't even singe, but almost all of the THC is released, resulting in the intended effects, minus the damage of smoke.

http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/vaporizers.html

[Alonzo]

Just about anything, but water.

Thank you for reinforcing my statement that many marijuana smokers are in denial.

When you vaporize, you don't inhale any smoke, and no smoke is created.

When you vaporize, you only heat the vegetable material to the point at which it releases the THC from the plant. The plant doesn't even singe, but almost all of the THC is released, resulting in the intended effects, minus the damage of smoke.

http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/vaporizers.html

A 1996 MAPS study[5] tested two simple vaporizer models against water pipes and filtered and unfiltered cannabis cigarettes (joints). The smoke produced by each was analyzed for solid particulates (tars) and 3 major cannabinoids. The various smoking methods were then rated based on their cannabinoid-to-tar ratio. The two tested vaporizers performed up to 25% better than unfiltered cannabis cigarettes (second best) in terms of tar delivery. However, both vaporizers produced more than ten times more tars than cannabinoids, which may partly be attributable to the low potency (2.3%) of the NIDA-supplied cannabis used in the study. Surprisingly, the same study found that water pipes (bongs) and filtered cigarettes performed 30% worse than regular, unfiltered joints. The reason was that waterpipes and filters filter out psychoactive THC with the tars, thereby requiring users to smoke more to reach their desired effect. The study did not, however, rule out the possibility that waterpipes could have other benefits, such as filtering out harmful gases such as carbon monoxide.

These studies have not measured the presence of toxic gases, such as ammonia, hydrogen cyanide and carbon monoxide, though previous studies have indicated unquantified decreases in carbon monoxide with vaporization.

Although vaporizers produce cleaner vapors than smoking, they do not completely eliminate respiratory irritation. A puff of strong vaporized cannabis will occasionally cause coughing. This however, could be due to THC itself, which is known to have a strong expectorant effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporizer#Scientific_studies

Seems to help a lot, but not as harmless as you say.

[AlanC]

Just about anything, but water.



When you vaporize, you don't inhale any smoke, and no smoke is created.

When you vaporize, you only heat the vegetable material to the point at which it releases the THC from the plant. The plant doesn't even singe, but almost all of the THC is released, resulting in the intended effects, minus the damage of smoke.

http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/vaporizers.html

And the percentage of users who smoke it vs. those that "vaprize" it is what? Essentially you are agreeing with Zo that smoking the stuff is harmful. And most users smoke it, no?

[Alonzo]

The whole thing Alan is that I'm not saying people shouldn't smoke it at all, I'm simply pointing out that it's not the nice, safe drug everyone seems to think it is. It's not that harmful casually, couple times a month maybe, but any consistent use would seem to have real risks.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alonzo said:
Thank you for reinforcing my statement that many marijuana smokers are in denial.

It has nothing to do with denial Alonzo.... it has to do with facts.

Show me some things you can use(consume) with that regularity that don't have NEGATIVE effects.

When you compare marijuana to many FOOD SUBSTANCEs, it is less harmful under heavy use.

Alonzo said:
Seems to help a lot, but not as harmless as you say.

Again, I didn't say HARMLESS, I said RELATIVELY harmless.

Keep hearing only what you want to hear.

AlanC said:
And the percentage of users who smoke it vs. those that "vaprize" it is what? Essentially you are agreeing with Zo that smoking the stuff is harmful. And most users smoke it, no?

Smoke from a campfire is harmful too, yet many of us choose to sit around campfires singing, roasting marshmallows, etc.

I never said smoke wasn't harmful.
I never said marijuana was harmless.

Is anyone reading what I type, or just answering from your own made up positions which you assign to me?

The percentage of those who smoke vs vaporize or cook with marijuana, I couldn't tell you. I don't see why it matters, its a personal choice.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alonzo said:
The whole thing Alan is that I'm not saying people shouldn't smoke it at all, I'm simply pointing out that it's not the nice, safe drug everyone seems to think it is. It's not that harmful casually, couple times a month maybe, but any consistent use would seem to have real risks.

Again, you are arguing from fantasy land.

Compared to other consumeables, marijuana is RELATIVELY harmless compared to a VAST VARIETY OF LEGAL CONSUMEABLEs.

That is the point.

[Alonzo]

It has nothing to do with denial Alonzo.... it has to do with facts.

You need to reread the thread then.

[potter]

For one, marijuana smokers seem to often be in denial of the potential harmful effects. They don't view it as they view smoking cigarettes.

Two, many cigarette smokers recognize the harmful effects but they don't believe that they themselves will be effected by them, or they underestimate the risk.



http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news-1/Smokers-Remain-Unaware-of-the-Health-Effects-of-Smoking--New-Survey-Finds-6167-1/

In surveys I've seen, there is also a big difference in what people view as the risk of getting such disease in the population as a whole, and their own risks for such diseases.

And on pot:



http://www.medpagetoday.com/tbindex.cfm?tbid=8096

Most marijuana users view it as relatively harmless.

Do you believe the government should step in and protect everyone from themselves under threat of imprisonment for everything? Or just things of which you personally disapprove?

For instance, maybe we should imprison fat people and force them to go on a diet. Type A personalities too as they would have high blood pressure, also not good....and how about imprisoning people who don't excersize or eat a balanced diet. As long as we're protecting people from themselves....:peace:

[Truth_and_Power]

Also.. small magnet owners..

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alonzo said:
You need to reread the thread then.

Really....

Compare the damage from heavy marijuana use for 20yrs to the damage from heavy corn fructose use for 20 yrs, or perhaps heavy use of caffeine, diet pills, nasal sinus inhalers, antacids, etc, etc, etc,......

You drink too much water over a period of time and you can die too Alonzo.....but yet, water is still RELATIVELY harmless, much like pot.

[cronic]

You drink too much water over a period of time and you can die too Alonzo.....but yet, water is still RELATIVELY harmless, much like pot.

This is true..
Eat to many prunes and see what happens.
Oh wait.. not sure it will shrink your brain but it would definatly expand your ass^ole.

BAWAHAWAHAWA
cronics joke 4 the day..*

[Alonzo]

Do you believe the government should step in and protect everyone from themselves under threat of imprisonment for everything? Or just things of which you personally disapprove?

For instance, maybe we should imprison fat people and force them to go on a diet. Type A personalities too as they would have high blood pressure, also not good....and how about imprisoning people who don't excersize or eat a balanced diet. As long as we're protecting people from themselves....:peace:

And this has what to do with the danger of a certain substance?

Compare the damage from heavy marijuana use for 20yrs to the damage from heavy corn fructose use for 20 yrs, or perhaps heavy use of caffeine, diet pills, nasal sinus inhalers, antacids, etc, etc, etc,......

You drink too much water over a period of time and you can die too Alonzo.....but yet, water is still RELATIVELY harmless, much like pot.

You're comparing marijuana to water. Do you really want to make that comparison? Drinking water has no long term negative effects other than the immediate effect if you drink way too much of it.

A bunch of those other thing are dangerous in high amounts, and explicitly say so on the packaging. Others, such as caffeine, are not necessarily good, but aren't as bad to use moderate amounts daily as smoking marijuana is.

If I say "heroine is dangerous" no one disagrees. If I say "cigarettes are dangerous" no one disagrees. If I say "marijuana is dangerous and I have studies" people go into denial mode. Why is prompts such a response I don't understand.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alonzo said:
If I say "heroine is dangerous" no one disagrees. If I say "cigarettes are dangerous" no one disagrees. If I say "marijuana is dangerous and I have studies" people go into denial mode. Why is prompts such a response I don't understand.

Where you get the studies, who does them, and the lengths they go to to make marijuana seem more dangerous than it is, contrary to the facts.

[Easy90]

Just about anything, but water.



When you vaporize, you don't inhale any smoke, and no smoke is created.

When you vaporize, you only heat the vegetable material to the point at which it releases the THC from the plant. The plant doesn't even singe, but almost all of the THC is released, resulting in the intended effects, minus the damage of smoke.

http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/vaporizers.html

Not true F. Enready! Water kills WAY more people every year than pot!

Gotta laugh at the forum though. About the only discussion that will fire up more support from some of the regulars here than a post critical of gay lifestyle or abortion...is one in which someone posts something about the evils of weed.

I gotta ask some of you veteran pot heads here...(I've never done illegal drugs, so I wouldn't have a clue.) Just how the F does someone live a life for 20 years smoking five joints a day? Evidently there are enough people who do that to make a study of the effects.... Wow!

[Osborn F. Enready]

Easy said:
Not true F. Enready! Water kills WAY more people every year than pot!


Water consumption itself, being a "heavy user" of water was the comparison Easy.

I know per annum that water deaths usually are more in number than accidental gun deaths, and many other things including marijuana. I was addressing "heavy user" applied to water as it was in the study Al sited.

That is a good point to the argument though in itself Easy. Water does kill far more than weed in any given year records have been kept.

Easy said:
Gotta laugh at the forum though. About the only discussion that will fire up more support from some of the regulars here than a post critical of gay lifestyle or abortion...is one in which someone posts something about the evils of weed.

This shouldn't be suprising though......they are all individual issues tied to the basic concept of individual rights and self-ownership.

Gay or straight: Individual issue
Abortion: Individual issue.
Personal Consumption: Individual issue.

All three of these things should be clearly covered in the Bill of Rights, and are if the Bill of Rights is interpreted as the forefathers wrote it, under originalist context. Its the progressive movements, religious special intrests and now neo-con re-interpretation of the Constitution that has brought this state and federal invasion to every individuals doorstep, making criminals out of people simply trying to exercise their individual rights.

Easy said:
I gotta ask some of you veteran pot heads here...(I've never done illegal drugs, so I wouldn't have a clue.) Just how the F does someone live a life for 20 years smoking five joints a day?

I don't see why a self-employed individual couldn't if they worked in their home, private office, etc, and were responsible users.

Easy said:
Evidently there are enough people who do that to make a study of the effects.... Wow!

You mean that many that WOULD do it, or that DO do it on their own?

I am not sure of where they got their marijuana, if it was supplied by those doing the study, or if they just trusted them to tell the truth. I would think for validity purposes of the study, it was lab grown marijuana with a standardized THC content for test purposes, but I didn't see that specified anywhere so I am automaticly skeptical.

[Easy90]

All three of these things should be clearly covered in the Bill of Rights, and are if the Bill of Rights is interpreted as the forefathers wrote it, under originalist context. Its the progressive movements, religious special intrests and now neo-con re-interpretation of the Constitution that has brought this state and federal invasion to every individuals doorstep, making criminals out of people simply trying to exercise their individual rights.

Well...don't know about all three, but according to the little I've read about narcotics and drugs..they really were widely and "respectably" (if that's an appropriate term) used in the latter 19th and early 20th century in America. But it seems that the problems associated with their open and widespread use were recognized...and the laws against non-prescription use of opiates in particular were passed in order to save American society from effectively just becoming an Opium culture, where people laid around and couldn't function. Personally...not being accustomed to illicit drug use, I would think someone who smoked upwards of 5 joints A DAY for 20 years, would fall in that category.

As for brain atrophy... it's probably a side effect of heavy usage, as reported. Who knows for sure? Drinking five Diet Cokes a day for 20 years might damage your brain too. That said...I would hardly resort to the familiar flaccid argument (as the pot advocates seem to do) that because other things too, are equally bad for you in excess...then, drinking 5 diet cokes a day is OK...

[Alonzo]

Where you get the studies, who does them,

All that info is in the info I posted. Not my fault if you didn't read them.

and the lengths they go to to make marijuana seem more dangerous than it is, contrary to the facts.


Of which you've posted a grand total of........

NNaZedAWmlE

0!!!!!!!

For someone who so frequently denounces people for being subjective and lacking facts, your response here is amusing to say the least.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Easy said:
All three of these things should be clearly covered in the Bill of Rights, and are if the Bill of Rights is interpreted as the forefathers wrote it, under originalist context. Its the progressive movements, religious special intrests and now neo-con re-interpretation of the Constitution that has brought this state and federal invasion to every individuals doorstep, making criminals out of people simply trying to exercise their individual rights.

Well...don't know about all three, but according to the little I've read about narcotics and drugs..they really were widely and "respectably" (if that's an appropriate term) used in the latter 19th and early 20th century in America. But it seems that the problems associated with their open and widespread use were recognized...and the laws against non-prescription use of opiates in particular were passed in order to save American society from effectively just becoming an Opium culture, where people laid around and couldn't function. Personally...not being accustomed to illicit drug use, I would think someone who smoked upwards of 5 joints A DAY for 20 years, would fall in that category.

As for brain atrophy... it's probably a side effect of heavy usage, as reported. Who knows for sure? Drinking five Diet Cokes a day for 20 years might damage your brain too. That said...I would hardly resort to the familiar flaccid argument (as the pot advocates seem to do) that because other things too, are equally bad for you in excess...then, drinking 5 diet cokes a day is OK...

So basicly, you support the idea that government should usurp total control of individuals, and take on the roll of protecting people from themselves?

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alonzo said:
All that info is in the info I posted. Not my fault if you didn't read them.

I did read them.

The study was done based on "peoples word" of usage.
They didn't grow or know the potency or purity of what was being used, so that alone pretty much disqualifies any objective value.

What it amounts to is you posted a biased study, and I contended both its findings, and its obvious flaws to be considered of objective value.

Alonzo said:
Of which you've posted a grand total of........

0!!!!!!!

For someone who so frequently denounces people for being subjective and lacking facts, your response here is amusing to say the least.

What facts would you like me to provide that are in relation to my argument as I have stated it?

[Alonzo]

Osborn, so people are lying and claiming they smoke more pot than they do? And those people show a distinction from the ones who say they smoke less?

They didn't grow or know the potency or purity of what was being used, so that alone pretty much disqualifies any objective value.

So you're saying some pot is harmful but some isn't? If you're saying that the potency and purity of pot is making the difference then aren't you, necessarily, claiming that some pot is harmful?

published in the American Medical Association's journal Archives of General Psychiatry.....What facts would you like me to provide that are in relation to my argument as I have stated it?

Ones that dispute the studies I posted, and come from reputable sources.

Murat Yucel of ORYGEN Research Centre and the University of Melbourne, who led the study......

Richard Beasley, M.B.Ch.B., of the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand here, and colleagues in the Feb. 1 issue of the European Respiratory Journal.

Peer reviewed hotbeds of bias, aren't they?


What it amounts to is you posted a biased study, and I contended both its findings, and its obvious flaws to be considered of objective value.

I think the major flaw you pointed out is that it says something negative about marijuana.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alonzo said:
Osborn, so people are lying and claiming they smoke more pot than they do? And those people show a distinction from the ones who say they smoke less?

Hello.... if people are being held to their word, do you not believe there is a question of accuracy? It was not a tightly controlled study, and the drugs used were not of known and verified potency, so most of the results are assumptions at best.

Alonzo said:
So you're saying some pot is harmful but some isn't? If you're saying that the potency and purity of pot is making the difference then aren't you, necessarily, claiming that some pot is harmful?

Oh, here we go again.

Firstly, I didn't say pot was HARMLESS. I said it was RELATIVELY harmless.

There are many types of marijuana, and they all have relatively different effects based on type and purity, so it would ONLY BE NATURAL TO ASSUME without proof to object, that the results and levels of harm would be different also.

Alonzo said:
Ones that dispute the studies I posted, and come from reputable sources.

OBVIOUSLY we don't agree on what is objective and reputable, so that is essentially THE issue, isn't it?

You posted a study, I pointed out why I fault its credibility and listed the reasons why.

Are you saying potency and type of strain play no role in harmful effects? If so, have any proof or studies to show that claim has any support.

Are you saying that a study based entirely on subject input concerning amount smoked and with no qualification of type or potency, is a valid study to make the studies CLAIMED findings?

(remember, if we took Bush's word, and ignored the facts, the war in Iraq is justified too.....)

Alonzo said:
Peer reviewed hotbeds of bias, aren't they?

I am not insulting the institutions, I am insulting that study in relation to the claimed findings, and for good reason.

Alonzo said:
I think the major flaw you pointed out is that it says something negative about marijuana.

Nice insult on my character. Not expected behavior from a moderator.

[Easy90]

So basicly, you support the idea that government should usurp total control of individuals, and take on the roll of protecting people from themselves?

Yeah...well, it's dangerous to let someone else 'frame the question' in such a way...because of the old adage that says "he who frames the question, wins the argument."

But I'll answer anyway. You've no doubt heard the answer before. I think a civilized society expects the government to step up to certain commonly held values...and codify them into law. We have a government that sort of does that...(though there's differing opinions regarding what the Constitution says/means) And...yes, IF it were an actual FACT ...that people who abuse drugs only harm themselves....as your 'question' assumes...then I could be more sympathetic to your viewpoint...

However, I am pretty certain (that means...it's my opinion) that widespread usage of mind-altering substances like narcotics and hallucinogens INDEED harms innocent, non-participating folks in a big way. Yes...alcohol is (potentially) one of those 'sorts' of things...but no...that alcohol is (though heavily controlled) legal...is no valid excuse to legalize 'other' drugs.

[Alonzo]

Hello.... if people are being held to their word, do you not believe there is a question of accuracy? It was not a tightly controlled study, and the drugs used were not of known and verified potency, so most of the results are assumptions at best.

It's less accurate than a tightly controlled study, but no study of this nature, nor most other studies of this nature dealing with legal substances, would have the control you seek. Smoking, cocaine, marijuan, caffeine etc. studies, dealing with their long term effects, would be overwhelmingly thrown out with the standard you want.

Many, many studies are done this way. There is not the time or funds to do what you suggest with many studies, plus the difficulty in simply keeping in touch with participants who often drop out.

Firstly, I didn't say pot was HARMLESS. I said it was RELATIVELY harmless.


You compared it to water.

Are you saying that a study based entirely on subject input concerning amount smoked and with no qualification of type or potency, is a valid study to make the studies CLAIMED findings?

So your statement is that some smoked pot is harmful, but some is no more harmful than water?

Nice insult on my character. Not expected behavior from a moderator.

If you think this comment: "I think the major flaw you pointed out is that it says something negative about marijuana." then I'll have staff look into it. I reported it and someone, not myself, will inform you of their decision and the penalty given.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Easy said:
Yeah...well, it's dangerous to let someone else 'frame the question' in such a way...because of the old adage that says "he who frames the question, wins the argument."

I have heard it, and would attest thats usually the way it plays out. ;)

Alonzo said:
But I'll answer anyway. You've no doubt heard the answer before. I think a civilized society expects the government to step up to certain commonly held values...and codify them into law.

I agree, that is why this nation was founded as it was, on individual rights recognition. Those rights are not the same as "code" or "legal code" as you speak of. They are specific limitations on government, that require a specific process to change. The issues that I mentioned above are clearly covered under individual rights under originalist context, but because of that and the persistence of the bi-partisan monopoly to erode our individual rights, they have "created" and "adopted" new contextual arguments to interpret the constitution under, as opposed to doing the impossible (since people don't support it in the number to aquire the change) and passing it by Constitutional means and methods.

Easy said:
We have a government that sort of does that...(though there's differing opinions regarding what the Constitution says/means) And...yes, IF it were an actual FACT ...that people who abuse drugs only harm themselves....as your 'question' assumes...then I could be more sympathetic to your viewpoint...

Physically speaking, drugs CAN only harm the person who ingests them. That is a fact.
Drugs effects do not "rub off" on others, and only affect those who ingest them, therefore it is indeed a fact that drugs only harm the persons who consume them.

All people can be held accountable for infringing the rights of others, regardless of their level of influence by drugs or alchohol.

Easy said:
However, I am pretty certain (that means...it's my opinion) that widespread usage of mind-altering substances like narcotics and hallucinogens INDEED harms innocent, non-participating folks in a big way.

Please expound on your view so I may understand, and please provide cause and effect style argument.

I obviously disagree on the level at which individual people may be held accountable for collective results dependent on the actions of others they in no way have contact with or acted as an agent of influence on.

Easy said:
Yes...alcohol is (potentially) one of those 'sorts' of things...but no...that alcohol is (though heavily controlled) legal...is no valid excuse to legalize 'other' drugs.

The "valid excuse" is that "legality or illegality" has made no noticeable improvement in the situation (usage), while costing a tremendous amount of money and lives, as well as clearly making our jails and justice system far over-taxed for its expected role while being illegal. Violent criminals are being released earlier due to overcrowding caused by non-violent drug offenders, and police are distracted from protecting rights, in the process of violating the rights of individuals to consume what they see fit while being held accountable for their actions like anyone else.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alonzo said:
It's less accurate than a tightly controlled study, but no study of this nature, nor most other studies of this nature dealing with legal substances, would have the control you seek. Smoking, cocaine, marijuan, caffeine etc. studies, dealing with their long term effects, would be overwhelmingly thrown out with the standard you want.

Thrown out, how, why? Based on what? Since when has quality science between voluntary choice individuals been outlawed?

Alonzo said:
Many, many studies are done this way. There is not the time or funds to do what you suggest with many studies, plus the difficulty in simply keeping in touch with participants who often drop out.

So what are you saying here?

Are you saying because time is a factor, we shouldn't seek truth and instead accept studies of questionable validity?

Are you saying the field suffers so bad in the way it executes and measures its studies it can't actually provide a good long term study that isn't subjective?

My whole point is, if the study is so subjectively suspect, it has to be regarded as "less than" optimum, therefore flawed. While it may contain some truths, simply sorting truth from coincidence is a study in itself.

I have seen several well done controlled studies on other subjects, and I understand what is involved with doing studies of that nature, so I doubt your accusations that these things can't be done.

Alonzo said:
You compared it to water.

Yes I did..... do you know why?

You can die from drinking too much water within a short period of time.
You CAN'T die from an overdose of marijuana.

More people die every year from water consumption related issues, than marijuana consumption issues.

Water is natural, as is marijuana.

That is why I compared the two substances.

Alonzo said:
So your statement is that some smoked pot is harmful, but some is no more harmful than water?

My statement is that marijuana is relatively harmless even when compared to items our bodies depend on to live, such as water. Case in point, water can kill in overdose, marijuana cannot if consumed in popular consumption forms. Water claims more human lives per year than marijuana.

Notice, I am not saying marijuana is harmless, just pointing out its harm is so relatively low as to be compared to items that we are biologically required to consume for life itself.

Almost any foreign material or substance that enters the body affects the body, since the body chemically breaks down anything it consumes for energy production and cellular maintenance and construction. I don't know of ANY substance that is HARMLESS to human beings when "amount ingested" is beyond the realm determined to be "normal" or "average" consumption.

Do you know what happens when you consume too much Vitamin C? Vitamin B?

Alonzo said:
If you think this comment: "I think the major flaw you pointed out is that it says something negative about marijuana." then I'll have staff look into it. I reported it and someone, not myself, will inform you of their decision and the penalty given.

If you want to report yourself, that is your choice. I obviously didn't want to report you, or I would have. I have thick skin and things like this don't bother me, but I still notice them.

[Easy90]

"Physically speaking, drugs CAN only harm the person who ingests them. That is a fact." (Osborn)

Too easy! Drugs affect what you do, or in many cases, don't do... What you do, or don't do...has an effect on the PEOPLE around you...typically (though not always) your closest family members. Doing drugs can cause you to become unemployed...which can cause your family to be evicted, not eat, divorce, children lose parents, etc. Drugs can cause a person to abandon their responsibilities and to place their habit in higher priority to their loved ones. Drugs can (and do) cause accidents. Negligence (of a criminal sort) is frequently a result of drug use, and vice versa. The only way a person using drugs CANNOT (adversely) affect others would be if they were totally isolated....from others. Which, buy the way...is a frequent result of drug use. Drug addiction can (and frequently does) rob you of your potential to be productive...which affects society as a whole...and the physical well being of your dependents...if you have any. Being robbed of your potential to be a productive, contributing member of society costs everyone...real, physical money. The Constitution recognizes you have a right to pursue happiness...but our society in total expects you to be a positive contributor if at all possible. Drug use robs society of that positive contribution, when you end up shirking your familial obligations, don't work, have to be "taken care of" all because you'd (not you personally...) rather withdraw and become detached from reality and social responsibility by use of mind-altering, addictive, behavior modifying, illegally obtained...drugs.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Easy said:
"Physically speaking, drugs CAN only harm the person who ingests them. That is a fact." (Osborn)

Too easy! Drugs affect what you do, or in many cases, don't do... What you do, or don't do...has an effect on the PEOPLE around you.

Whats your point? People still have to accept responsibility for their actions whether they are on prescribed painkillers to illegal methamphetamine.

Easy said:
..typically (though not always) your closest family members.

Appeal to emotion argument, which is based on the absurd idea that the state should step in to protect emotions of loved ones, for an individual who made choices of their own free-will.

The state has no right to step in and "intervene" to protect emotions of loved ones who make bad choices.

Easy said:
Doing drugs can cause you to become unemployed...which can cause your family to be evicted, not eat, divorce, children lose parents, etc.

Being a gambler can cause you to become unemployed, yet gambling is legal.
Being a compulsive liar can cause you to become unemployed, yet there is no law against it.

Being irresponsible is what causes a person to get fired.

Do you deny that there are responsible drug users?

Easy said:
Drugs can cause a person to abandon their responsibilities and to place their habit in higher priority to their loved ones.

Again, what is your point here?

Should the government protect people from making bad choices, or are you postulating bad choices could be outlawed?

Easy said:
Drugs can (and do) cause accidents.

Nobody is arguing they can't.

People are responsible for their actions, sober or under the influence.

What is your point?

Easy said:
Negligence (of a criminal sort) is frequently a result of drug use, and vice versa.

As are many drunks and prescription drug addicts.... again, what does their chemical balance at the time of the actions have to do with their level of culpability for their actions?

Easy said:
The only way a person using drugs CANNOT (adversely) affect others would be if they were totally isolated....from others.

If you really believe that, you are clueless to how many people around you in public are high on something.

Easy said:
Which, buy the way...is a frequent result of drug use. Drug addiction can (and frequently does) rob you of your potential to be productive...which affects society as a whole...and the physical well being of your dependents...if you have any. Being robbed of your potential to be a productive, contributing member of society costs everyone...real, physical money.

Are you saying I am born in debt to someone, or something? Show me a contract?

Easy said:
The Constitution recognizes you have a right to pursue happiness...but our society in total expects you to be a positive contributor if at all possible.

Again, show me the contract?

Easy said:
Drug use robs society of that positive contribution, when you end up shirking your familial obligations, don't work, have to be "taken care of" all because you'd (not you personally...) rather withdraw and become detached from reality and social responsibility by use of mind-altering, addictive, behavior modifying, illegally obtained...drugs.

Speculation, nonsense and opinion.

I can only assume you have never knowingly met a responsible drug user of illegal drugs, yet you yourself probably use prescription drugs, and claim to be responsible with them, correct?

You seem to openly deny that Heroine and Opium are patented medicinal drugs, as is marijuana for proven medical relief in certain conditions.

You also seem to openly deny people the right to be responsible for their choices, so government should rule over them like some god, or nanny.

[Alonzo]

So what are you saying here?

Are you saying because time is a factor, we shouldn't seek truth and instead accept studies of questionable validity?

Are you saying the field suffers so bad in the way it executes and measures its studies it can't actually provide a good long term study that isn't subjective?

My whole point is, if the study is so subjectively suspect, it has to be regarded as "less than" optimum, therefore flawed. While it may contain some truths, simply sorting truth from coincidence is a study in itself.

I have seen several well done controlled studies on other subjects, and I understand what is involved with doing studies of that nature, so I doubt your accusations that these things can't be done.

I'm saying that these forms of studies are commonplace and accepted in the scientific community. Are they ideal? No. Are they equal to the quality of controlled experiments or longitudinal studies? No. But are they worthless or unreliable? No. For this type of study, self reports of marijuana use, in terms of years and how often, are the norm.

Yes I did..... do you know why?

You can die from drinking too much water within a short period of time.
You CAN'T die from an overdose of marijuana.

More people die every year from water consumption related issues, than marijuana consumption issues.

Water is natural, as is marijuana.

That is why I compared the two substances.

It's a ridiculous comparison though, considering one is essential to life, one you die without, and high amounts of one is recommended. It's just a bad example, no need to keep defending it.

Notice, I am not saying marijuana is harmless, just pointing out its harm is so relatively low as to be compared to items that we are biologically required to consume for life itself.

So consistent drinking of 6 glasses of water a day leads to what? Does it increase your risk of lung cancer? Does it increase the risk of brain abnormalities? What health risks are there to long term consumption of water?

The fact is that available scientific studies show that significant, long term marijuana usage has the potential to have moderate (memory) to severe (lung cancer) effects on your health.

Now other issues, such as the danger of alcohol, the effects on others, voluntary use, they're all irrelevant to the unnecessary risk that studies have shown marijuana to pose. You haven't presented studies to show otherwise, and your only criticism seems to be the methodology, which is a methodology that is accepted and commonplace in science.

[Elrathin]

Now other issues, such as the danger of alcohol, the effects on others, voluntary use, they're all irrelevant to the unnecessary risk that studies have shown marijuana to pose. You haven't presented studies to show otherwise, and your only criticism seems to be the methodology, which is a methodology that is accepted and commonplace in science.

Sorry but this study has shown EXCESSIVE use of marijuana causes this. Just like EXCESSIVE use of alcohol can damage the liver.

Nothing has been shown that the damage caused by casual use of marijuana justifies it being illegal.

[Alonzo]

El, you probably should read the part right above what your quoted:

The fact is that available scientific studies show that significant, long term marijuana usage has the potential to have moderate (memory) to severe (lung cancer) effects on your health.

I also posted a study showing the risk for lung cancer.


Those who smoked the equivalent of one joint a day for 10 years had a 5.7 times higher lung cancer risk than nonsmokers even after adjusting for tobacco use,

http://www.medpagetoday.com/tbindex.cfm?tbid=8096

[Elrathin]

Yes I did read that Zo, I also read this part:

Although cough, wheeze, and other respiratory effects expected with any type of smoking have been found with marijuana, the association with lung cancer has been inconclusive.

As well as this:

"Since there are some studies that reach other conclusions, we can't say that it nails down [the risk]," he said. "We need larger studies."

There are obviously political motivations for keeping Marijuanna illegal Zo, that you cannot deny.

[Alonzo]

More and larger studies yes. Inconclusive, yes, as in they can't definitively say that. But the article states:


The effect on lung cancer risk in the population-based case-control study was even greater than the one joint to five cigarettes equivalency for lung damage previously reported by the research group.

Smoke from cannabis contains up to twice as many carcinogenic polyaromatic hydrocarbons and tend to be smoked without filters while inhaling more deeply, leading to higher concentrations of smoke inhaled, the investigators noted.

Although cough, wheeze, and other respiratory effects expected with any type of smoking have been found with marijuana, the association with lung cancer has been inconclusive. (See: Marijuana Linked to Respiratory Complications)

However, the New Zealand findings provide sufficient evidence that some components of cannabis itself or cannabis smoke are real lung carcinogens, according to an accompanying editorial by Christian Brambilla, M.D., and Marc Colonna, Ph.D., both of the Institut Albert Bonniot in Grenoble, France.

"The prudence principle should be sufficient to convince everybody that lung cancer has to be added to the list of secondary effects of cannabis smoking, along with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease," they wrote.

and the other quote, in context:

But Norman H. Edelman, M.D., chief medical officer of the American Lung Association, was more cautious.

"Since there are some studies that reach other conclusions, we can't say that it nails down [the risk]," he said. "We need larger studies."

The researchers conducted in-home interviews on cancer risk factors including cannabis use among 79 lung cancer patients younger than 55 and 324 age-matched controls randomly selected from eight New Zealand health districts covering a population of 1.8 million.

Lung cancer patients were identified from hospital databases or the national cancer registers from 2001 through 2005. Most had non-small-cell lung cancer (80%) and none had lung metastasis from a distant primary.

It's not proven, they can't conclusively say that is causes these things. But, at the same time, there is more evidence to suggest it does than it doesn't.

[Alonzo]

There are obviously political motivations for keeping Marijuanna illegal Zo, that you cannot deny.

And the evidence that in places such as Australia and New Zealand that politics altered the results? I'm not arguing legality.

[Easy90]

"Being a gambler can cause you to become unemployed, yet gambling is legal.
Being a compulsive liar can cause you to become unemployed, yet there is no law against it.
Being irresponsible is what causes a person to get fired." Osborn

Yep. Being a drug head can too.

As far as having a "contract with society" ...You are essentially asking society to indulge your non-participation in responsibility for the people around you who must step over your drug induced presence. That's a bit much to ask. If you truly believe that what you do is no business of the people around you...then you are obligated to go somewhere where you have no impact on society.. If you just lay around and do drugs...someone has to take care of you. That's no good.

[Elrathin]

If you just lay around and do drugs...someone has to take care of you. That's no good.

Your assumption that anyone who does drugs simply just "lays around" is the equivalent of saying anyone that drinks alcohol just sits around getting drunk.

So I take it you are for alcohol being illegal than right?

[Easy90]

Your assumption that anyone who does drugs simply just "lays around" is the equivalent of saying anyone that drinks alcohol just sits around getting drunk.

So I take it you are for alcohol being illegal than right?

So, I take it you are for all drugs being legal then...right? LOL!

Yeah...you pro-drug folks use that flawed analogy a lot. It's still just as bogus as always. It goes like this: Alcohol is a drug. Alcohol can be abused. It's legal...therefore all drugs should be legal. Of course, it makes no sense from a logic perspective.

The flaw is simple. Just because alcohol (a drug, and potentially harmful substance,) is allowed...then why shoulden't a different substance even MORE addictive, more harmful be be allowed? That's essentially like this example: If the speed limit on a highway is 70 MPH, and people can be killed if they have a wreck going that fast...then why isn't it unlimited?

The answer is: Because justifying something harmful on the basis that something else is harmful too, is irrational.

The other argument you pro-drug types like goes on about how so many people are in jail for simple drug possession and use.

Yep...and all that proves is that drugs are so powerful that people addicted to them are willing to throw away their very lives, and risk losing their very freedom to get them. They will kill, steal, lie, and die for them. Is that a rational reason to say they should be therefor accepted in civilized society? I think...just the opposite.

[Elrathin]

So, I take it you are for all drugs being legal then...right? LOL!

Did I say ALL drugs? No, I corrected your assumption that those that use drugs simply just lay around. The fact you believe that stereotype shows that you are quite ignorant on the subject.


Yeah...you pro-drug folks use that flawed analogy a lot. It's still just as bogus as always. It goes like this: Alcohol is a drug. Alcohol can be abused. It's legal...therefore all drugs should be legal. Of course, it makes no sense from a logic perspective.

Again, we are talking about Marijuana here and not all drugs. You and others have YET to prove why it should be illegal.


then why shoulden't a different substance even MORE addictive, more harmful be be allowed? That's essentially like this example: If the speed limit on a highway is 70 MPH, and people can be killed if they have a wreck going that fast...then why isn't it unlimited?

IF you think Marijuanna is more addictive than cigarettes, I got a nice plot of land to sell you in the ocean LOL.


Yep...and all that proves is that drugs are so powerful that people addicted to them are willing to throw away their very lives, and risk losing their very freedom to get them. They will kill, steal, lie, and die for them. Is that a rational reason to say they should be therefor accepted in civilized society? I think...just the opposite.

I've seen people do worse for alcohol. Again, I would advise you to actually gain some knowledge on the subject. You clearly are demonstrating that you are lacking in your comments on knowledge of Marijuana.

[Easy90]

I get it. You really really like pot. I love the way you brought up cigarettes and booze as reasons pot should be legal too. That always happens in a discussion like this. Oh...and the personal insults (eg: "you are quite ignorant on the subject.") always shows up too. Actually, I am not "ignorant" on the subject. I am just not addicted to, or "habitually inclined to use" (if that makes you more comfortable with the idea) pot, (or other drugs) as most of the proponents of legalization seem to be.

Look, I don't care personally what you ingest, poke in your body, or inhale...but "ignorant" as you think I am...I am still pretty sure, based on what I've seen in my 61 years...that legalizing drugs (including canibus) isn't in the general interest of any society. Unfortunately, I think it's possible that it's going to be "decriminalized" nationally within the next decade or two...but that's in keeping with the general degradation of our nation as a whole... You know... "change" (any change) and all.

Here's a cool line of "reasoning" someone like yourself might enjoy. Smoking pot is environmentally unfriendly. It causes people to exhale pollutants, and get the munchies...thereby causing the makers of Ho-Ho's (an evil corporate entity) to make more cellophane wrapped, sugar filled, nutritionally vacant junk food...making you fatter, and causing heart disease. The typical pot-head (one NOT "ignorant of the subject") is more likely to be swayed by an argument like that, than simply saying heavy, or long-term use makes you stupid, lethargic, and worthless..(all true!)

[GhostintheMachine]

Look, I don't care personally what you ingest, poke in your body, or inhale...but "ignorant" as you think I am...I am still pretty sure, based on what I've seen in my 61 years...that legalizing drugs (including canibus) isn't in the general interest of any society. Unfortunately, I think it's possible that it's going to be "decriminalized" nationally within the next decade or two...but that's in keeping with the general degradation of our nation as a whole... You know... "change" (any change) and all.


It seems to me that decriminalizing would be beneficial, millions of dollars are spent on the failing drug war. Our jails are overcrowded. Personally, I feel that a marijuana charge seems way too petty to be a criminal charge. But education efforts should be spent on educating about the potential consequences of marijuana use. I like your idea about talking about environmental consequences..

[Easy90]

"It seems to me that decriminalizing would be beneficial, millions of dollars are spent on the failing drug war. Our jails are overcrowded."

Yep. Just like eliminating all the speed limits on the interstate highways would decrease the need for state troopers handing out all those tickets for speeding, in the failing war on speeders.

[GhostintheMachine]

"It seems to me that decriminalizing would be beneficial, millions of dollars are spent on the failing drug war. Our jails are overcrowded."

Yep. Just like eliminating all the speed limits on the interstate highways would decrease the need for state troopers handing out all those tickets for speeding, in the failing war on speeders.



I don't think the two can be compared

Annual deaths by motor vehicle accidents: 26,3471


# An exhaustive search of the literature finds no credible reports of deaths induced by marijuana. The US Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) records instances of drug mentions in medical examiners' reports, and though marijuana is mentioned, it is usually in combination with alcohol or other drugs. Marijuana alone has not been shown to cause an overdose death.

Source: Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), available on the web at http://www.samhsa.gov/; also see Janet E. Joy, Stanley J. Watson, Jr., and John A. Benson, Jr., "Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base," Division of Neuroscience and Behavioral Research, Institute of Medicine (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999), available on the web at http://www.nap.edu/html/marimed/; and US Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, "In the Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition" (Docket #86-22), September 6, 1988, p. 57.

But pot does cause apathy and the munchies...perhaps we should criminalize television as well because I'm pretty sure it has the same effect...

[Osborn F. Enready]

Easy said:
So, I take it you are for all drugs being legal then...right? LOL!

Yeah...you pro-drug folks use that flawed analogy a lot. It's still just as bogus as always. It goes like this: Alcohol is a drug. Alcohol can be abused. It's legal...therefore all drugs should be legal. Of course, it makes no sense from a logic perspective.

The flaw is simple. Just because alcohol (a drug, and potentially harmful substance,) is allowed...then why shoulden't a different substance even MORE addictive, more harmful be be allowed? That's essentially like this example: If the speed limit on a highway is 70 MPH, and people can be killed if they have a wreck going that fast...then why isn't it unlimited?

The answer is: Because justifying something harmful on the basis that something else is harmful too, is irrational.

The other argument you pro-drug types like goes on about how so many people are in jail for simple drug possession and use.

Yep...and all that proves is that drugs are so powerful that people addicted to them are willing to throw away their very lives, and risk losing their very freedom to get them. They will kill, steal, lie, and die for them. Is that a rational reason to say they should be therefor accepted in civilized society? I think...just the opposite.

Nothing like using arbitrary and abject force to enforce your subjective beliefs Easy.....

Its no wonder we don't agree on much.