Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
jstan
climber
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Apr 16, 2014 - 01:00pm PT
|
The issue of the Journal of Neuroscience containing this article will be published today. I could not find a preprint on the net. Apparently this work extends previous work to include study of casual use.
"Casual Use" is poorly defined. Hopefully the full source will be available in the next day or so.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140415181156.htm
Brain changes associated with casual marijuana use in young adults: More 'joints' equal more damage
Date: April 15, 2014
Society for Neuroscience (SfN)
Summary:
The size and shape of two brain regions involved in emotion and motivation may differ in young adults who smoke marijuana at least once a week, according to a study published April 16 in The Journal of Neuroscience. The findings suggest that recreational marijuana use may lead to previously unidentified brain changes, and highlight the importance of research aimed at understanding the long-term effects of low to moderate marijuana use on the brain.
Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug in the United States, with an estimated 18.9 million people reporting recent use, according to the most current analysis of the National Survey on Drug Use and Mental Health. Marijuana use is often associated with motivation, attention, learning, and memory impairments. Previous studies exposing animals to tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) -- the main psychoactive component of marijuana -- show that repeated exposure to the drug causes structural changes in brain regions involved with these functions. However, less is known about how low to moderate marijuana use affects brain structure in people, particularly in teens and young adults.
In the current study, Jodi Gilman, PhD, Anne Blood, PhD, and Hans Breiter, MD, of Northwestern University and Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School used magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to compare the brains of 18- to 25-year olds who reported smoking marijuana at least once per week with those with little to no history of marijuana use. Although psychiatric evaluations ruled out the possibility that the marijuana users were dependent on the drug, imaging data revealed they had significant brain differences. The nucleus accumbens -- a brain region known to be involved in reward processing -- was larger and altered in its shape and structure in the marijuana users compared to non-users.
"This study suggests that even light to moderate recreational marijuana use can cause changes in brain anatomy," said Carl Lupica, PhD, who studies drug addiction at the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and was not involved with this study. "These observations are particularly interesting because previous studies have focused primarily on the brains of heavy marijuana smokers, and have largely ignored the brains of casual users."
The team of scientists compared the size, shape, and density of the nucleus accumbens and the amygdala -- a brain region that plays a central role in emotion -- in 20 marijuana users and 20 non-users. Each marijuana user was asked to estimate their drug consumption over a three-month period, including the number of days they smoked and the amount of the drug consumed each day. The scientists found that the more the marijuana users reported consuming, the greater the abnormalities in the nucleus accumbens and amygdala. The shape and density of both of these regions also differed between marijuana users and non-users.
"This study raises a strong challenge to the idea that casual marijuana use isn't associated with bad consequences," Breiter said.
This research was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center, and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.
Edit:
Locker is correct. Use of alcohol is also known to alter the brain. Further, much work is needed to investigate the use of multiple agents. Once the changes have been quantified, further work to assess possible effects will be needed.
It is too early to dive into "bad" and "good".
Edit2:
http://www.jneurosci.org/content/34/16/5529.full.pdf+html
Kerwin found the full article. Unfortunately one has to subscribe. Hopefully the article will be available for free eventually. It should be.
At the one Vulgarian party I attended, certain activities were going on. My wife at the time, with great heat, immediately informed me she would leave me if I ever indulged in that burnable material.
I will admit to one great personal failure. I never make impulsive decisions. I have tried to correct that fatal weakness but have so far been unsuccessful.
|
|
The Larry
climber
Moab, UT
|
|
Apr 16, 2014 - 01:05pm PT
|
Oh noz! Don't smoke the evil weed. Itz bad for ewe.
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
Apr 16, 2014 - 01:05pm PT
|
Chicks dig my huge deformed nucleus accumbens.
|
|
The Larry
climber
Moab, UT
|
|
Apr 16, 2014 - 01:06pm PT
|
Totally jonesing for some m&ms right now.
|
|
tooth
Trad climber
B.C.
|
|
Apr 16, 2014 - 01:11pm PT
|
In all research there is a difference between statistically different, and clinically different.
In this case, even though it is statistically and observationally different, the pros outweigh the cons clinically for people who choose to use it.
I love the argument, sure it is bad for me, but so are other things I choose to do! Pretty universal.
|
|
mojede
Trad climber
Butte, America
|
|
Apr 16, 2014 - 01:21pm PT
|
"marijuana" is a slang term--"scientific" papers that use this word have little to no significance to the understanding of the cannabis plant...
Proceed :-)
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
Apr 16, 2014 - 01:31pm PT
|
Caution.
This was a study using a very small number of people. The summary does not include statistics, which are important. Also important is the controlling of other factors, and that is not available in the summary.
We gotta read the actual article to really know what this says, if anything.
|
|
NutAgain!
Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
|
|
Apr 16, 2014 - 01:34pm PT
|
I tried it a handful of times early in my life, and concluded that anywhere it would get me that I would want to be, I can get there on my own.
I preferred to cultivate my ability to let go, to keep things in perspective, to cope with adversity, to stop the mental chatter that gets in the way of really being present and perceiving the beauty that is all around us in everything and everyone, regardless of what other crap may obscure it.
|
|
Byran
climber
San Jose, CA
|
|
Apr 16, 2014 - 01:37pm PT
|
A sample of 40 people seems really small for this type of study. But I'm sure its significance will be blown way out of proportion by Fox News and company.
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
Brandon-
climber
The Granite State.
|
|
Apr 16, 2014 - 01:37pm PT
|
It was a pilot study of 40 people and should be expanded to gain real results, according to the person in charge of the study.
|
|
Sanskara
climber
|
|
Apr 16, 2014 - 01:51pm PT
|
Dope was great when I was a kid, as an adult well that's for you to decide. But hey that's just like my opinion man. Not like a bunch of stoners are brainwashing their women to act as a human shield for them or something..
Although I have seen some really really nasty sh#t go down in regard to the illegal economy surrounding it.
The Canadian Italian mafia that controls much of norther California's outdoor grow is nothing to f*#k with. It's for real!
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
mark miller
Social climber
Reno
|
|
Apr 16, 2014 - 02:00pm PT
|
"It was a pilot study of 40 people and should be expanded to gain real results, according to the person in charge of the study."
Wow 40 people, that's a determinant cross section for sure, at least it was exapndo sh#t man.
Legalize it and let the unlucky people filling our prisons because they got caught with 4oz of the dank free.
This civilized society is neither.
|
|
The Larry
climber
Moab, UT
|
|
Apr 16, 2014 - 02:04pm PT
|
"marijuana" is a slang term--"scientific" papers that use this word have little to no significance to the understanding of the cannabis plant...
Proceed :-)
Stupid scientists. Prolly guberment funded.
|
|
nevahpopsoff
Boulder climber
the woods
|
|
Apr 16, 2014 - 02:27pm PT
|
Nutagain! What have you done to stop the chatter? Mine is building to a crescendo.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
Apr 16, 2014 - 02:51pm PT
|
It's been known for some years by researchers that heavy Cannabis use causes significant brain changes. What is different about this recent study is that they have discovered many more specific changes at much lower cannabis dosages . In other words, the brain abnormalities they have noted at higher doses are being seen at much lower doses, at certain specific brain sites.
For instance,they have known for quite some time that cannabis use effects the prefrontal cortex---especially at chronically high doses.
This new study has established that there are profound effects in young users at relatively low doses in the Nucleus Accumbens and the Amygdala.
Here are some traditional SPECT ( single photon emission computerized tomography) scans.
The holes indicate areas of the brain where there is little or no metabolic activity.
Here is a comparison of healthy vs. Heroin
|
|
Clint Cummins
Trad climber
SF Bay area, CA
|
|
Apr 16, 2014 - 02:58pm PT
|
The study methods are OK,
but the way this is being titled in the popular press
does not match what was measured.
They did not measure Changes to the brain.
This would require before and after measurements.
They just observed differences between the two groups of people
at a single point in time.
Plus the users are self-selected.
It is kind of like comparing NFL offensive linemen with a random sample of guys
and concluding that playing offensive line causes your body weight
to change from the national average to 300.
Or that playing in the NBA makes you grow taller.
In this kind of simple study, because you don't have randomized treatment,
the causation (if it exists) could go the opposite direction.
It's explained well here:
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Neurology/GeneralNeurology/45290
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 16, 2014 - 03:04pm PT
|
Concerning Locker’s charge that chocolate can cause changes in the brain. He did not mention that chocolate contains chemicals that may be implicated in Parkinson’s disease.
Phenylethylamine is a natural alkaloid, a chemical related to amphetamines, which crosses the blood-brain barrier.
https://www.worldhealth.net/forum/thread/99096/bad-news-for-chocolate-lovers-compound-i/?page=1
April 12, 2013 by NATASHA LONGO
Chocolate Lover? Compound Inside Cocoa Beans Causes Parkinson's - GMO Cocoa Trees To Increase Its Concentration
There may be many chocolate lovers who are disappointed with new research coming out of India urging consumers to limit their chocolate intake because it is the one food enriched in a component linked to Parkinson's Disease. Moreover, with the intention of flooding 70 percent of the global cocoa supply with genetically modified (GMO) cocoa tree hybrids, collaborations between the largest chocolate manufacturers are set to increase the concentration of this component in cocoa beans.
The review published in the Neuroscience Bulletin by Borah et al. at the Assam University in India said that Beta-phenethylamine (Beta-PEA), a naturally occurring component found in cocoa beans and its by products, may be a cause of Parkinson's Disease.
Phenylethylamine is a natural alkaloid, a chemical related to amphetamines, which functions as a neuromodulator or neurotransmitter in the central nervous system. In addition to its presence in all mammals, phenethylamine is found in many other organisms and foods, such as chocolate, especially after microbial fermentation. It is also found in wine and cheese. But the highest trace amounts have been reported in chocolate.
It is sold as a dietary supplement for purported mood and weight loss-related therapeutic benefits; however, orally ingested phenethylamine is claimed to be inactive because of extensive presystemic metabolism whereby its concentration is greatly reduced before it reaches the systemic circulation. This typically prevents significant concentrations from reaching the brain.
However, an earlier study by Sengupta et al. found that synthetic Beta-PEA at doses of 0.63 and 1.25 mg/day could cause Parkinson's symptoms meaning it is bypassing presystemic metabolism and trace concentrations are indeed reaching the brain. Chocolate contains averages between these levels.
The problem is not related to natural sources of Beta-PEA, but synthetic and enriched varieties claim the researchers. "As consumption of some Beta-PEA-enriched food items has become an addiction in modern life, our proposed mechanism is of enormous significance and impact," they stated..
They added: "Limited consumption of these foods is recommended."………
|
|
mouse from merced
Trad climber
The finger of fate, my friends, is fickle.
|
|
Apr 16, 2014 - 03:09pm PT
|
Much work is needed in this field.
Just don't let stoners do it.
"I estimate 18.9 million people reporting recent use, sir."
"Whatever, Mr. Locker. Have you any papers, man!?"
"Yes, and here are the M&Ms you asked me to get from the machine."
Those green brains remind me of M&Ms; and I can't help it..."it's all in my mind."
I prefer Ghirardelli's milk chocklit, myself.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|