Study: Pot Smoking Damages Brain Function

[AZGrizFan]

Then where's the study showing that smoking pot enhances brain function? Because there's literally volumes of evidence refuting your anecdotal evidence.

Whoa!!! Slow down Frances! You are now putting words in my mouth. I never claimed that it improved my brain function or thinking. Quite the contrary actually. There's a reason we used to call it "getting stupid". That's one of the reasons I use it. My brain is running in the red most of the time. I am a high-level type A obsessive compulsive freak with a tendency to way too competitive with my peers. Pot helps me bring it down to a tolerable level every once and awhile. I like being able to turn off and turn on for a few hours. I guess it's a form of self-medicating. I can usually get a similar result with a handful of martinis, but the side effects are much worse.

So.....you're saying it's "medicinal"?

[death dealer]

Whoa!!! Slow down Frances! You are now putting words in my mouth. I never claimed that it improved my brain function or thinking. Quite the contrary actually. There's a reason we used to call it "getting stupid". That's one of the reasons I use it. My brain is running in the red most of the time. I am a high-level type A obsessive compulsive freak with a tendency to way too competitive with my peers. Pot helps me bring it down to a tolerable level every once and awhile. I like being able to turn off and turn on for a few hours. I guess it's a form of self-medicating. I can usually get a similar result with a handful of martinis, but the side effects are much worse.

So.....you're saying it's "medicinal"?

Absolutely! Too bad we don't have medical marijuana in SC.

[death dealer]

I smoke as often as my schedule will allow and I run one of the largest and most profitable medical practices in the upstate of SC.

You know, before I read your post I was thinking about a number of people I know who have been high performers in fields such as engineering and medicine and who also continued to smoke pot. But I must say you've got a lot of guts to post that. The public health and safety Nazis might very well decide to identify you and make you pay. Nothing is more threatening to the mythology they have crafted than instances in which people have been highly successful as well as competent while engaging in the behaviors they have worked so hard to demonize.

Hey, if they want to come after me, they better have some balls the size of coconuts. They are welcome to try. In the words of some of the rednecks that have it plastered on the backs of their trucks around my neck of the woods, "I ain't skeered!"

[JohnStOnge]

Let's ignore the hundreds of controlled studies that all have come to the same conclusion, and just run with the anecdotal evidence of a few potheads and claim victory.

I really wonder how much controlled studies have shown. The study we're talking about was not a controlled study so It can't really infer anything. And the authors appear to act as though what the study may suggest is something new. So you have to wonder.

If there were a bunch of controlled studies inferring that chronic marajuana use impairs brain function or that early marijuana use does due to effects on the developing brain, there would have been no need to do an observational study on the questions.

To me it's pretty clear that it's very ulikely that the ideas the study authors are suggesting are not substantiated by controlled experiments. And that's not surprising. In order to do a controlled experiment to infer the things this observational study looks into someone would have to get a fairly large number of individuals <14 years old to enroll in a study whereby members of the treatment group would be randomly selected then committed to smoke pot regularly over a number of years while members of the control group would be randomly selected to commit to absolutely stay away from pot entirely. Also, if they were to really do it right, they'd have to come up with some kind of placebo for smoking pot. They'd have to create a situation where the experimental subjects and the controls couldn't tell which group they were in (like people in a clinical trial not knowing if they're actually taking a pill containing the experimental medication or a pill composed of innate substance).

Very, very unlikely that any experiments like that have been done.

[JohnStOnge]

There's also literally volumes of evidence showing global warming to be caused by man .

At the risk of going off into the Global Warming debate thing again, I must say that you can actually find a statement in the IPCC Physical Science Basis report conceding that it is not possible to unequivocally attribute "global warming" to anything at all (including human activity) because controlled experiments would be necessary to do that and controlled experiments are not possible.

[AZGrizFan]

Let's ignore the hundreds of controlled studies that all have come to the same conclusion, and just run with the anecdotal evidence of a few potheads and claim victory.

I really wonder how much controlled studies have shown. The study we're talking about was not a controlled study so It can't really infer anything. And the authors appear to act as though what the study may suggest is something new. So you have to wonder.

If there were a bunch of controlled studies inferring that chronic marajuana use impairs brain function or that early marijuana use does due to effects on the developing brain, there would have been no need to do an observational study on the questions.

To me it's pretty clear that it's very ulikely that the ideas the study authors are suggesting are not substantiated by controlled experiments. And that's not surprising. In order to do a controlled experiment to infer the things this observational study looks into someone would have to get a fairly large number of individuals <14 years old to enroll in a study whereby members of the treatment group would be randomly selected then committed to smoke pot regularly over a number of years while members of the control group would be randomly selected to commit to absolutely stay away from pot entirely. Also, if they were to really do it right, they'd have to come up with some kind of placebo for smoking pot. They'd have to create a situation where the experimental subjects and the controls couldn't tell which group they were in (like people in a clinical trial not knowing if they're actually taking a pill containing the experimental medication or a pill composed of innate substance).

Very, very unlikely that any experiments like that have been done.

You must be a fucking BLAST at parties.

[Grizalltheway]

I really wonder how much controlled studies have shown. The study we're talking about was not a controlled study so It can't really infer anything. And the authors appear to act as though what the study may suggest is something new. So you have to wonder.

If there were a bunch of controlled studies inferring that chronic marajuana use impairs brain function or that early marijuana use does due to effects on the developing brain, there would have been no need to do an observational study on the questions.

To me it's pretty clear that it's very ulikely that the ideas the study authors are suggesting are not substantiated by controlled experiments. And that's not surprising. In order to do a controlled experiment to infer the things this observational study looks into someone would have to get a fairly large number of individuals <14 years old to enroll in a study whereby members of the treatment group would be randomly selected then committed to smoke pot regularly over a number of years while members of the control group would be randomly selected to commit to absolutely stay away from pot entirely. Also, if they were to really do it right, they'd have to come up with some kind of placebo for smoking pot. They'd have to create a situation where the experimental subjects and the controls couldn't tell which group they were in (like people in a clinical trial not knowing if they're actually taking a pill containing the experimental medication or a pill composed of innate substance).

Very, very unlikely that any experiments like that have been done.

You must be a fucking BLAST at parties.

He probably brings bud, if nothing else.

[Ibanez]

Let's ignore the hundreds of controlled studies that all have come to the same conclusion, and just run with the anecdotal evidence of a few potheads and claim victory.

I really wonder how much controlled studies have shown. The study we're talking about was not a controlled study so It can't really infer anything. And the authors appear to act as though what the study may suggest is something new. So you have to wonder.

If there were a bunch of controlled studies inferring that chronic marajuana use impairs brain function or that early marijuana use does due to effects on the developing brain, there would have been no need to do an observational study on the questions.

To me it's pretty clear that it's very ulikely that the ideas the study authors are suggesting are not substantiated by controlled experiments. And that's not surprising. In order to do a controlled experiment to infer the things this observational study looks into someone would have to get a fairly large number of individuals <14 years old to enroll in a study whereby members of the treatment group would be randomly selected then committed to smoke pot regularly over a number of years while members of the control group would be randomly selected to commit to absolutely stay away from pot entirely. Also, if they were to really do it right, they'd have to come up with some kind of placebo for smoking pot. They'd have to create a situation where the experimental subjects and the controls couldn't tell which group they were in (like people in a clinical trial not knowing if they're actually taking a pill containing the experimental medication or a pill composed of innate substance).

Very, very unlikely that any experiments like that have been done.

I bet you talk, laugh, scream, cheer and cum in MONOTONE.

[D1B]

I really wonder how much controlled studies have shown. The study we're talking about was not a controlled study so It can't really infer anything. And the authors appear to act as though what the study may suggest is something new. So you have to wonder.

If there were a bunch of controlled studies inferring that chronic marajuana use impairs brain function or that early marijuana use does due to effects on the developing brain, there would have been no need to do an observational study on the questions.

To me it's pretty clear that it's very ulikely that the ideas the study authors are suggesting are not substantiated by controlled experiments. And that's not surprising. In order to do a controlled experiment to infer the things this observational study looks into someone would have to get a fairly large number of individuals <14 years old to enroll in a study whereby members of the treatment group would be randomly selected then committed to smoke pot regularly over a number of years while members of the control group would be randomly selected to commit to absolutely stay away from pot entirely. Also, if they were to really do it right, they'd have to come up with some kind of placebo for smoking pot. They'd have to create a situation where the experimental subjects and the controls couldn't tell which group they were in (like people in a clinical trial not knowing if they're actually taking a pill containing the experimental medication or a pill composed of innate substance).

Very, very unlikely that any experiments like that have been done.

You must be a fucking BLAST at parties.

Nice, attack him. He kicked your ass all over this thread.

[AZGrizFan]

You must be a fucking BLAST at parties.

Nice, attack him. He kicked your ass all over this thread.

Well, you would recognize an attack (being the namecalling king), so I'll defer to your judgement on this one...

[D1B]

Nice, attack him. He kicked your ass all over this thread.

Well, you would recognize an attack (being the namecalling king), so I'll defer to your judgement on this one...

Z, I gave that up minutes ago. You are now the personal attack king of cs.com. I hope you're proud!