THC effects on the brain(it's not good, apparently)

[whiterasta]

I never knew there were so many PhDs and Doctors on ICMag, lol.

I am sure you would be suprised by who is behind the nick in some cases, lol

 

[danimal7]

It's all about the cannabinoids apparently ! not so much the THC just saw a show where the gave someone pure THC and they got all paranoid and shit , then they gave the person the cannabinoid solution and they had a much better reaction from a euphoric and meditative point of view .
in this study the THC seemed to be the thing that cause some of what would be considered the negative effects

 

[ambertrich]

I never knew there were so many PhDs and Doctors on ICMag, lol.

I am sure there are professionals here from all disciplines of study: MS,PhD,PharmD,MD,mechnical,civil,engineering-just a few examples. We have hobbies outside of our major fields of study like anyone else.

 

[ambertrich]

Did I miss these two scientists mention what purpose the cannabinoid receptors serve?

And again with the 1-4% THC weed bullshit again. These guys must have had really bad connections in the 70's if that is the best they could find.

 

[Hydro-Soil]

Dan Lubman is a consultant psychiatrist and associate professor at the ORYGEN Research Centre at the University of Melbourne. He heads a clinical research unit that investigates problematic substance use and co-occurring mental health issues in youth.

Can you say "Biased"?

We think that of the many thousands of chemicals in cannabis smoke, the one which is called THC, tetrahydrocannabinol, is the main one that’s responsible for the psychoactive effects of cannabis.

You're thinking is flawed. THC is only the most prevelant by volume. (usually)

Yes, certainly, you’ve probably heard of hydro and skunk, which are the high potency varieties of cannabis. And in the good old days, I guess, when the hippies were smoking cannabis, we maybe had a THC content of one to four per cent in marijuana. More recent varieties are up about seven to eight per cent typically, and the really strong stuff that people can buy in Amsterdam can have THC contents of about 20 per cent, which is very potent stuff indeed and almost unprecedented compared to what we used to smoke.

This old tired propaganda again? Do I really have to go into why it's total B.S.? You can't trust the "Conclusion" of research when it's done by people that don't understand the basics of the materials they're working with.

What has changed over the last 20 years is the way in which people are taking cannabis. So for example, people now tend to take much more of the more potent parts of the plants like the flowering buds, particularly in the female plants when they’re unfertilised, compared to the leaves which are less potent in terms of their concentration of THC.
Also, people tend to be smoking at a much younger age, and using much more cannabis at an earlier age. And finally, the way in which people smoke cannabis is slightly different as well. People tended to smoke much more joints, as you say, about 20 years ago, but now people are also using bongs which means that people actually inhale much more cannabis into their system and hold onto it.
And again, those combinations of using bongs, using much more potent parts of the plants and using at an earlier age I think has led to growing concerns about the way in which cannabis is actually affecting young people.

This one had me laughing for a looooong time. So what you're telling me is that people spend a lot less time actually 'smoking' and a lot more time 'enjoying' the results? Nice.

So when people take cannabis acutely, what it actually does, it affects those parts of the brain, so people start to have problems in terms of their attention and short term memory; the coordination of movement is slightly impaired; it impacts on the reward parts of the brain which mediate euphoria, so people have a pleasant feeling when they take it. That’s probably what drives most people to take it.
But what we also know is people can also experience quite unpleasant effects. And some people when they take cannabis can feel quite nauseated, so-called ‘greening out’ and feeling really unsteady and needing to lie down. People can have quite marked panic attacks or anxiety feelings, and some people report paranoia, having distortions in the way that they see things, and feeling that people are watching them or out to harm them in some way.

Gee, every person I've ever come across that had access to "Known" quality cannabis, was easily able to find a strain that 'works' well for them. The only thing hindering people is the lack of access to multiple strains of quality cannabis and professionals to help them make the correct initial choices.

So we were able to give adolescent rats and matched adult rats equivalent doses of THC, which is the psychoactive constituent of cannabis

More proof that the results are not based in reality. They've left out several hundred other cannabinoids that modify the effects of THC. Without taking this into account, the findings are flawed.

No point in going any further

 

[Blue Dot]

My momma, my poppa, i think i should tell 'em
The Jay gots my head and fucked up my cerebellum

___________

 

[Pythagllio]

I never knew there were so many PhDs and Doctors on ICMag, lol.

Well, gosh, we've always gotten such unbiased, complete and thorough studies that have produced all the irrefutable science that we can count on regarding cannabis.

No, they never gassed rhesus monkeys in order to claim brain damage.

No, they never tried to fraudulently pass off a brain scan of a coma patient as showing the result of long term cannabis use. Nah, they'd never stoop that low, lol.

There was never any bullshit studies produced in the early '90s regarding cannabis and the immune system produced in order to close down the Federal IND program.

Speaking of the IND program, they've done such a great job tracking the health of the IND recipients. Why when, George McMahon and Irv Rosenfield presented themselves as subjects for study of the long term effects of cannabis they graciously said, well, if you want to go ahead and do it yourself we can't stop you.

Why is it these people that claim cannabis induces schizophrenia never comment on the established fact that there was no increase in the schizophrenia rate correspondent to the extreme increase in cannabis use in the 1960s? Previous to that use was measured by pot users per 100,000 of population, subsequently there was a 1000 fold increase and now it's measured in users per hundred of the population. Yet schizophrenia rates have remained constant. How do you introduce a causal factor into the population without increasing the incidence of what it supposedly causes?

Have you ever wondered why the so called science being trotted out are always the 'latest' studies, which suddenly discover these things despite the contradiction of 5000 years of human history of cannabis use? Where are the tried and true studies? We can find good science regarding the dangers of tobacco and alcohol dating back 100 years,and the definitive study regarding tobacco by the surgeon general is 55 years old.

The explanation is pretty simple. They are lying. Bald faced and unashamed lies designed to support the conclusion that they are so determined to 'prove'. Oh yeah, the scientists have proven themselves so ethical and beyond reproach. They only care about the truth. Right. </sarcasm>

 

[BurmeseDragon]

I don't think cannabis does more harm than sitting in a stale apartment for to long with to much electronic stimulation or just the damn stale wall....I believe more that cannabis can stimulate neurogenesis much like SSRI's do but in a better way not making as many side effects.

It really depends on environment, stress and predominant outlook...don't think it shrunk my brain.

 

[ClearBarbedFunk]

as we all know, body chemistry plays a huge part in how MJ will effect you.

MJ does cause psychotic events, not sure if its a long term deal or not. not in everyone, but in those that dont have the make up for the drug. just like any other med out there, not everyone can take cetain drugs due to the side effects.

come on people we have all seen certain users that should not be usin drugs.

in my own experience with my son, smokin MJ at an early age can cause certain people to become delusional, think they are god or god like. thank god he had no long term effect we know of. he quit years ago and has had no problems since.

its not a joke people, MJ can and will cause problems in a certain amount of the population. but just like any other pill, meds are approved even though a certain percentage of the population may suffer side effects and even death in some cases.

i think the interview is a joke, but the dangers of MJ use amoung young users is real.

CBF

 

[guest123]

No need to discuss other abused drugs to make marijuana look good.

The rate of adolescent psychosis triggered from common anti depressants is alarming, and these adolescents have committed many murders.... how many can say that about mj?

Even if marijuana can induce psychosis, I've never seen it push any one as far as most drugs that teenagers are using, huffing, heroin, alcohol, xanax, even lsd is worse than pot. No drugs are ideal for someone without fully developed brain but if they are gonna use something, better to make it pot. Who doesn't use something in those age groups these days?

However, of interest is Alexander Shulgin's (step-father of mdma, creator of 2cb, 2ct7) reaction to marijuana. This is a guy that synthesizes hundreds of new psychadelics and titrates the dose upward til he hits the desired effects....

he supposedly freaked out on some good ganj though.

 

[Dr.Dank]

This reminds me of a story... Wait, what was I talking about?? Did somebody say 'pizza'?

Doesn't matter, just remember 'Drugs are Bad' mmm'kay?

hahah

 

[chef]

Anyone that thinks they're god, has more probs than just MJ.
I've seen white dope do exactly that to a few people.
Saw it last year from a guy I know on some kind of legal brain altering crap too?
Fucker was waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out there lol

Scary shit!

Oxy? lol They're droopin like flies...

 

[PoopyTeaBags]

just more propaganda... wonder how many "scientist" are bought around the world....

 

[GET MO]

Bob Marley smoked a pound a week and he seemed like a pretty smart guy...

 

[Black Thumb]

as we all know, body chemistry plays a huge part in how MJ will effect you.

MJ does cause psychotic events, not sure if its a long term deal or not. not in everyone, but in those that dont have the make up for the drug. just like any other med out there, not everyone can take cetain drugs due to the side effects.

come on people we have all seen certain users that should not be usin drugs.

in my own experience with my son, smokin MJ at an early age can cause certain people to become delusional, think they are god or god like. thank god he had no long term effect we know of. he quit years ago and has had no problems since.

its not a joke people, MJ can and will cause problems in a certain amount of the population. but just like any other pill, meds are approved even though a certain percentage of the population may suffer side effects and even death in some cases.

i think the interview is a joke, but the dangers of MJ use amoung young users is real.

CBF

I'm one of those people.
I smoked from the time i was 12 till i was about 20.
The initiation into the getting high was scary and trippy till my body became immune to the effects.
Every once in a awhile i would have a trippy high after i became immune to panic.

After i stopped i could never get past the extreme Panic, anxiety attacks i would have when i would try to smoke again.

They have affected my memory but its in a strange way that i cant articulate into words.
I can remember but not as efficiently is the best i can say about my experience .
I would love to be able to smoke again and calm down, I'm so uptight and a snappy crank ass jerk to my family a lot.
I loved the person i used to be when i was high and cheerful i just cant get past the panic to get back to that zone.

 

[chef]

I can see it making an existing anxiety issue worse in certain people. Some sativas will noid anyone
A lighter mellow strain like Bubblegum could be the answer? or maybe a real couch locker?

 

[Black Thumb]

I can see it making an existing anxiety issue worse in certain people. Some sativas will noid anyone
A lighter mellow strain like Bubblegum could be the answer? or maybe a real couch locker?

I think a pure indica is probably my best bet.

 

[dopey the clown]

You're thinking is flawed. THC is only the most prevelant by volume. (usually)

Why? The research that I have seen(will source upon request) has been incredibly consistent in suggesting that THC is the main "source" here.

This old tired propaganda again? Do I really have to go into why it's total B.S.? You can't trust the "Conclusion" of research when it's done by people that don't understand the basics of the materials they're working with.

Please do explain why it is total BS. Besides the admittedly hilarious use of the word "hydro" as a strain indicator, I don't see anything even mildly controversial in what you quoted. Please elaborate if you have time.

This one had me laughing for a looooong time. So what you're telling me is that people spend a lot less time actually 'smoking' and a lot more time 'enjoying' the results? Nice.

That's not what they are saying. They are reiterating that the cannabis used today is stronger by a wide margin, if THC is the main indicator of what we'll reference as "strength" or "potency." They are just reaffirming what they said earlier- that today's pot is so much different, ie "better" in our circles, than the stuff widely used 40-50 years ago, that it's damn near a different drug. I don't think many people would disagree with the vast different in a gram of kali mist vs. some seedy, half-leaf mexican brick indica from the 60's(not to imply it was only shitty weed back in the day). Again, I don't see anything in what you quoted as being even mildly controversial.

Gee, every person I've ever come across that had access to "Known" quality cannabis, was easily able to find a strain that 'works' well for them. The only thing hindering people is the lack of access to multiple strains of quality cannabis and professionals to help them make the correct initial choices.

That is not correct as a blanket statement. We know without question that cannabis, like all drugs, can have pretty serious negative consequences in a small portion of the population, to include the conditions mentioned above. The implication, as I understand it(perhaps i misinterpreted your point, my apologies if so)that everybody just needs to go strain shopping to find what works for them is not correct. Cannabis is a very bad idea for some people.

More proof that the results are not based in reality. They've left out several hundred other cannabinoids that modify the effects of THC. Without taking this into account, the findings are flawed.

No point in going any further

That's not a reasonable dismissal in my view. I have, as well, seen research that indicates cannabinoids in various forms impacts both THC absorption and relevance. However, and I'll have to look it up again, but I'm pretty sure the effect was relatively incidental. To say that THC isn't everything therefore damning research=null and void is irresponsible in my view.

Sorry to play pessimist here. It's just that I've seem much, much less convincing evidence that pot does XYZ positive thing, and it was predictably 10+ pages of smiley faces and "I told you so." In this case the evidence is pretty damning and it's 3 pages of "propaganda maaaaaaaan." It reeks of quazi-addiction and half-hearted self-justification.



I'm sure you'll have plenty to rebut. Hopefully we can keep it civil.
Happy Holidays.

 

[gonzo`]

I think all of what they say is probably true. This doesn't sound like propaganda because they go on to say that the effects on humans are all dependent upon each individual; hence why some people get the munchies and some don't or why some people have paranoia and others don't etc.... They also just present their findings in a way that says "this is what we found in rats". They're just investigating the negative side effects, thats all, no need to bash them. They're not saying don't smoke weed. Personally, I think that no adolescents should touch weed, their brains are still developing and it can't be healthy. This is a drug, it doesn't matter if its from a plant.

The effects on the brain are probably negative over the long-term. Think about it, most people don't smoke weed for the medicinal effects, they smoke it to get a buzz... And like everything that gives you a buzz (alcohol, pills, coke whatever.....), if you abuse it, its going to affect you in some way or other. In my opinion, if its not in moderation its not good for you.... Having said that, I smoke weed every day and I don't plan on quitting anytime soon... (This is probably due to the effect that smoking cannabis has had on my frontal lobes which help me make the right decisions).

This is my best part:

IAIN McGREGOR
....The brain has its own cannabis, which is called anandamide, so the reason we have these cannabinoid receptors in the brain is because we have a neurotransmitter that in everyone’s brain performs a very important function.

JENNIFER COOK
I just find that intriguing, we actually have cannabis in our brain.

IAIN McGREGOR
Yes, anandamide was discovered in 1992, and they pulverised dozens of pigs’ brains to extract very tiny quantities of this chemical that was shown to bind to cannabinoid receptors, the CB1 receptors. So even the most ardent opponents of cannabis are walking around with anandamide in their brain. They have their own cannabis on board, and I guess technically you could say they are intoxicated with cannabinoids every moment of the day.

 

[Pythagllio]

They are reiterating that the cannabis used today is stronger by a wide margin, if THC is the main indicator of what we'll reference as "strength" or "potency." They are just reaffirming what they said earlier- that today's pot is so much different, ie "better" in our circles, than the stuff widely used 40-50 years ago, that it's damn near a different drug.

Yes, they do like to repeat this lie over and over. Apparently, it seems you've fallen for it.

I don't think many people would disagree with the vast different in a gram of kali mist vs. some seedy, half-leaf mexican brick indica from the 60's(not to imply it was only shitty weed back in the day). Again, I don't see anything in what you quoted as being even mildly controversial.

You can still find bunk weed today. What's your point? Perhaps you should look at Holland's stats, the increase in 'average' potency isn't anywhere close to as exaggerated as the phony stats presented in the US.

People lie with statistics, and the major component of this lie is that the average has not increased because top shelf cannabis is so much better, but because low level THC cannabis has found itself removed from the distribution chain. Kind of like the misleading statistic that people born in 1900 had an average age at death in the low 40s. But did you know that the people that turned 1 in 1901 had and average age at death of almost 70? Can you explain that considering that every person that turned 1 in 1901 was born in 1900? The answer is they didn't die as infants.

Perhaps when you learn that these people have no compunction in lying, fabricating, and manipulating statistics will you understand the controversy. The lie that cannabis is so different than it was decades ago is a very convenient fiction for the prohibitionists, as it changes the landscape for those who used in the '60s and '70s and recall just how innocuous cannabis is. Well, if authority tells them that somehow cannabis is different than the experience they had in college it shut them down and allows the prohibitionists to continue their campaign of lies. As the Church Lady would say, "How conveeeeeeenient".