pot makes you smarter

[Irvine511]

By DAWN WALTON

Friday, October 14, 2005 Posted at 3:57 AM EDT

From Friday's Globe and Mail

Calgary — Forget the stereotype about dopey potheads. It seems marijuana could be good for your brain.

While other studies have shown that periodic use of marijuana can cause memory loss and impair learning and a host of other health problems down the road, new research suggests the drug could have some benefits when administered regularly in a highly potent form.

Most "drugs of abuse" such as alcohol, heroin, cocaine and nicotine suppress growth of new brain cells. However, researchers found that cannabinoids promoted generation of new neurons in rats' hippocampuses.

Hippocampuses are the part of the brain responsible for learning and memory, and the study held true for either plant-derived or the synthetic version of cannabinoids.

"This is quite a surprise," said Xia Zhang, an associate professor with the Neuropsychiatry Research Unit at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon.

"Chronic use of marijuana may actually improve learning memory when the new neurons in the hippocampus can mature in two or three months," he added.

The research by Dr. Zhang and a team of international researchers is to be published in the November issue of the Journal of Clinical Investigation, but their findings are on-line now.

The scientists also noticed that cannabinoids curbed depression and anxiety, which Dr. Zhang says, suggests a correlation between neurogenesis and mood swings. (Or, it at least partly explains the feelings of relaxation and euphoria of a pot-induced high.)

Other scientists have suggested that depression is triggered when too few new brain cells are created in the hippocampus. One researcher of neuropharmacology said he was "puzzled" by the findings.

As enthusiastic as Dr. Zhang is about the potential health benefits, he warns against running out for a toke in a bid to beef up brain power or calm nerves.

The team injected laboratory rats with a synthetic substance called HU-210, which is similar, but 100 times as potent as THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol), the compound responsible for giving marijuana users a high.

They found that the rats treated regularly with a high dose of HU-210 -- twice a day for 10 days -- showed growth of neurons in the hippocampus. The researchers don't know if pot, which isn't as pure as the lab-produced version, would have the same effect.

"There's a big gap between rats and humans," Dr. Zhang points out.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv....wxcanna1014/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/

but don't worry! ignoring science yet again, the Bush administration is cracking down on the most dangerous criminals in society ... pot users -- you know, the kind of people who like licking cheetos residue off their fingers and can't decide what movie they want to see at 7:30.

Marijuana Arrests Set New Record
More Americans Arrested on Marijuana Charges in 2004 than for All Violent Crimes Combined

(my emphasis)

WASHINGTON, D.C.—According to figures released today by the FBI, marijuana arrests set a new record in 2004, totaling 771,605. Eighty-nine percent of these arrests were for marijuana possession, not sale or manufacture.

In contrast, arrests for all violent crimes combined totalled 590,258—a decline from 2003.

"It's important to remember that each of these statistics represents a human being, and in many cases, a preventable tragedy," said Aaron Houston, director of government relations for the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington, D.C. "One of those marijuana arrests in 2004 was Jonathan Magbie, a quadriplegic medical marijuana patient who died in the Washington, D.C., city jail while serving a 10-day sentence for marijuana possession. Had Congress not blocked the district's medical marijuana law from taking effect, Jonathan Magbie would almost certainly be alive today.

http://www.mpp.org/releases/nr20051017.html

 

[melon]

Personally, I believe this study is bullshit, although I also believe that it is hypocritical to ban marijuana when tobacco is legal--and openly defended--in Congress.

I also think this part of the study needs to be underlined too:

The team injected laboratory rats with a synthetic substance called HU-210, which is similar, but 100 times as potent as THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol), the compound responsible for giving marijuana users a high.

Maybe we should consider the benefits of HU-210, rather than extrapolating from that the benefits of smoking pot.

Melon

 

[OnFire]

He He, he said "hippocampuses".

OT: Hey Irvine, let me know about those tickets for Thursday's show. Somehow, I had a feeling it would be easier to reach you in the blue crack than via email. I'll be logging off for the day but checking my email this evening.

 

[DaveC]

So, if this synthetic substance is 100 times more powerful than THC, and they gave it to the rats twice a day for 10 days, that means that I have to smoke 200 joints a day for 10 days.

Two kilos of weed in 10 days...

done and done.

 

[shrmn8rpoptart]

^sounds like you had three bowls for breakfast, and only one was cereal

 

[edgeboy]

Hippies smoked pot, and look how smart they were.

 

[nbcrusader]

^sounds like you had three bowls for breakfast, and only one was cereal

I'll have to remember that one.

 

[Irvine511]

okay, all you stoners, time to put down the Taco Bell and cheez wiz and get serious for a moment ... isn't anyone bothered by this:

[Q]According to figures released today by the FBI, marijuana arrests set a new record in 2004, totaling 771,605. Eighty-nine percent of these arrests were for marijuana possession, not sale or manufacture. In contrast, arrests for all violent crimes combined totalled 590,258—a decline from 2003.[/Q]

 

[nbcrusader]

Is the implication that there are violent crimes without arrests? Or that police should not enforce drug possession laws.

I with Melon on this. Keep it illegal and add tobacco to the list.

 

[financeguy]

I with Melon on this. Keep it illegal and add tobacco to the list.

It is your right not to smoke tobacco if you choose.

I just wonder why do you feel it necessary to require the legal system to enforce your particular preference on others, given that California (like Ireland) already has very restrictive legislation to ensure that the right of non-smokers to clean air is protected?

 

[indra]

I think we should legalise pot and ban tobacco.

 

[nbcrusader]

It is your right not to smoke tobacco if you choose.

I just wonder why do you feel it necessary to require the legal system to enforce your particular preference on others, given that California (like Ireland) already has very restrictive legislation to ensure that the right of non-smokers to clean air is protected?

Air quality is just one externality of smoking. Perhaps all smokers should be provided full healthcare coverage for smoking related illnesses - with the cost tacked onto the price of cigarettes.

 

[melon]

I just wonder why do you feel it necessary to require the legal system to enforce your particular preference on others, given that California (like Ireland) already has very restrictive legislation to ensure that the right of non-smokers to clean air is protected?

Because when smokers get sick, they become an expensive drain on our health care system. And with all the costs of trying to keep these dead men walking alive, it can potentially drive up health insurance costs, along with governmental Medicare/Medicaid costs, both of which will lead to higher taxes.

In other words, keeping a known addictive carcinogen with no health benefits legal is stupid and affects more than just the retard who decided to take up smoking in the first place.

In terms of marijuana, I generally abhor it, as well, but am willing to compromise in terms of medical marijuana for people facing serious and life-threatening illness, considering much of the anecdotal evidence that it is a highly effective pain reliever. In my own experience, I know that many prescriptions are often ineffective or laden with too many side effects to be desirable for long-term usage. I would have marijuana be tightly regulated as a prescription in these isolated cases.

Melon

 

[financeguy]

Air quality is just one externality of smoking. Perhaps all smokers should be provided full healthcare coverage for smoking related illnesses - with the cost tacked onto the price of cigarettes.

That would be a more reasonable solution than banning it outright - but should we apply the same argument to automobile owners, given that people are killed in road accidents, cost of medical treatment for those injured in road accidents and also health affects of carbon monoxide pollution? Granted, the externalities of the first two are probably already taken into account in the price we pay for motor insurance, but the third externality is not, as far as I am aware. And smokers already pay more for life assurance, so it seems to me that that externality is already at least partially levied on the smoker.

 

[melon]

That would be a more reasonable solution than banning it outright - but should we apply the same argument to automobile owners, given that people are killed in road accidents, cost of medical treatment for those injured in road accidents and also health affects of carbon monoxide pollution?

There's a major difference between driving and smoking. Driving, for the vast majority of people every day, is a harmless exercise with a positive benefit: it gets you from point A to point B with great speed and efficiency. While fatal auto accidents occur, the vast majority of drivers and passengers will live to an old age and die of something completely unrelated. That aside, I always support increasing environmental and fuel efficiency standards for automobiles.

But name one positive benefit for tobacco usage. There aren't any. We have banned many other prescription drugs for having even a small fraction of the danger that tobacco poses to everyone. It makes no sense to me for keeping it legal, and, once banned, not only would society be healthier, but future generations would grow up not even missing it.

Melon

 

[Irvine511]

Is the implication that there are violent crimes without arrests? Or that police should not enforce drug possession laws.

I with Melon on this. Keep it illegal and add tobacco to the list.

the implication is that, in order to look as if they are doing something about drug use, the Bush administration is targeting the most harmless of all drug users and targeting those most easy to nab -- those who possess pot, not those who sell it or manufacture it. it's suburban mom hysteria, combined with a pandering to a right wing base that views marijuana as somehow more evil than alcohol and tobacco that has roots in both the fear of communist take over in the 1950s and traditional racism towards Mexicans, that has created a policy that is essentially a waste of resources. the implication is that the drug possession laws do not fit the crime. the implication is that when you have more people busted for something less intoxicating than a fifth of vodka than for a violent crime, something is wrong.

i'm not for making tobacco illegal.

i am, however, for indoor smoking bans.

 

[Irvine511]

But name one positive benefit for tobacco usage. There aren't any. We have banned many other prescription drugs for having even a small fraction of the danger that tobacco poses to everyone. It makes no sense to me for keeping it legal, and, once banned, not only would society be healthier, but future generations would grow up not even missing it.

how about egregiously unhealthy foods? foods laced with partially hydrogenated vegetable oil? with unnatural concentrations of fat and sugar? with corn syrup?

i understand the health-cost benefits of making smoking illegal, but it seems to me, particularly in the US and increasingly in the UK and Australia, obesity is a far, far greater strain on the health care system than smoking is -- heart attacks and cancer (not just lung).

i suppose i feel as if McDonalds is just as great a purveyor of evil as Marlboro, only Marlboro at least has the decency to market to teenagers whereas McDonalds markets to toddlers.

 

[nbcrusader]

But name one positive benefit for tobacco usage. There aren't any.

It gives you something to do after sex??

 

[financeguy]

But name one positive benefit for tobacco usage. There aren't any. We have banned many other prescription drugs for having even a small fraction of the danger that tobacco poses to everyone. It makes no sense to me for keeping it legal, and, once banned, not only would society be healthier, but future generations would grow up not even missing it.

Melon

I suggest that these kinds arguments could be extended to outlaw many kinds of risky behaviour, e.g.:

(1) Promiscous sexual behaviour leads to an increased risk of STD's

(2) Regularly engaging in risky sports such as rugby or American football leads to an increased risk of serious injury. Rugby players have had their necks broken on the field.

(3) Excessive consumption of fast foods leads to heart disease.

Are you in favour of legislation to outlaw each of the above, or significantly regulate them? (I engage in none on the three, so why should my tax-payers' money go to fund treatment for those who do?)

"Name one positive benefit for tobacco use." - all I can say to that is, it is impossible to put a monetary benefit on the enjoyment of smoking a good cigar. I am told that pipe smokers greatly enjoy their habit also.

 

[financeguy]

I think we should legalise pot and ban tobacco.

Why, to suit YOUR personal preference? Indra, I am a little surprised to find you adopting a 'I don't like it, so let's ban it' argument!

 

[Irvine511]

But name one positive benefit for tobacco usage. There aren't any.

being a bit of a devil's advocate here, but many people will attest to smoking cigarettes and weight loss -- it curbs appetite and speeds up metabolism, and many people (including myslef) have noticed a correlation between those European countries where everyone apparently smokes and their relatively lack of the obese.

 

[financeguy]

i am, however, for indoor smoking bans.

Agreed, I have never had a problem with banning smoking in public areas.

 

[anitram]

The study was done on rats.

Anybody who does any kind of research knows that you can't extrapolate the research to human beings and anybody who does it without human studies is a fool.

JCI is also not one of the more rigorous journals when it comes to accepting papers. This type of paper would never get accepted in Science, Nature, Cell, EMBO and so on.

Sounds like a mediocre study to me, published in a mediocre journal. Could it have valuable insights? Maybe. But surely no serious policy maker would use it as a determinant.

 

[nbcrusader]

the implication is that, in order to look as if they are doing something about drug use, the Bush administration is targeting the most harmless of all drug users and targeting those most easy to nab -- those who possess pot, not those who sell it or manufacture it. it's suburban mom hysteria, combined with a pandering to a right wing base that views marijuana as somehow more evil than alcohol and tobacco that has roots in both the fear of communist take over in the 1950s and traditional racism towards Mexicans, that has created a policy that is essentially a waste of resources. the implication is that the drug possession laws do not fit the crime. the implication is that when you have more people busted for something less intoxicating than a fifth of vodka than for a violent crime, something is wrong.

Sounds like the concern is with the laws themselves, and not just with enforcement. I'd hate to see a society that enacts laws, then subsequently determines that some are not worthy of enforcement - that is a dangerous principle.

 

[Irvine511]

Sounds like the concern is with the laws themselves, and not just with enforcement. I'd hate to see a society that enacts laws, then subsequently determines that some are not worthy of enforcement - that is a dangerous principle.

doesn't that happen all the time?

were pre-2000 anti-miscegenation laws enforced in Alabama? how about pre-2003 anti-sodomy laws in Texas?

i think it does behoove a police department to prioritize, and it's simply a fact that drugs like crystal meth or heroin are vastly more harmful to the user and to society than marijuana.

 

[financeguy]

Sounds like the concern is with the laws themselves, and not just with enforcement. I'd hate to see a society that enacts laws, then subsequently determines that some are not worthy of enforcement - that is a dangerous principle.

Interestingly enough, on that point, a London police commissioner decided some time ago that in the area he had responsibility for, his officers would simply caution those found in possession of small quantities of canabis and not arrested - but there has been no change in the UK legislation as such in relation to canabis, it is definitely still illegal when consumed for recreational purposes.

I believe that in Ireland, as in many other countries, it is illegal for a bar-tender to serve someone who is already intoxicated - yet, it probably occurs hundreds of times in any given night, but this is more to do with cultural differences and the manner in which drunkenness is not frowned upon as heavily in some countries, compared with others.

 

[melon]

I suggest that these kinds arguments could be extended to outlaw many kinds of risky behaviour, e.g.:

(1) Promiscous sexual behaviour leads to an increased risk of STD's

(2) Regularly engaging in risky sports such as rugby or American football leads to an increased risk of serious injury. Rugby players have had their necks broken on the field.

(3) Excessive consumption of fast foods leads to heart disease.

Are you in favour of legislation to outlaw each of the above, or significantly regulate them? (I engage in none on the three, so why should my tax-payers' money go to fund treatment for those who do?)

1) Promiscuous sexual behavior may lead to an increased risk of STDs, but it does not necessarily do so. Tobacco smoking, no matter how hard you wish upon a star, is cancerous. Needless to say, I tend to have a very harsh opinion of lushes.

2) Again, "increased risk," but most rugby/football players make it out alive and unharmed. Regular tobacco use will kill you, no question.

3) I have issues with our food standards in this nation. I believe much of our manufacturing standards are inadequate, thus destroying much of the nutritional benefits inherent in most of the ingredients. Standards should be tightened, and people should not have to fork out an arm-and-a-leg for healthy food like they currently do now. "Health food sections" of grocery stores should be the entire store, not just an aisle.

"Name one positive benefit for tobacco use." - all I can say to that is, it is impossible to put a monetary benefit on the enjoyment of smoking a good cigar. I am told that pipe smokers greatly enjoy their habit also.

I know heroin addicts enjoy their habit too, but don't expect me to support it.

Melon

 

[financeguy]

Regular tobacco use will kill you, no question.

This is incorrect. Many experienced doctors will tell you of elderly patients who smoke in moderation with no discernable health effect. A French woman died at 107 some years ago- she had been the oldest woman in the world and had smoked in moderation up until into her nineties (in moderation, admittedly - one cigarette per day).

I fully accept that these are relatively rare EXCEPTIONS, but they do exist. Yes, all tobacco use is harmful, but really and truly a person smoking (say) two small cigars per annum at Christmas time each year - the health effects are probably so statistically insignificant, that they can be safely discounted. Unfortunately, owing to the addictive nature of nicotine, in practise such moderation in smoking is probably a rarity.

But bottom line, I would argue that every single one of your arguments for banning tobacco can be sufficiently addressed by simply amending the tax system to ensure that smokers pay for the cost of their medical treatment by increasing the cost of taxation on tobacco and ring-fencing the related income to treat illnesses caused by smoking. It's not that complicated, and doesn't require a blanket banning approach.

 

[Liesje]

Smoking is one of those things that disgusts me to the very core of my being. It's destroyed my grandpa, it's destroyed my dad, it's caused my family and my extended family so much worry and pain and stress, all because a few people feel like it's their God-given right to inhale smoke. Call me stuck up or self righteous or whatever the fuck you want, but I simply cannot fathom why anyone in their right mind would think it's OK to put their own bodies and their families through that. There is nothing, NOTHING positive that comes from smoking, nothing.

 

[Calluna]

Hey guys, lets get this thread back on topic or I'm gonna have to close it. We've had the tobacco discussion a million times before on this forum. It's been done to death.

Sounds like the concern is with the laws themselves, and not just with enforcement. I'd hate to see a society that enacts laws, then subsequently determines that some are not worthy of enforcement - that is a dangerous principle.

In addition to financeguy's earlier example:

Exerpted from The Stranger
By passing I-75, the initiative making marijuana possession Seattle cops' "lowest law-enforcement priority," in September 2003, voters handed potheads a pass to indulge in their favorite illicit substance without police interference. Starting in September, Seattle cops were ordered to ignore small-time possession and only arrest dope fiends dumb enough to flaunt their pot use in public.
By all evidence, Seattle's streets have not--contrary to some I-75 opponents' claims--been overrun with zonked-out hippies in VW buses veering, bong in hand, into oncoming traffic. more here

I think this is a positive thing because now Seattle police have more time to focus on more serious and dangerous crimes.