What's new
  • ICMag and The Vault are running a NEW contest! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!

Smoking high strength cannabis may damage nerve fibres in brain

B

Baked Alaskan

The study only said shrinkage associated with damage. I bet the shrinking is because of better function. The article I read said the area in question had lots of cannabinoid receptors, so IMO it made them more efficient. Probably not but fuck those guys.
 

Dr.King

Member
Veteran
Yes and also knowledge about the brain is in its infancy. Only the tip of the iceberg has been understood. Most of the 'knowledge' about language learning, for example is conjecture and one study contradicts another. There are large unanswered questions about the functions of various parts of the brain. The crew at Kings College, If I remember correctly, are funded by government in the UK. Being funded by government in the UK means towing the party line. So you have huge swathes of academia, hospitals, etc basically concocting lies to justify their paymasters. If you had a society based on honest discourse then this wouldn't happen.

* Reaches for the Skunk pipe...:tiphat:

Indeed, anyone with common sense knows that a lot of studies are bought to show false facts. People just don't want to believe almost everything in the entire world is corrupt. Life is what you make it. If you believe cannabis is hurting your brain that badly then just don't smoke it. :thank you:.

I had to edit, it was just to funny. Thank you for such a good laugh Trichrider.

this study damaged my brain...
 

liftedinny

Active member
I wonder how the study would have went if they used hash made from that "super potent " skunk .....would have had a whole group of stupid people then
 

Mikell

Dipshit Know-Nothing
ICMag Donor
Veteran
If you believe cannabis is hurting your brain that badly then just don't smoke it.

You should meet my other two best friends, nicotine and alcohol.

One can choose to accept the risks, but only if they're known. How stupid would we look as a species if no studies were performed on the negative effects of smoking, but instead focused research on relationships between smoking and weight loss.
 
i dont understand the process they use for testing. sober people will never react the same as everyday users. i kinda hate smoking weed when im sober.
 

Dropped Cat

Six Gummi Bears and Some Scotch
Veteran
Further analysis is clearly indicated.

The study is based upon diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), which
is at least indicated for measuring the neural axons of white matter
in the brain as opposed to diffusion weighted imaging (DWI).

Advanced models of the diffusion process have been proposed to overcome
the weaknesses of the diffusion tensor model.

Maybe they could do more scans and employ diffusion functional MRI (DfMRI).
These include q-space imaging and generalized diffusion tensor imaging.

But knowing the source of the study, I wonder if the folks involved even
bothered to check pre-existing conditions, like early MS for instance.

Whatever.
 
B

Baron Greenback

What I want to know is who on Earth is finding, buying and smoking 2-4% thc weed?
It's like the DEA head saying people are smoking leaves (he might be a fucktard) and that weed was weak and hash was weaker in the 70's.
I propose an updated "Reefer Madness" film, just need to find these over 100 skunk strains that are over 12% thc, might be too much for me though. Skunk has a lot to answer for then, if only there'd been a relationship between humans and cannabis for thousands of years, rafts of anecdotal evidence showing little long term harm and indeed, new studies indicating possible medical benefits, if only that had happened :)
If you want to see the long term effects of smoking cannabis, look in the mirror.
 

Green81

Well-known member
Veteran
Its just another propaganda stunt by the UK government, their shit scared whats happening in the U.S with huge amounts of data that support its a 'Kind" medicine and has many more benefits to the human population.
 

Green81

Well-known member
Veteran
but i do agree that smoking during your teenage years is not helpful to the developing brain so should be avoided until your 22.
 

Andyo

Active member
Veteran
At 16 it gave me better perspective

At 16 it gave me better perspective

people mature at different ages ,
I say let it be an idiots an idiot.
marijuana does way less harm than most things ,A
 
So what does pollution do to your brain in a populated city?
Living too close to a power station?
Listening to the Main stream media.....ext.
 

MJPassion

Observer
ICMag Donor
Veteran
but i do agree that smoking during your teenage years is not helpful to the developing brain so should be avoided until your 22.

Are there any studies that show what you purport to be true?

It really doesn't make sense to me that a pregnant smoker could have more intelligent children while exposure during childhhod could cause development issues.

Some things wrong w all these studies.
Most likely, it's misaaplication of the scientific method!
 

Green81

Well-known member
Veteran
Obviously smoking while pregnant should be avoided too and we all do develop at different times. I have to say my comment was based on personal experience rather than solid data.
 

OlDirtyHuman

Well-known member
The report said that the nerve damage occurred in the corpus callosum. I thought that was interesting because severing the corpus callosum is a treatment for severe epilepsy. What else is used as a treatment for severe epilepsy?:watchplant:
 

Bud Green

I dig dirt
Veteran
Everything in moderation, and you'll be fine...

Well, you know, except things like drinking mercury, snorting Ajax or dabbling in Ricin.
 

Mikell

Dipshit Know-Nothing
ICMag Donor
Veteran
It really doesn't make sense to me that a pregnant smoker could have more intelligent children while exposure during childhhod could cause development issues.

Some things wrong w all these studies.
Most likely, it's misaaplication of the scientific method!

I'd say more a misunderstanding of the scientific method. It is too easy to look too far into isolated studies. Where the scientific community looks at initial research as a potential new direction, we are more inclined to draw early conclusions.

I am definitely guilty of that in the past. The pregnancy study you're referencing suffers from similar problems as this. Both contain caveats by the authors that the findings are not conclusive.
 

MJPassion

Observer
ICMag Donor
Veteran
…contain caveats by the authors that the findings are not conclusive.

I find it interesting that media sources typically gloss the caveats in order to create some form of bias, within the reader, using article titles and/or headings.

Neuro-linguistic programming in action!
 

redlaser

Active member
Veteran
The UK/ Kings college have generated alot of questionable statistics over the years, mostly concerning the dreaded "skunk" cannabis.
There is a supposed three fold increase in psychotic disorders by casual users, a four fold increase for regular users.( alcohol is a three fold increase)

Skunk users have more violent suicides, no other group jumps off buildings but skunk users.

Parents and siblings may be injured, and homicide is not uncommon.

The more research the better as far as cannabis goes, too many are afraid to touch it due to over regulation/illegality. As for myself I'd say my thought process is more severely impaired with heavy use and not really all that enjoyable, less is better it seems.
 
Top