View Full Version : Oh dear. If there's ONE thing that DUmmies don't want messed with...

Adam Wood
11-17-2010, 08:39 PM
...it's their pot (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4616641).

onehandle (1000+ posts) Tue Nov-16-10 01:08 PM
Original message
Early Marijuana Use Leads to Later Brain Problems

Source: WebMD/Harvard Medical School and McLean Hospital, Boston

Nov. 16, 2010 (San Diego) -- Early marijuana use appears to take a toll on the brain, according to new research.

Young adults who began smoking marijuana before age 16 performed worse on cognitive tests compared to those who began smoking after age 16, says researcher Staci Ann Gruber, PhD, of Harvard Medical School and McLean Hospital, Boston. She presented her findings at a news conference Monday at Neuroscience 2010, the annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience in San Diego.

Although several studies have already found that earlier use of marijuana can lead to cognitive problems, the new study directly compares the differences between early and late-onset users, Gruber says.


Ohs noes! Pot makes you stupid?!?!?! No wai11!!!11

The healthy comparison group performed better on several measures, compared to the marijuana smokers, and the early-onset smokers did worse than the late-onset smokers. The early-onset smokers ''kept not getting it," Gruber says. Despite being told their sorting was wrong after the rules change, the early-onset users kept making repeated errors. The early users also had more problems maintaining a set of rules.


Sounds familiar. Sort of like ... DUmmies! :D

Let the meltdown begin!

Axle_techie (351 posts) Tue Nov-16-10 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. I started smoking when I was 10 years old

at 17, I scored in the upper 95th percentile of the average IQ scores (not in an internet test, but in a test that was actually administered by a shrink). At 18, I took the ASVAB and scored a 93 (out of a 99 at that time), the second highest in the room , with the highest going to a guy with a masters degree. These tests prove that there may be an effect in some people, but the controls on the tests are way to loose to actually prove anything.
That answers a lot.

Roon (1000+ posts) Tue Nov-16-10 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #11
77. I grew up with a couple of brothers that toked from 7th grade on

we tripped acid, drank, smoked all growing up. One of these brothers is now a senior engineer at a cable company and the other one is now a music teacher at a jr.high.
Uh, Roon? Saying that one of your brothers has gone on to become the cable guy and the other one has gone on to teach seventh-graders how to play air guitar is not really helping your case here. I do worry about your brother having a flashback while he's forty feet off the ground on a phone pole, though.

"AAAAAHHHHHHHHH1!!!!111 The cable is actually a snake!!! AAAHHHHH!!! AAAHHHHHHHH!!! Ooohh...It's a really pretty snake, though...."

elocs (1000+ posts) Tue Nov-16-10 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
7. Anything even remotely negative about pot is a nonstarter here at DU

where I'm sure some believe it should be in infant formula.
HERETIC!!!! Unclean! Outcast!

Remember that part about early pot smokers not getting it? Unable to keep up?


RainDog (1000+ posts) Tue Nov-16-10 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. total bullshit remarks

Edited on Tue Nov-16-10 02:18 PM by RainDog
to claim that people think it should be in infant formula because people note the study is flawed?

anyone making this claim would seem to have a problem with reality because the reality is that tests are conducted in such a way to rule out other factors.

if you and this other person don't like that - you're the ones who have a problem, not those who note the flaws in a test that has not even been peer-reviewed.

in addition, in post after post on this topic, people here indicate that they think cannabis should be regulated like alcohol. that is far from thinking it should be put in infant formula or that this test does not conform to their bias.

saying that cannabis should be prohibited for those under legal age, or the former legal age for alcohol, in fact, indicates the OPPOSITE of the claims made above.

so please explain how the bullshit remark you seem to think has validity is in any way supported by the overwhelming responses to this thread. I'm interested in contortionists too, I suppose.
onehandle (1000+ posts) Tue Nov-16-10 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #24
30. I think you meant to reply to elocs. nt
RainDog (1000+ posts) Tue Nov-16-10 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #30
54. oh, so you're noting that elocs suffers from stereotyping ignorance?

..that any study posted that might be questioned means that elocs might automatically weigh in with some worthless remark? the "hive mind" of those who routinely stereotype and insult those who doubt the veracity of certain scientific reports in the media after things like, oh, the monkeys that Reagan suffocated to prove that suffocation by cannabis smoke (as with any form of suffocation) causes brain damage?

the collective consciousness of blind acceptance of propaganda from a govt that has used racism as a way to punish a subset of the American population? That sort of racist-influenced hive mind?

in that case, yes, I was just replying to elocs.

however to claim that "hive mind" applies to people who question whether something is propaganda or not demonstrates an agreement with elocs.

people who know about the long history of lies in relation to govt-sanctioned studies into cannabis have good reason to question a study that is presented as this one is.

that said, I'm not saying the study is without merit. However, I do not see the merit in a study that does not control for factors that would create problem-solving issues. If this study did so, I'd like to see the evidence. Sample size might be important, too. Also the way the subjects were recruited - from what part of the population - whether it was a cross-section or mined from a specific group or place.

that's all that people are asking for here - information to demonstrate the validity of such a subject.

in reply elocs talks about cannabis in baby formula. what a stupid thing to say.

onehandle (1000+ posts) Tue Nov-16-10 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #54
60. I stopped reading your first reply at the 'infant formula' line thinking it was for elocs.

I stopped reading your second reply at the end of the subject line.


*hold it*

*cough a little*

*hold it some more*


*cough* *cough*

"Like, man, I'm not paying any attention to you. I don't get it."

FLPanhandle (521 posts) Tue Nov-16-10 02:30 PM
Response to Original message
28. Maybe it's just that early users are already less intelligent than later users.

Is it the weed causing the problem, or a problem group that is more likely to use it earlier?

Simple cause & effect.
You might be onto something there.

greiner3 (1000+ posts) Tue Nov-16-10 02:37 PM
Response to Original message
31. I would withhold any criticism or accolades;

Until I could find out who has been funding this researcher. It could be that alcohol companies are. This would scream 'conflict of interest.'
Yeah, that's it. BIG BOOZE did this, because, you know, no one who smokes pot also drinks beer or anything.

greiner3 (1000+ posts) Tue Nov-16-10 02:39 PM
Response to Original message
32. I would withhold any criticism or accolades;

Until I could find out who has been funding this researcher. It could be that alcohol companies are. This would scream 'conflict of interest.'
Seems that greiner3 is a little too stoned and forgot that he had already posted that.

Alcibiades (1000+ posts) Tue Nov-16-10 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
38. This isn't necessarily a question of brain damage

Edited on Tue Nov-16-10 02:55 PM by Alcibiades
The early smokers admitted to smoking 14 grams a week, versus 6.4 for the other pot smokers. This could well be simply measuring this difference, not irreversible brain damage.
Sorry, dood, but I think that smoking half an ounce of pot a week is de facto proof of irreversible brain damage.

RainDog (1000+ posts) Wed Nov-17-10 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #76
82. agreed

sometimes it's just better to laugh than to care what people think who don't care about the damage their stereotypes do for people with chronic (sic) illnesses like cancer, MS, CP, glaucoma, epilepsy, neuralgias, rheumatoid arthritis, anorexia...
Yeah, that's what it is: a bunch of fourteen-year-olds with glaucoma and arthritis.

Ter (1000+ posts) Tue Nov-16-10 03:33 PM
Response to Original message
45. Why is it the same people who don't believe negative scientific studies about pot...

Believe every single study that says there global warming and climate change? The Freepers are just as bad, they believe the reverse. Can't you believe both? Or neither?
Oh shit! Pwn3d.

11-17-2010, 10:21 PM
"AAAAAHHHHHHHHH1!!!!111 The cable is actually a snake!!! AAAHHHHH!!! AAAHHHHHHHH!!! Ooohh...It's a really pretty snake, though...."


Nice Adam. :D

11-18-2010, 12:14 AM


11-18-2010, 12:22 AM



11-18-2010, 12:44 AM
I don't know why people at DU can't separate out different arguments. They get all offended when someone points out pot is bad for you. Yes, it's bad for you. So is everything else in this world from smoking, drinking, eating fatty foods, sitting in a desk chair all day, using cell phones, living underneath power lines, etc, etc. It's unavoidable. So pick your poison.

I think they get all pissed off because they don't want to accept any argument they see as a justification for pot being illegal. But this is tantamount to rejecting science because it doesn't fit into their ideological argument. But there's science and there is science - do we even need a study to demonstrate that pot isn't exactly conducive to higher cognitive function?

However, I think if you present to someone at DU the notion that "yes pot is bad" but also "it should be legal, since adults have a fundamental right to self-harm" they must reject this logic because the premise of a socialist government is that government should get to tell you what to do. And I think this is the problem - that pot smoking (and really, anything that increases risk) and socialism are incompatible because once government funds health care it has a direct interest in mitigating medical risk. Either individuals have a fundamental right to freedom, or individuals only have rights to the freedoms that government determines. Socialism's polar opposite is anarchism.

But I guess DU is a strange place where socialists and anarchists co-mingle.