Memory Up in Smoke With Long Marijuana Use

[Urdedpal]

In a new study of long-term users people who smoked at least one marijuana cigarette a day for 10 years performed poorly on a range of standardized tests, including verbal fluency, verbal memory and learning, as compared to both those who had lit up for shorter amounts of time or did not use marijuana at all.

"It will help us understand that cannabis is not such an innocent drug," said lead author Dr. Lambros Messinis, a neurologist at the University Hospital of Patras in Patras, Greece.

His research will be published in the March 14 issue of Neurology, the scientific journal of the American Academy of Neurology.

Scientists understand the intoxication effects of cannabis, but the long-term impacts of the drug on the mind are not as well-documented. This prompted Messinis to address what he called a "significant absence" of studies on the subject.

Messinis and colleagues recruited 64 people from a drug-abuse treatment program in Athens and divided them into three groups: long-term frequency users, who had smoked for at least 10 years; short-term frequency users, who smoked for five to 10 years, and a control group of people who may have tried marijuana in the past, but sparingly. Frequent users ingested marijuana more than 20 times a month. The participants, aged 17 to 49, were tested to ensure they were not using other drugs at the time of the analysis.

The subjects also refrained from smoking marijuana for at least 24 hours in order to avoid the effects of intoxication altering the experiment.

Researchers then administered various cognitive tests to participants. The most striking deficits among the long-term users appeared in verbal learning: the subjects had difficulty in recalling previously learned words, for instance. Messinis also discovered the long-term users had trouble with executive functioning, or the ability to organize and coordinate simple tasks.

So what does marijuana do once it hits the brain? Messinis said no one knows for sure, and he did not want to speculate. However, the Web site of the National Institute on Drug Abuse suggests it's likely marijuana attaches to receptors in the brain, interfering with normal neurotransmission.

Sections of the brain with the most receptors include the cerebellum, the cerebral cortex, and limbic system: all areas responsible for thinking, problem solving, balance and memory, among others.

Yet some view the results with skepticism.

For instance, the data does not support the conclusion that heavy long-term use leads to permanent deficits, which is implied in the research, said Igor Grant, a professor of psychiatry and director of the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research at the University of California in San Diego.

"It's not a surprise to anybody that people who are active users have subtle impairments," Grant said.

Grant authored a 2003 paper in the Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, which reviewed many studies on the topic of long-term cannabis use and concluded that brain effects, if any, are minimal.

"I have no doubt if I did an identical study I would come out with same numbers. But I would still be cautious about drawing the conclusion that marijuana is responsible for those numbers," said Harrison Pope, a professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School.

That's because it's hard to figure out a chain of causality when doing marijuana studies. For example, long-term marijuana users are more likely to have spent high school stoned, and thus might be less likely to have boosted their vocabularies reading literature. So asking them to recall words they are not familiar with in the first place wouldn't necessarily mean the marijuana has damaged their brain.

"It's always and forever difficult to tease apart the confounding variables," said Pope, who has conducted research on marijuana use for more than 10 years.

In most aspects of science, the only way to answer a question once and for all is to do a randomized, controlled trial of 100 people or more, Pope said. But since giving people marijuana in a clinical setting poses a rather formidable dilemma, Pope said that he and other psychiatrists must fall back on messy methodology.

But Messinis is up for the task. Next he plans to explore two questions still up in the air: whether the deficits in memory and cognition are reversible, and also whether a heavier dose of marijuana -- not just duration -- has a different effect on the mind.

Source: United Press International (Wire)
Author: Christine Dell'Amore, UPI Consumer Health Correspondent
Published: March 13, 2006
Copyright 2006 United Press International
Website: United Press International - News. Analysis. Insight.
Contact: consumerhealth@upi.com

[Blob]

There seems to be quite few news articles based on this new study.

Now, I don't doubt that cannabis has some negative impact on the brain, but there are definite flaws in this study and this article even hints at them. They only studied 64 people, all of whom happened to be in a drug abuse treatment program. When you pick and choose who will participate in a "scientific" study, you just have to call into question the validity of the results. Maybe the scientists had an agenda, and maybe they didn't, or maybe they did but didn't conciously know they did.

There was so much bias introduced to this study that the results simply cannot be taken to be completely true. That doesn't necessarily mean that the results are false, though. It just means that there was so much room for error/bias/whatever that the results are sketchy. What needs to be done is a double-blind experiment (where the scientists don't know who smokes or doesn't smoke) with a simple random sample of way more than 64 people! A study like that, though, would be extremely difficult given the illegality of cannabis.

Sorry, I just got tired of reading all these news stories dissing weed when its all based on severly faulty "science." Somebody send those fools back to highschool and make re-learn the scientific method and take a statistics course!

[Urdedpal]

News is news, but I dubbed it Dumb for a reason. I don't agree with it.

[Eldamari420]

well i dont give a fuck either way. noone is gonna tell me how to think or respond in gay ass tests.

[Eldamari420]

lets look at the guy who drinks a case o beer a day and take tests on his fatt ass huh?

[Blob]

Originally Posted by urdedpal

News is news, but I dubbed it Dumb for a reason. I don't agree with it.

Right on. I was in no way throwing my frustration at you, just at the ridiculousness of this study. I appreciate you bringing us the news, as does everyone else I am sure.

[Vicious176]

Contradiction: http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/...marijuana.html

[Urdedpal]

Good article, too bad I can't use it because of its age.

[liveyou9876]

mostly i just wanted to say how cool the icon for this article is "DUMB" and then a pot leaf behind it, i dont know its just funny and ive just been smoking a lot today. well any way that article is kick ass, its like stupid how all these anti pot scientist go out there trying to prove shit that they cant so they make up completely flawed experiments to make it seem like weed has a long term effect on your brain...? yeah

[Blob]

Well, now I feel really dumb myself. I didn't even notice the "Dumb" image at the beginning of the article. I am shamed.

[ChesterO]

The real unanswered question is: "Who funded that seriously-flawed study?" (Turd)

It seems to me, that many (most) studies just "seem" to generate the data desired by their sponsors... If you know who paid for it, then you can speculate what it was that they wanted (and apparently got).

And given the flaws highlighted in this particular study, I would speculate that the sponsor had a particular result in mind. And went shopping for a tame researcher who would design a "study" to get that result.

Then the results get bandied-about to say "See, we told you!! This stuff should be banned!" What a load of crap... (and look how much publicity it's getting!) Remember "crack babies"?? That was a complete fabrication. See: http://www.slate.com/id/2124885/ and http://www.motherjones.com/news/feat...7/greider.html

Do any of the source articles say who funded it?? My bets:

1) Federal Government (USSA)
2) Major pharmacutical company (can't risk competition with any non-prescription herb that would hurt Prozak, Ritalin/speed, or any of the other "lifestyle" drug sales)
3) Some agency with financial ties to the USSA government. They pay the bills, you dance their tune or else.

<HR>

[Vicious176]

May i ask what the USSA is? Is it a USSR pun?

[panman]

if you ask me 64 people isn't that many pot heads
and everybody knows theres a range of pot heads that act differently
so that study is bunked

[ChesterO]

Originally Posted by Vicious176

May i ask what the USSA is? Is it a USSR pun?

Yeah, unfortunately the steady growth of government may mean that it's not all that funny anymore.

[Soapbox]
i.e. The country we're living in is starting to look a lot like the "bad old days" of the USSR. (Have you flown anywhere lately?? And dealt with the TSA gestapo??)

And don't get me started on the "Patriot Act"/"Dictatorship Act" ...

Or the fact that every child born in this country has an iron ring around his/her neck as a future tax slave to the tune of 40-50% of all lifetime earnings plus their share of the national debt. (If that isn't child abuse, I don't know what is...)

[/Soapbox]<hr>

[stikeegrnlf]

What's up with all the scientist bashing?

Although I do not agree entirely with the findings of this study, it is still just that- a study. More work is required on this matter with larger research groups, blind testing, and more clearly defined levels of usage, before results can be adopted as doctrine. I must admit, however, that a negative attitude toward this study and others like it does not serve us, the smokers, so well. As responsible pot smokers we should welcome any study that highlights the effects of long term smoking on our brains and ability to function, even if the effects are negative.

There are flaws with this study, but not as influential as some might make them out to be. For example the study group was taken from a bunch of dumbasses to start off with; maybe the next study can find test subjects from all walks of life - academia, medical professionals, lawyers, plumbers, etc. The study should also take into account the type of pot smoked- is it the high grade shit, or dirty schwagg. Good bud is akin to good vodka; the more impurities removed from vodka with repeated distillation cause less of the hangover effect the next morning, and smoking the good bud as opposed to dirt weed, won't leave you feeling burned the next morning. I can go on and on about the parameters of a future study, but since the DEA will not allow academics any pot to use for research, the point is moot.

From my personal experience I can definitely say there are some negative effects of pot smoking, in the short-, and long-term. Limited vocabulary, forgetfulness, and just motivation in general lacks, when I go through a stretch of smoking.

In defense of my beloved pot though, I have to admit that similar effects occur with all substance use. Drinking, and heavy sex (not the same as sex with heavy people) also have the same effects as pot use. And when considering the effects on the human body by eating two krispy kreme doughnuts a day, I would take memory loss over clogged arteries anyday. Lets not even argue the effects of ciggarette smoking-I've never heard of anyone get lung cancer from pot smoking, and its also not physically addictive.

As a scientist-in-training, although not in related field, I would urge everyone to take these studies with a grain of salt, and education is the best approach to continuing the lifestyle we choose. Now I think I'll go check my plants- I haven't smoked in three months and I'm cranky.

Keep on burnin': allgood: