Restoring the Balance - (title of an old triple J program)

[danoz]

Been taken out of context here a few times.

 

And yes bufo it wasnt part of my research the comment i made about alcohol it was an opinion, my own - alcohol when enjoyed like most mature people enjoy it, is harmless, or as i said at the time hardly affects you at all. I honestly dont see a problem with this remark. In the context I m talking about,.. a wine or beer or two with Dinner. FOR god sake how on earth is this a problem. AS for the comment mum/dad/idiot advisors - man get a real argument. that is again just a personal patronising thing to say, but your not really forming an argument. You just sound like an arrogant tool.

 

Please enlighten me with your wisdom as to how a couple drinks with friends over a meal is harmful.

 

remember im not talking about getting smashed.

 

As for the whole GF thing man people really got into that; she fucking smokes more than i DO !!!! hahaha she just helped me with terms and concepts so that i could understand the literature. im a scientist also but only animals and plants.

 

One more thing ITS A PLANT DUDE it evolved over millions of years - oh really?

So did poppies, spiders venom, and the most potent nero toxins known to man wanna smoke those too because they evolved over millions years. just cause its a plant doesnt mean squat.

 

PLEASE shoot me down with brilliant argument make me look a fool. dont be a knob and make personal remarks it makes for shit reading.

[LOGGER_KING]

Been taken out of context here a few times.

 

And yes bufo it wasnt part of my research the comment i made about alcohol it was an opinion, my own - alcohol when enjoyed like most mature people enjoy it, is harmless, or as i said at the time hardly affects you at all. I honestly dont see a problem with this remark. In the context I m talking about,.. a wine or beer or two with Dinner. FOR god sake how on earth is this a problem. AS for the comment mum/dad/idiot advisors - man get a real argument. that is again just a personal patronising thing to say, but your not really forming an argument. You just sound like an arrogant tool.

 

Please enlighten me with your wisdom as to how a couple drinks with friends over a meal is harmful.

 

remember im not talking about getting smashed.

 

As for the whole GF thing man people really got into that; she fucking smokes more than i DO !!!! hahaha she just helped me with terms and concepts so that i could understand the literature. im a scientist also but only animals and plants.

 

One more thing ITS A PLANT DUDE it evolved over millions of years - oh really?

So did poppies, spiders venom, and the most potent nero toxins known to man wanna smoke those too because they evolved over millions years. just cause its a plant doesnt mean squat.

 

PLEASE shoot me down with brilliant argument make me look a fool. dont be a knob and make personal remarks it makes for shit reading.

wat ever weed does to someone,short or long term,IF YOU STOP,THE PROBLEM GOES AWAY......and you cant say that about alcohol and other drugs,,,,,,people here are exsperts on weed,some have been on and off it for 20 30 40 years..SO we know more about it then anyone.................I THINK YOU PISSED THE BOYS OFF HERE.............

[Thylacine]

Yep, moderation is the key.

 

 

Couple of drinks a day wont hurt me, I agree there and so does the majority.

 

 

On the other hand, just using weed a couple of times a week and your a drug addict. Different people have higher and lower numbers. Smoke weed once a week? Why do you "need" to smoke once a week? Are you an addict?? Thats all it takes for some people......because you choose/want to use it once a week, they claim thats need therefor your addicted to drugs.

 

 

The other point is most people under estimate the connection between mental illness and prohabition and everything that goes with it. Most people are terrified of being caught and labeled a drug user, it wouldnt even matter if they took no substances at all....some people just cant handle that pressure and constant threat of losing everything[family/job/freedom]

 

Im all for a good debate, its just that I dont think you have done anything to show that cannabis used in moderation is harmfull. Abusing it is a whole other debate as you know, and we know which one is going to win there.

[noface]

The point was.

Its by what context something is considered "Harmless" or "Harmful".

 

Now it can be determined by you, as it is your birth right to understand the natural world, learn from its mistakes, know its limits and your own AND the mistakes of others. Heed them or not, choice is yours. Face the consequences.

Or.

We listen to some self interested bureaucrat who make decisions based on desire to avoid having to provide you with freedom to choose for yourself whether for your own welfare or not! That would make him obsolete (and so he should be, the lazy fucker!). Generally the bureaucrat's only intentions and motive is to support the status quo and its over the top heavy handedness for the benefit of a few.

 

The point is danoz, understanding the cannabis plant is one thing, understanding WHY you are not allowed to grow opens up a whole can of worms.

 

Again, it is NOT illegal because of your welfare or the welfare of some schizo kid, they DO NOT CARE and we are WAY OUTTA WACK if you want to talk about BALANCE, I'm mean give the man some eye drops.

 

I'm waiting for balance, believe me.

 

Regardless,

I think my point and argument has gone "WHOOOSH" I'm definitely not surprised at all, its the same ol same ol

 

Facebookless

Edited October 29, 2008 by noface

[bufo marinus]

And yes bufo it wasnt part of my research the comment i made about alcohol it was an opinion, my own

 

 

AS for the comment mum/dad/idiot advisors - man get a real argument. that is again just a personal patronising thing to say, but your not really forming an argument. You just sound like an arrogant tool.

 

 

 

PLEASE shoot me down with brilliant argument make me look a fool. dont be a knob and make personal remarks it makes for shit reading.

 

Listen BOY, the best thing you could do is shut the fuck up until YOU'VE done some more reading.

Your argument is all over the place.

I've met plenty of know it all bitches like your girlfriend too and seen better men than yourself talked around in circles by emotional argument gained through years of brow beaten ignorance.

The studies are all on the data base here. Perhaps you could help explain some of the terms to each other using a dictionary?

I'm done stirring your pot ya fuckin douche bag

[JoeThePlanter]

I'd just like to point on the fact that, Danoz, you showed absolutely no concrete evidence either. You shoot down what everyone says telling them to get a real argument yet your whole post started on a personal account of your brother.

 

How does that work?

[brick]

Just to add another addiction. Gambling. One of the biggest problems in Australia. One of the biggest causes of theft, suicides, family break ups ever. And it gets addressed by tokenism. You see the real problem with cannabis is that the governments, corporation, drug manufacturers ("legal drugs") have not yet found a way to capitalise on its use. When they do you can bet your arse it will be legalised.

[danoz]

At the end of the "personal account" i stated ".. " but anocdotal evidence is meaninless" remember??

 

As for concrete evidence to be honest, to read interpret and present a literature review and do it properly and god dam i would have to do it properly on this site otherwise man. would take hours and at the moment i just don thave that time.

 

insted ill open a new thread and past some abstracts full text for most of them will be available by email request.

 

Also im not talking about behavioral changes because studying human behavior is almost impossible so many problems. Im takling about the biochem and morphological changes induced by marijuana use. Things which can be measures with definitive results!!

 

this thread has lost tract also people only skim read after 2 pages

[danoz]

Ok new thread just quickly - the title is from an old triple J program it was title because lots of people accused trip j of being incredibly left so they made a program that was so polically right-wing it was funny.

 

In essence im clarifying myself - from a morphology and biochemical perspective weed can be quiet harmfull. these studies provide concrete evidence because they measure physical things.

 

OK for starters let set the scene. IM not talking about studying of marijuana use and human behavior, these are just way too fucking complicated. SOmething difficult shouldnt be termed rocket science but rather nero science, just doesnt have the same ring. Also when it comes to studies of human behavior from marijuana use they are many which go either way, as in positive weed is harmless or negetive. That is related to my first point about human behavior studies in general. so easy to skew.

They are subject to: human bias, and people make poor judgement of themselves, who wants to say in a questionare that they feel depressed esp males would understate their feelings.

 

For example here is a good study emailed to me from off this site. IT IS PRO WEED sort of.. says that a certian associating often made towards weed is infact false and due to random depression already existing ( i think - correct me if im wrong - oh maybe i should ask my consult hahaha u all seem to hate so much)

 

Relationships between motivation and depression in chronic marijuana users

The “amotivational syndrome” which has been associated with marijuana use has not been examined systematically in relation to marijuana use and mental health. Light and heavy users were solicited by personal contact. They were asked to complete anonymous questionnaires which measured marijuana, alcohol and cocaine use, perceived states during marijuana intoxication, depressive symptoms in the last year, the Orientation to Life Scale and a modified form of the Thematic Apperception Test, from which Need for Achievement, Affiliation and Power were assessed. Several group comparisons were made: Chronic heavy-users (medians: daily use for 6 years) with and without significant symptoms of depression within the last year were compared with Light users (medians: several times per month for 4.5 years) with and without significant symptoms of depression within the last year. Subjects in all groups reported similar ratings of intoxication (being stoned) during marijuana use. No differences were found in alcohol or cocaine use among the comparison groups. Scores on Need for Achievement were significantly lower in heavy users with depressive symptoms when compared with all other groups. No effects were found among groups in measures of the Need for Affiliation and the Need for Power. Both light and heavy users with symptoms of depression had significantly lower scores than those without depressive symptoms, on the overall Orientation to Life questionnaire and on each subscale measuring Meaningfulness, Manageability and Comprehensibility. These data suggest that amotivational symptoms observed in heavy marijuana users in treatment are due to depression.

 

A study which says that heavy marijuana use has perhaps been falsly associated with low "need for achievement" and was infact due to depression. I spose this is pro weed is OK

 

The problem is that often these studies use common english words but in this context they actually have special meanings and u need to have done alot of background research into what these meanings are to understand these papers properly.

 

 

 

However from a more measurable perspective.

 

For exampe -

 

Brain Morphological Changes and Early Marijuana Use: A Magnetic Resonance and Positron EmissionBackground: The focus of this report is on the possible role that the age of first use of marijuana may play on brain morphology and function. Methods: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and positron emission tomography (PET) were utilized to study 57 subjects. Brain volume measures (whole brain, gray matter, white matter and lateral ventricle volumes), global cerebral blood flow (CBF) and body size were evaluated. Results: There are three primary findings related to age of first use of marijuana. Subjects who starting using marijuana before age 17, compared to those who started later, had smaller whole brain and percent cortical gray matter and larger percent white matter volumes. Functionally, males who started using marijuana before 17 had significantly high CBF than other males. Both males and females who started younger were physically smaller in height and weight, with the effects being greater in males. Conclusions: These findings suggest that the age at which exposure begins later. These results are discussed in light of reported effects of marijuana on gonadal and pituitary hormones.

 

So weed is bad for young adults OH REALLY - not really anything amazing here alcohol and general living is probably bad for development BUT WAIT there is more.

 

Simular study showed weed in adults doesnt have these effects.

 

Effects of frequent marijuana use on brain tissue volume and composition.

 

To investigate CNS effects of frequent marijuana use, brain tissue volume and composition were measured using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in 18 current, frequent, young adult marijuana users and 13 comparable, non-using controls. Automated image analysis techniques were used to measure global and regional brain volumes, including, for most regions, separate measures of gray and white matter. The marijuana users showed no evidence of cerebral atrophy or global or regional changes in tissue volumes. Volumes of ventricular CSF were not higher in marijuana users than controls, but were, in fact, lower. There were no clinically significant abnormalities in any subject's MRI. Sex differences were detected in several global volume measures.

 

Oh but wait it does get bad

Dose-related neurocognitive effects of marijuana use Background: Although about 7 million people in the US population use marijuana at least weekly, there is a paucity of scientific data on persistent neurocognitive effects of marijuana use.

 

Objective: To determine if neurocognitive deficits persist in 28-day abstinent heavy marijuana users and if these deficits are dose-related to the number of marijuana joints smoked per week.

 

Methods: A battery of neurocognitive tests was given to 28-day abstinent heavy marijuana abusers.

 

Results: As joints smoked per week increased, performance decreased on tests measuring memory, executive functioning, psychomotor speed, and manual dexterity. When dividing the group into light, middle, and heavy user groups, the heavy group performed significantly below the light group on 5 of 35 measures and the size of the effect ranged from 3.00 to 4.20 SD units. Duration of use had little effect on neurocognitive performance.

 

Conclusions: Very heavy use of marijuana is associated with persistent decrements in neurocognitive performance even after 28 days of abstinence. It is unclear if these decrements will resolve with continued abstinence or become progressively worse with continued heavy marijuana use.

 

And more ... this was distributed by a database containing many pro weed behaviroal studies

 

Brain glucose metabolism in chronic marijuana users at baseline and during marijuana intoxication

Despite the widespread abuse of marijuana, knowledge about its effects in the human brain is limited. Brain glucose metabolism with and without Δ9tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) (main psychoactive component of marijuana) was evaluated in eight normal subjects and eight chronic marijuana abusers with positron emission tomography. At baseline, marijuana abusers showed lower relative cerebellar metabolism than normal subjects. THC increased relative cerebellar metabolism in all subjects, but only abusers showed increases in orbitofrontal cortex, prefrontal cortex, and basal ganglia. Cerebellar metabolism during THC intoxication was significantly correlated with the subjective sense of intoxication. The decreased cerebellar metabolism in marijuana abusers at baseline could account for the motor deficits previously reported in these subjects. The activation of orbitofrontal cortex and basal ganglia by THC in the abusers but not in the normal subjects could underlie one of the mechanisms leading to the drive and the compulsion to self-administer the drug observed in addicted individuals.

 

Marijuana use is associated with a reorganized visual-attention network and cerebellar hypoactivation.

Original Article

 

Brain. 129(5):1096-1112, May 2006.

Chang, L.; Yakupov, R.; Cloak, C.; Ernst, T.

Abstract:

Attention and memory deficits have been reported in heavy marijuana users, but these effects may be reversible after prolonged abstinence. It remains unclear whether the reversibility of these cognitive deficits indicates that chronic marijuana use does not alter cortical networks, or that such changes occur but the brain adapts to the drug-induced changes. Blood oxygenation-level dependent (BOLD) functional MRI (fMRI) was performed in 24 chronic marijuana users (12 abstinent and 12 active) and 19 age-, sex- and education-matched control subjects during a set of visual-attention tasks with graded levels of difficulty. Neuropsychological tests were also administered on each subject. The two marijuana user groups showed no significant difference in usage pattern (frequency or duration of use, age of first use, cumulative joints used, averaged >2000 joints) or estimated cumulative lifetime exposure of [DELTA]-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) (mean 168 +/- 45 versus 244 +/- 135 g). Despite similar task and cognitive test performance compared with control subjects, active and abstinent marijuana users showed decreased activation in the right prefrontal, medial and dorsal parietal, and medial cerebellar regions, but greater activation in various frontal, parietal and occipital brain regions during the visual-attention tasks (all with P <= 0.001, corrected, cluster level). However, the BOLD signals in the right frontal and medial cerebellar regions normalized with duration of abstinence in the abstinent users. Active marijuana users, with positive urine tests for THC, showed greater activation in the frontal and medial cerebellar regions than abstinent marijuana users and greater usage of the reserve network (regions with load effect), suggesting a neuroadaptive state. Both earlier age of first use and greater estimated cumulative dose of THC exposure were related to lower BOLD signals in the right prefrontal region and medial cerebellum. The altered BOLD activation pattern in the attention network and hypoactivation of the cerebellum suggest neuroadaptive processes or alteration of brain development in chronic marijuana users. These changes also may be related to marijuana-induced alteration in resting cerebral blood volume/flow or downregulation of cannabinoid (CB1) receptors. The greater activation in the active compared with abstinent marijuana users demonstrates a neuroadaptive state in the setting of active marijuana use, while the long-term chronic effect of marijuana on the altered brain network may be reversible with prolonged abstinence.

 

So this one said that ok it changes you brain but not in a way that really matters...

 

OK SO i learnt to use copy and paste good on me not very scientific. But for me to read carfefully, digest and the produce a literature review for you all would take a week especially at the accuracy i would have to do it to keep you all happy.

Plus im ment to be writing up an experiment i just finished report full report due in little over a week FUCK.

HOPE this provides some clarity

 

Full text articles available at request. email

 

And please for goddness sake stick to topic there is no need to be a tool and carry on i mean go for it if you want i can give as good as i get its just annoying.

 

SO remember we are talking morphological and biochemical changes BEHAVIOR for this thread is in the TOO hard basket.

If you have some studies which suggest that its ok for you brain chem then post the abstract and the source.

I couldnt find the study which suggests that weed alters your prefrontal cortext in a way that makes forgetting more efficient which improves memory, because forgetting is an important aspect of memory function - this was talked about by a famous pro weed dude on youtube.

 

BUT the overwhelming majority of nero biochem and morphology studies are very negetive towards marijuana use. but suggest that abstinence may reverse the effects.

Edited October 30, 2008 by danoz

[noface]

There was no need to start a new thread.

 

I understand what your doing, but your not getting it.

Its not about the scientific research on whether sleeping on your stomach causes glaucoma, (Harmful).

Its why the government has seen fit to make it law banning you from sleeping on your stomach.

Is not because the government and its legislators CARE.

Whatever conspiracy theory you might be inclined to believe, the effect is a further shoving of the "boot into the face of humanity" (Orwell).

But please refer to my posts and pay attention, because really, all your doing is re enforcing my idea that humanity is insanely fucked up and I need to go walkabout and come back later when sanity is restored.

 

f