Smoking high strength cannabis may damage nerve fibres in brain

[Crusader Rabbit]

For something to have such a significant impact upon one's psyche, it is naive to think that regular use won't have side effects. The growing field of brain imaging is producing more and more information... and a lot of it isn't flattering to cannabis users. We do pay a price for our habit.

I think that the illegality of the drug has prevented needed research from taking place. Now that universities in legal states don't need special federal permits to work with cannabis, we will be getting a flood of new information.

People are sick of cops kicking in doors over cannabis. They're tired of their grand-kids being sacrificed to feed the machine. The heavy handed propaganda has been so blatant for so many years that it left many people discounting any health information that came from "establishment" institutions. This will all change. People will be able to see with their own eyes what's real and what's not. Soon it will be reminiscent of days long gone when tobacco companies funded scientists to "prove" that smoking cigarettes didn't have it's negative health consequences. There's money to be made here!

 

[Mikell]

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!

Exactly.

The government here sponsored an anti-cannabis campaign, most notably running a commercial making wild claims. It took me well over six monthes of harassment by email to get the names of the studies mentioned but unreferenced.

Almost if not all contained similar caveats warning not to interpret the results as definite, citing future research was needed, cannabis storage was conducted poorly (in reference to claims of 300% increases in potency), etc. Basically cautioning against the very thing the previous government had done.

 

[yesum]

For something to have such a significant impact upon one's psyche, it is naive to think that regular use won't have side effects. The growing field of brain imaging is producing more and more information... and a lot of it isn't flattering to cannabis users. We do pay a price for our habit.

I think that the illegality of the drug has prevented needed research from taking place. Now that universities in legal states don't need special federal permits to work with cannabis, we will be getting a flood of new information.

People are sick of cops kicking in doors over cannabis. They're tired of their grand-kids being sacrificed to feed the machine. The heavy handed propaganda has been so blatant for so many years that it left many people discounting any health information that came from "establishment" institutions. This will all change. People will be able to see with their own eyes what's real and what's not. Soon it will be reminiscent of days long gone when tobacco companies funded scientists to "prove" that smoking cigarettes didn't have it's negative health consequences. There's money to be made here!

I disagree that 'we' pay a price for our habit. I think it would be fair to say some pay a price for their habit. Meaning only some people have bad outcomes and probably or certainly smoke a lot most every day, meaning a 'habit'.

Lots of light or moderate drinkers live longer than non drinkers for example. Tobacco pipe smokers live an average of 2 years longer than non smokers.

The scientists at these places that routinely put out bad reports on pot have an agenda. Anyone can see it even skunk users. There will be no positive news on cannabis from Kings College, bet on it.

 

[Croissant]

54 people in the study and they claim 2% higher risk?????? So one person in their study showed less active white matter? Great study "science." (sarcasm)

nailed it!

 

[Granger2]

I'd like to see if there is a difference between non-users and users that haven't had a psychotic experience. -granger

 

[amanda88]

"High-strength cannabis may damage nerve fibres that handle the flow of messages across the two halves of the brain, scientists claim.."
This is just so true, we the cannabis addicts cal it 'the stone!' ....lol

 

[SpaceBros.]

I remember watching a English documentary where the "Scientist" injected a regular Cannabis smoker with a pure dose of THC only. She then went on to have some minor psychotic symptoms and an all round unpleasant time. The thing was she never had a problem smoking the street weed she was scoring and obviously enjoyed it like the rest of us. It was just the shit the evil "scientist" gave her that made her feel bad and ultimately made her question smoking street weed at all.

Unfortunately these "scientists" already have hypothesis in mind they are trying to validate. They will manipulate the results and cover up anything to the contrary. Truly evil people.

 

[EvergreenState]

It is entirely possible that future, in depth scientific studies will reveal many negative things about marijuana usage but I just wish they would wait until they had peer reviewed hard data with clear conclusions before they publish. This far reaching, putting bees in people's bonnets info. based on casual association( 1 in 54 and even then they aren't sure which came first the condition or the marijuana smoking), that comes across as obvious propaganda, isn't getting the info. we marijuana users need in order to help us make informed decisions about our usage. I'm really sick of manipulative scare tactics.
When I see these types of tactics used I instantly wonder who funded the study? I want to ask did the largest liquor distributor in world, based in London by the way, contribute to the University? Wouldn't they have a motive to get this info. out there? And it just goes even further down hill from there.
It's info. like this, that is obvious propaganda, that will close people's minds to honest studies. When the wolf finally shows up, no one will listen.

 

[Crusader Rabbit]

I'd like to see if there is a difference between non-users and users that haven't had a psychotic experience. -granger

from the article;

“If you look at the corpus callosum, what we’re seeing is a significant difference in the white matter between those who use high potency cannabis and those who never use the drug, or use the low-potency drug,” said Dazzan. The corpus callosum is rich in cannabinoid receptors, on which the THC chemical acts.
...

“The difference is there whether you have psychosis or not, and we think this is strictly related to the potency of the cannabis,” she added.

 

[Crusader Rabbit]

I remember watching a English documentary where the "Scientist" injected a regular Cannabis smoker with a pure dose of THC only. She then went on to have some minor psychotic symptoms and an all round unpleasant time. The thing was she never had a problem smoking the street weed she was scoring and obviously enjoyed it like the rest of us. It was just the shit the evil "scientist" gave her that made her feel bad and ultimately made her question smoking street weed at all.

In cannabis research it's been standard practice to use synthetic THC. Of course, we know this is nothing like the experience of smoking real pot, and can induce extreme paranoia. Hopefully legal access to actual plant matter helps change this situation.

 

[RetroGrow]

Saw the OP's headline, and immediately scanned the post for "UK" and "Guardian"...once I saw them, I didn't bother reading the rest, as nothing that comes out of the UK or the guardian regarding Cannabis can be taken seriously. They have consistently and willfully distorted the truth to the maximum degree. Nothing they print is even worth reading except for the humor. It's complete rubbish, and not to be confused with science. Would you believe a "study" in the Enquirer? This was not a "study". It was a hit piece, as always.

 

[paper thorn]

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.

I don't understand the use of the word 'sober' in relation to pot smoking.

Pot doesn't make me drunk.

 

[Mikell]

I don't understand the use of the word 'sober' in relation to pot smoking.

Pot doesn't make me drunk.

Yes you do.

Smoking pot gets you stoned. You are no longer sober (a word not restricted to alcohol use).


50yard and Croissant, reread the first post. I think you'll find your conclusions are incorrect. The 2% reference was in regards to brain matter, not the percentage of people effected.

 

[Granger2]

The researchers used two scanning techniques, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), to examine the corpus callosum, the largest region of white matter, in the brains of 56 patients who had reported a first episode of psychosis, and 43 healthy volunteers from the local community.

As I said...

 

[Castroman]

Looks like both sides have a case of "my mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts."

 

[lovehaze]

It seems to me these people were to quick to attach a negative stipulation and meaning to what they were calling subtle differences. They don't even use definitive language when setting their theory stating that "it may be something". Without a set of controllable parameters (I mean every brain is different) seems to me that any such study would be the heresy of the person making such a claim. It would be a great industry stunt to be the first to attach a real negative stipulation to such a great plant. Imho...it is much more likely that the brain benefits from these changes in a form of increased connectivity. As for being the first this is a laughable claim as I was hooking up to brain scanners at the VA hospital years ago.

I'll leave with this thought.

quote:
"These details can help quantify the risk of mental health problems and increase awareness of the type of damage these substances can do to the brain,” she added.

When you actively search for a problem you miss most of the good things about anything you focus on. Of course i understand that anything in excess can be bad and anything can be a substance that is being abused. This being said excess use of cannabis is probably detrimental over long periods. All I am saying is if they want to have the conversation it should be had in intelligent and meaningfully educated way.

 

[stasis]

There is so much of what I call Pot-a-Ganda in the press. Sometimes immediately following an article detailing a new or previously established Medical use in a positive light.
Gullible people are swayed by the press. Something that won't change tomorrow.

 

[yesum]

^^ confirmation bias is one way of saying it. If you want to find something wrong with a drug or whatever, you usually will succeed. Even if you have a high IQ and plenty of education or maybe more so if you have smarts and school. Over confidence from the smarties and they are funded by anti pot jerks.

I have no doubt certain people would do better without pot but know some will do better with it. Hash was available for a long time in the UK and has a high thc level I think, more than 'skunk'. Where were all the psychotics and brain damaged back then from the deadly hash?

 

[Tudo]

 

[redlaser]

^^ confirmation bias is one way of saying it. If you want to find something wrong with a drug or whatever, you usually will succeed. Even if you have a high IQ and plenty of education or maybe more so if you have smarts and school. Over confidence from the smarties and they are funded by anti pot jerks.

I have no doubt certain people would do better without pot but know some will do better with it. Hash was available for a long time in the UK and has a high thc level I think, more than 'skunk'. Where were all the psychotics and brain damaged back then from the deadly hash?

Looking through some of the Kings College anti- skunk studies they mention regular hash and strangely don't see it as a huge problem because its a more balanced product. Part of their angle against skunk is that it is almost all THC supposedly, bred almost everything else out of it on purpose.