Article on the effects of THC vs. CBD

Check out this latest barnacle - christ it was only yesterday they were banging on about how smoking cannabis gives you emphysemia by the time your 35 or something...

They finally found evidence that cannabis rots your brain!

BBC NEWS | Health | Cannabis 'disrupts brain centre'

"They then recorded reduced activity in an area of the brain which keeps inappropriate thoughts at bay."

What you mean a part of our brain is there to STOP us from thinking?

"THC levels are thought to have doubled in the most popular type of street cannabis - possibly at the expense of potentially beneficial ingredients. "

Where are these crazy people buying their hash, I wanna know! THC, CBD I don't care so long as it makes normality go away.

Anyway, there I was ready to tear this article apart, and it turns out they might have stumbled across something interesting and worth knowing.

I'm generally a hash smoker right, I save the hard stuff the skunk for odd occassions, parties, it's more of a buzz high, a few beers and you don't notice the inappropriate thoughts hehehe or at least that's what i tell my victims... I don't go in for this pill popping, I just want a beer and a pipe and I'm flying high. I've thought for a while that the reason people are going crazy, or getting physical illnesses from cannabis is a result of, amongst other contributary factors, the poor quality of the government commission. Prohibition is at fault.

"What you mean a part of our brain is there to STOP us from thinking?"

You mean the government actually do live inside my mind, aargh.:stoned:

Anyway I don't know what's this THC CBD thing, is that to do with indica and sativa?

Okay, that is entirely fictional. I personally do not feel that Cannabis causes in sort of mental-instability or dysfunction, but that under the influence of a subtle, yet powerful psychedelic, which marijuana is, you are capable of coercing your mind to believe anything - even that you are mentally insane. The side-effects of depersonalization and derealization accumulated with that, and likely used by the user as evidence of his own slipping mental-state, do not help either.

Here is an older, but contradictory article:
www.cmcr.ucsd.edu/geninfo/Reuters_062703.pdf

And the part about the brain having a part of it, used solely to keep out inappropriate thoughts and behaviour, and the fact that pot inhibits its function - well, I'd call that "mind-expanding" and obviously a side-effect of "mind-manifesting," or psychedelic drug.

Did y'all even read the article about the testing? Apparently not. Those studies were not done by the government. The studies were done in academic medical institutions, and what they found were very real results about how THC (it wasn't whole weed, it was isolated THC, one of the two psychoactive compounds in cannabis along with cannabadiol, or CBD) provoked delusional/schizophrenic activity in a number of the test subjects.

I've said it before and will say it again. Cannabis and its active compounds aren't for everyone. It's a drug, and not all drugs agree with all psyches. Every time a study or an article such as this comes out, we get the nay-sayer stoner types here who don't believe it, but the research was solid and well-done. And it proved what a lot of researchers have known for a long time--that the compounds in weed can provoke delusional and/or paranoid reactions in some folks. That doesn't mean it happens to everyone. It doesn't mean it's necessarily a bad substance. But for some people it is. Just because it doesn't have that particular effect on you personally doesn't negate the test results. In the test subjects they studied, those results were scary enough that they didn't continue the studies.

I need to save this since it keeps needing to be repeated. Anyone who thinks cannabis is all good is just as wrong as anyone who thinks it's all bad. It's like any drug with side effects that vary from person to person and situation to situation. Ultimately, to do justice to the substance and its advocacy, we have to open our minds up and look at both the good and the bad. That means being able to read reports such as the one above with an open mind instead of an outright dismissal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by birdgirl73

Did y'all even read the article about the testing? Apparently not. Those studies were not done by the government. The studies were done in academic medical institutions, and what they found were very real results about how THC (it wasn't whole weed, it was isolated THC, one of the two psychoactive compounds in cannabis along with cannabadiol, or CBD) provoked delusional/schizophrenic activity in a number of the test subjects.

---

University of California, San Diego: External Relations: News & Information: News Releases : Health

These are the first Federal-approved studies of Cannabis and its affects on humans since the 1970's, when major narcotics bills lumped in Marijuana and had it banned. Sure, these studies were done by the government, but they were supervised, funded and done with permission of the Federal Government of the United States of America. Also, your belief that if the studies were done by the government would give some inherent-credibility is misguided - the government is not exactly impartial. It has motives and reasons beyond those told to you in the news for its actions and stances.

Not sure you're arguing on the appropriate point, Tom. I wasn't taking issue with your link. I didn't even read it, to be honest. I know about the UC San Diego studies. That wasn't what the original link that this thread referred to. It was the BBC story in the original thread. That was what I was responding to.

By the way, cannabis was rescheduled in the 70s, if that's what you mean by lumped with other narcotics, but it was banned long before that--in 1937.

Yes, the Marihuana Act (yes, it is spelled like that - weird). I thought you were talking about my link, and discrediting its accuracy. Really, I'd say I went a bit over-board defending it, but that's because I have this large binder of drug-related articles - and well, to be honest, that article is one of my pride'n'joys. I guess I thought you were after my baby, in other words.

Yes, I'm an article-keeper, too. Several of us here are. Someday they're going to come in handy!! Abstracts about medical studies are great things to keep, too. The only problem is that an abstract is only a brief summary, and anyone with any sense wants to see the actual data and studies behind those. Still, they good places to start in persuading uninformed doctors, legislators, and people who need to be cannabis-educated. Keep up the good work!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by birdgirl73

Did y'all even read the article about the testing? Apparently not. Those studies were not done by the government. The studies were done in academic medical institutions, and what they found were very real results about how THC (it wasn't whole weed, it was isolated THC, one of the two psychoactive compounds in cannabis along with cannabadiol, or CBD) provoked delusional/schizophrenic activity in a number of the test subjects.

I've said it before and will say it again. Cannabis and its active compounds aren't for everyone. It's a drug, and not all drugs agree with all psyches. Every time a study or an article such as this comes out, we get the nay-sayer stoner types here who don't believe it, but the research was solid and well-done. And it proved what a lot of researchers have known for a long time--that the compounds in weed can provoke delusional and/or paranoid reactions in some folks. That doesn't mean it happens to everyone. It doesn't mean it's necessarily a bad substance. But for some people it is. Just because it doesn't have that particular effect on you personally doesn't negate the test results. In the test subjects they studied, those results were scary enough that they didn't continue the studies.

I need to save this since it keeps needing to be repeated. Anyone who thinks cannabis is all good is just as wrong as anyone who thinks it's all bad. It's like any drug with side effects that vary from person to person and situation to situation. Ultimately, to do justice to the substance and its advocacy, we have to open our minds up and look at both the good and the bad. That means being able to read reports such as the one above with an open mind instead of an outright dismissal.

---

yes, i've noticed you keep having to make this point over and over; glad that there's a voice of reason here; agree completely

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by birdgirl73

Yes, I'm an article-keeper, too. Several of us here are. Someday they're going to come in handy!! Abstracts about medical studies are great things to keep, too. The only problem is that an abstract is only a brief summary, and anyone with any sense wants to see the actual data and studies behind those. Still, they good places to start in persuading uninformed doctors, legislators, and people who need to be cannabis-educated. Keep up the good work!

---

I go to college, so I have access from my IP address to a large database of databases for various articles - of all sorts and topics. Don't worry, for a lot of those articles, it seems past the abstract is jargon and gibberish.

I go to medical school. We have a database of research that pretty well reaches around the world, which is neat, and if we can't find it on our own, one of the librarians can. So I know what you mean about jargon and gibberish. But that's the stuff that the scientists want to look at.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by birdgirl73

I go to medical school. We have a database of research that pretty well reaches around the world, which is neat, and if we can't find it on our own, one of the librarians can. So I know what you mean about jargon and gibberish. But that's the stuff that the scientists want to look at.

---

Question:

What are you going to go to med school for? And are you going to still continue to smoke pot as a medical professional (not on, or near time of duty, of course)?

I'm just finished with my first year of med school at UT Southwestern in Dallas, and I think I want to go into either emergency medicine or possibly pediatrics with a focus on adolescent medicine. I'm not a cannabis user, to be honest. I'm an advocate. I signed an agreement upon entering med school that I wouldn't use illegal substances, and I've stuck with that. Also, I'm in my 40s and married to a physician, and that'd be risky anyway to use weed. So I'm an advocate but not a user. When I finish school, I'll have to stay that way. Doctors can lose their licenses if they use illegal substances. I know it happens all the time, and it happens even worse with legal substances, which of course they have access to and samples of. But I won't break the law. It's important to me to be above reproach.

Anyway, I'll always be a cannabis advocate. It helped my sister immensely when she was in the last stages of cancer and chemo, and that sold me on it in a big way. It needs to be legalized for medical use in all states. Then decriminalized. Then, if possible, allowed for recreational use. That's a long way off.

It's a little-known fact, but there are several of us here who're advocates and not active cannabis users. I think it puts us in a good place to be persuasive and uniquely objective. I would love to think that by the time I get out of school, my patients in Texas might have access to medical MJ, but I'm not holding my breath.

Have you ever tried marijuana or any other drug of a more power psychedelic nature?

P.S.
I know that it is very risking for anyone in the medical business to be associated with drugs; for example, if your hypothetical child was caught smoking the refer as a minor (bad) or even a adult (worse), you could face repercussions. At least in Kentucky.

I think point I was trying to make in the end was that it is the prohibition that is largely the cause of the negative elements of cannabis, by forcing it underground they are compromising on quality. I still hold true to the idea that ultimately dietary and societal factrors are responsible for causing psychosis, cannabis is simply the catalyst that accelerates the onset of psychosis. If legalised and properly managed, not by the government but by people who know how to grow the stuff, then on the other hand it could be a powerful remedy for some (perhaps not all) people who suffer from mental illness, as well as an all round panacea. Whilst I think this article provides some evidence for this argument, unfortunately it is probably not going to be taken seriously by the government (vote loser) and used as more anti drugs propaganda by the media.

That said, I'm not entirely convinced by some of the methods of research that these institutes use, and its also worth noting that many psychedelic medicines used by shamans and tribes have negative effects in the first application of treatment, its considered part of the healing process, so in a way its possibly not entirely valid to down play the effects of THC in this way. I've read accounts of LSD being used succesfully in the treatment of schitzophrenics. To be cured of illness, it is often the case that the patient must experience some suffering, and this is generally not the approach widely implemented in contemporary allopathic medicines sold by the pharmaceuticals. They tend to go for the quick fix appraoch, worry about the side effects later, where-as the holistic approach tackles the illness by facing it head on. In my view it's a more honest and effective treatment.

Insanity is reaching epidemic levels in the world today, and there is a historical argument to the support the notion that it is a natural aspect of the process of societal evolution. in that respect to attribute blame to a natural plant which has been used for the treatment of many illnesses for thousands of years seems rather absurd to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThePeacockNamethTom

Have you ever tried marijuana or any other drug of a more power psychedelic nature?

P.S.
I know that it is very risking for anyone in the medical business to be associated with drugs; for example, if your hypothetical child was caught smoking the refer as a minor (bad) or even a adult (worse), you could face repercussions. At least in Kentucky.

---

Have I tried grass? Oh, heck yeah. I smoked enthusiastically back in college and loved it. And last summer before I started med school but after I left my corporate job, I toked with my sister when she was using it to alleviate chemo side-effects. Seemed the proper social, supportive thing to do. Loved it then, too except that smoking anything plant-based isn't easy on my asthma or allergies. At the end of the summer when she no longer felt like smoking, I didn't keep it up. School was about to start, and it's just very awkward with cannabis being illiegal and considering my circumstances. I've never done anything stronger than weed and don't plan to, unless you count alcohol, but I was always a lightweight drinker, too. The minute cannabis is legal, I'll definitely be the first one in line. It's so much safer than alcohol.

Here in Texas, doctors who are found to use illegal substances can face license sanctions or loss of license, and of course if the illegality (such as large-scale possession or intent to distribute) is bad enough, they can face criminal prosecution, too. I don't know of any laws in our state that might cause problems for docs if their kids were found to smoke, since it's fairly easy to establish drug-free status with lab testing and since most people know kids will be kids, even when their parents are physicians. But I do know that when adults in Texas are found to be involved in illicit drug use, even if it's something benign like grass, the police departments or courts routinely have Child Protective Services review those situations. That's scary--the fact that children can still potentially be removed from their homes and parents for weed and nothing worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Staurm

Insanity is reaching epidemic levels in the world today, and there is a historical argument to the support the notion that it is a natural aspect of the process of societal evolution. in that respect to attribute blame to a natural plant which has been used for the treatment of many illnesses for thousands of years seems rather absurd to me.

---

Dude, no.

Insanity may be increasing, but not to epidemic levels. What is happening, is an increase in mental disorders and illness, which can include depression and mood disorders. Now THAT, is becoming an epidemic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThePeacockNamethTom

Dude, no.

Insanity may be increasing, but not to epidemic levels. What is happening, is an increase in mental disorders and illness, which can include depression and mood disorders. Now THAT, is becoming an epidemic.

---

I must disagree with you. Insanity encompasses a far wider demographic population and is manifest in a variety of human practises. This includes mass delusion (or democracy as I often call it), the needless destruction of the environment (capitalism), the pursuit of wealth over health and the disregard for poverty suffered by others as consequence, supporting the illegal invasion of foreign countries and the slaughter of thousands of innocent civilians for a supposed good cause, "office" culture, and the unhealthy dependence of many on reality TV shows, to name but a few.

You could argue that the variety of recognised mental health problems suffered by people today are consequent upon these factors and it seems absurd to apportion most of the blame to cannabis.

My question for you, Staurm, is this: Where was anyone, here or anyplace else, attributing the blame for most insanity to cannabis? Certainly not in any of the links here or subsequent conversations. And certainly not in any external sources I've read, either. What the original BBC article and the research reported above said was that THC isolates given to those test groups at King's College and Yale University provoked increased rates of schizophrenia and/or delusional reactions, particularly in people who were prone to those problems to begin with. And the study at the University of Cologne reported that the other active ingredient in cannabis, CBD (cannabadiol), seemed to suppress those reactions in its test subjects. That's it.

What a crock of shit.

That BBC article just gave me a headache. I'm trying to make some real sense of it... and at the moment I don't know whether that means taking notice.. or disregarding parts of it or what.

I'm expected to beleive here that 500,000 people just in the UK are dependant on weed. Okay well as drastic as that claim sounds, I would be prepared to keep an open mind to it.
IF they had some evidence.

Instead we get this:

Quote:

---

"Although figures are not kept, it is estimated that as many as 500,000 people in the UK may be dependent on cannabis.

---

ermm.. right.

Next thing I noticed:

Quote:

---

In 2005, only heroin users accounted for a greater proportion of patients.

---

Well... okay, thanks for telling us, but doesn't that just seem like another excuse to use the word 'heroin' in every fucking weed article you can find. One word: scaremongering.

Also... I'm failing to find any part of this 'study' about smoking cannabis that has anything to do with smoking cannabis, know what I mean?

Quote:

---

The Institute of Psychiatry study gave THC, CBD or placebo capsules to adult male volunteers

---

Quote:

---

In a second study, a team from Yale University administered THC intravenously.

---

And this is what finished it off for me:

Quote:

---

It is similar to comparing the effect of drinking a glass of wine at the weekend with drinking a bottle of vodka every day.

---

That one annoyed me. It's a statement that really should be described with swearing but i'm afraid that if I do it'll provide evidence for their claim that cannabis makes you lose control of what comes out of your mouth. What a joke. Even if the street potency has doubled, someone feel free to explain how a glass of wine at the weekend x2 = a bottle of vodka every day.

And so I continue to lose respect for the BBC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by birdgirl73

My question for you, Staurm, is this: Where was anyone, here or anyplace else, attributing the blame for most insanity to cannabis? Certainly not in any of the links here or subsequent conversations. And certainly not in any external sources I've read, either. What the original BBC article and the research reported above said was that THC isolates given to those test groups at King's College and Yale University provoked increased rates of schizophrenia and/or delusional reactions, particularly in people who were prone to those problems to begin with. And the study at the University of Cologne reported that the other active ingredient in cannabis, CBD (cannabadiol), seemed to suppress those reactions in its test subjects. That's it.

---

Hmmm I finished that post off rather quickly so I didn't express myself entirely accurately. I am not saying anyone is saying that, only that one would think that considering the amount of propaganda being bandied around based on tenuous scientific evidence linking cannabis with schitzophrenia.

I'm possibly in agreement with this research, and yourself, but only in the context of the bigger picture. This article provides some evidence to suggest that the reason, one of the reasons - diet and circumstances being two other important factors - people develop mental illness from using cannabis is down to poor quality of cannabis available on the streets - a direct result of the prohibition laws. Unfortunately most people reading this will not come to the same conclusion as myself, being already brainwashed somewhat by the general concensus of opinion.

I'm also suggesting that perhaps some of these distressing mental side effects, paranoia and delusions, could also be considered part of the healing process, an important part that perhaps people ought to go through and try to understand so that they can become more at one with themselves and the universe. It's medicine from a holistic, shamanic perspective, one that has parallels new and old. I not in any way suggesting that this new age old age treatment can work on everyone though, but certainly that it ought to be given more credit by the medical institutions.

I have experienced mild paranoia, delusions as a result of smoking cannabis in the past. But now I have a firm hold on it, I am an experienced smoker, and I understand myself and the universe better for it and I am more at peace with myself. I beleive that cannabis helped me go through a bad phase in my life, and possibly without it I might now be clinically depressed.

I'm possibly suggesting here that people who develop paranoia and delusions from smoking it may already be incubating deep mental issue within them that may or may not surface at some later time in their life anyway, possibly in a more ugly form. These issues ought to be addressed sooner rather than later, and to deny people the right to nurture their madness, something I beleive to be an important process of life and evolution, is more harmful than just allowing people the freedom to experiment with cannabis, self medicate, even if it does not work out for them in the long run it's better for society.

Sooo... I just read all of these posts and THEN read the original BBC article. Nothing but suppositions, probabilities, assumed data, and claims with no reference to original data. Its the biggest load of bullocks Ive read today, congrats to the UK for being even more propogandist than the US.

Quote:

---

However, he said: "If something has an active effect in inducing the symptoms of psychosis after one dose, then it would not be at all surprising if repeated use induced the chronic condition."

---

Well, professor Robin Murray... what a bold conclusion. This testing wouldnt possibly, by any chance, be funded by your government would it? Are you sure there is no bias here???? Government data is the least reliable of all. It is always motivated by its own means and ends, and will justify either of them any way it can. I understand this is run by a college, but... that rarely means anything at all. I want to see some raw data, some real test results.

They gave THC and CBD in pill form separately?? Cannabinidiol has been shown to have little to no effect if administered without THC. Even though they both attach to the CB2 receptors, the psychoactive properties of CBD which is to say, the body high, arent felt unless taken with THC as well. Many of the medical effects can still be beneficial without THC, but they arent going to achieve any accurate psychoactive predictions when taken separately.

This is why these tests all have the same results. They are designed and carried out by people who dont really have a clue what they are looking for. They are just trying to make an obscure connection, and simply look 30 years in the past and copy the format of all the drug testing they were doing then. They administered THC intraveneously???? Yeah I wonder why those first time users were feelin psychotic...

Back to the CBD, the researchers mentioned that since THC and CBD compete with each other biochemically (refering to the fact that they both attach to the CB2 receptors, one of the most populous receptors in our body), they cancel each other out. Not true. In fact, when they work in tandem, they magnify the effects of the other.

Heres another good laugh... going back to good ol Murphy..

Quote:

---

Professor Robin Murray, a consultant psychiatrist at the Institute of Psychiatry, said the research provided the strongest evidence that cannabis had a significant impact on the brain.

He said proving a long-term effect was extremely difficult, as it was not ethical or feasible to stimulate long-term psychosis in volunteers.

However, he said: "If something has an active effect in inducing the symptoms of psychosis after one dose, then it would not be at all surprising if repeated use induced the chronic condition."

---

Ahh ok, lets completely violate the scientific process and make a long-term, essentially groundless, assumption based upon very short-term data.

Quote:

---

Marjorie Wallace, of the mental health charity Sane, called the research a "significant contribution" to the understanding of the dangers of cannabis.

"Sane has been saying for years that there is a link between psychosis and the drug, particularly in its more potent forms.

"We strongly urge the government to heed the growing evidence and take urgent action to warn young people that some of them are risking lifelong mental illness - that they are playing Russian roulette with their minds."

---

Hey... lets add salt to the wound by making a very bold statement based upon a groundless assumption.

This shit makes me sick.

Interesting and informative post.

I tell what made me sick the other day when I read it, the indepedent newspaper this year angered many people by apologising and retracting its stance on the legalisation of cannabis, after campaigning for many years.

Guess I'll just stick to the Guardian from now on.

Thats a damn shame and Im sorry to hear that. It shows that they were most likely on a bandwagon in the first place, they just decided to switch to a more popular one when they came to a crossroads.

Have no fear though... when I rule the world, marijuana will be very legal.

We already rule the world dude, our own world. I don't know why the independent back tracked, I only just read about it. I can only imagine it's because they were a bunch of clowns all along. Maybe it was a right wing conspiracy from the start. What better a platform to argue their case than a left wing newspaper. Its not unknown for them to use tactics like this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Staurm

We already rule the world dude, our own world. I don't know why the independent back tracked, I only just read about it. I can only imagine it's because they were a bunch of clowns all along. Maybe it was a right wing conspiracy from the start. What better a platform to argue their case than a left wing newspaper. Its not unknown for them to use tactics like this.

---

Meh, even if it's true - they would just call you paranoid :(

After all these years, with prohibition making big bank (prisons, police etc) and the government telling you it was 'evil on a stick' - they can't back-track now.

It's getting silly though in the UK with the press - it's almost as if they downed it to class "C" just so they could fucking demonize it some more.

@Birdgirl ~ I think you are totally right - we are more bitching about the press in the UK and the way these stories are handled, it's almost bizarre how one day - "Weed safer than alcohol - 120 year old Indian blunt smoker is proof" turns right into "Weed is 30x stronger than 1970's - 1 puff and you have Parkinsons"

I jest (somewhat) but we really do have headlines just like those :(

These idiots are giving mixed messages to impressionable people (no offence kids but - that's you) who will pretty much just stop beleiving the drivel their "media" feeds them as "news". With all this information / disinformation / opinion / lies - who knows what to beleive?

The end result - the british smoker rolls another soap-bar joint and smokes away ignorant of the whole shambling bloody wreck.

Prohibition sucks - but the media blows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Staurm

We already rule the world dude, our own world.

---

See... Im all about the metaphorical ruling of our own world and everything... but when I say "rule the world" I mean: "Sit in a position of ultimate and supreme power over all of humanity, both earthbound and spacebound."

The only reason I feel it is necissary to go to such an extreme as far as influencing our species and our planet, is because humanity is lost. That is not to say every human being is equally as lost because trust me... that isnt the case. But even the most enlightened humans on this planet are still lost... we cannot know the truth yet, in our primitive state, but we can head in the right direction. Currently, this is not happening. A small minority heads towards the truth while the overwhelmingly vast majority pulls the rest of us in the wrong direction.

It is time to put a stop to this madness, and I have a plan. It will take years of planning before it can even be executed, and from the beginning of execution, til the day of reckoning will be many more years. But the plan is foolproof. And I will most definitely rule the world. But only to encourage and promote change towards a better future for the sake of preservation of our species.

the fact that that the article is using extremely exagerated and false statements to make weed seem bad and dangerous makes me think the article is being written with a purpose, to make people think cannabis is dangerous. so why should i trust it


"Professor Murray also warned that the high potency cannabis now widely available weaker formulations of previowas likely to pose a much bigger risk to health than the significantly us years.
'It is similar to comparing the effect of drinking a glass of wine at the weekend with drinking a bottle of vodka every day.' "

thats enough to let me know these people either don't know what their talking about or their trying to get people more scared than they should be. sure cannabis may have some negative side affects but saying things like this just totally ruins the whole study for me, i know ^thats^ bullshit so why should i believe any of the rest of this crap. when an honest unbiased study comes out I will definately listen.

"Even at relatively low doses, they found 50% of healthy volunteers began to show symptoms of psychosis."
honestly it may fit the medical description of psychosis but i really get the feeling there trying to throw words like psychosis in there to scare people.

"Thousands are thought to be dependent on cannabis"
Small things like this in the article really just make me doubt its truth. There throwing an extremely negative light onto weed and its obvious (to me) their trying to make it seem as bad as possible to make there results seem as relevant as possible.


I read the article but did it anywhere give solid proof of long term damage, what it seemed like they were doing is
1) get someone high and record lower brain activity (expected since there fucking high)
2) and than from there assume that the lowered brain activity is permanent?

as one of my old teachers said "you cant polish shit and make it look nice"
this all seems to me like they didnt get any conclusive results but there trying to make it seem like a worthwhile discovery. I've never been told how cannabis effects the brain but when i read (in this article) it lowers brain activity in a part of the brain that controls inappropriate thoughts like paranoia i wasnt suprised at all, was anyone?
I didn't see any conclusive results about long term lowered brain activity, and that seems like it would be the most important discovery, something they would definately want to show off. but rather they just assumed it has long term affects?

this article didnt seem to give a solid answer so does anyone know if these tests actually showed conclusive results about long term brain affects?

i dunno i'm high and was high when i read it so i may be totally wrong and my long shpeel may be ridiculous hippy jibberish :hippy:
have fun

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CannabisCrooz

the fact that that the article is using extremely exagerated and false statements to make weed seem bad and dangerous makes me think the article is being written with a purpose, to make people think cannabis is dangerous. so why should i trust it


"Professor Murray also warned that the high potency cannabis now widely available weaker formulations of previowas likely to pose a much bigger risk to health than the significantly us years.
'It is similar to comparing the effect of drinking a glass of wine at the weekend with drinking a bottle of vodka every day.' "

thats enough to let me know these people either don't know what their talking about or their trying to get people more scared than they should be. sure cannabis may have some negative side affects but saying things like this just totally ruins the whole study for me, i know ^thats^ bullshit so why should i believe any of the rest of this crap. when an honest unbiased study comes out I will definately listen.

"Even at relatively low doses, they found 50% of healthy volunteers began to show symptoms of psychosis."
honestly it may fit the medical description of psychosis but i really get the feeling there trying to throw words like psychosis in there to scare people.

"Thousands are thought to be dependent on cannabis"
Small things like this in the article really just make me doubt its truth. There throwing an extremely negative light onto weed and its obvious (to me) their trying to make it seem as bad as possible to make there results seem as relevant as possible.


I read the article but did it anywhere give solid proof of long term damage, what it seemed like they were doing is
1) get someone high and record lower brain activity (expected since there fucking high)
2) and than from there assume that the lowered brain activity is permanent?

as one of my old teachers said "you cant polish shit and make it look nice"
this all seems to me like they didnt get any conclusive results but there trying to make it seem like a worthwhile discovery. I've never been told how cannabis effects the brain but when i read (in this article) it lowers brain activity in a part of the brain that controls inappropriate thoughts like paranoia i wasnt suprised at all, was anyone?
I didn't see any conclusive results about long term lowered brain activity, and that seems like it would be the most important discovery, something they would definately want to show off. but rather they just assumed it has long term affects?

this article didnt seem to give a solid answer so does anyone know if these tests actually showed conclusive results about long term brain affects?

i dunno i'm high and was high when i read it so i may be totally wrong and my long shpeel may be ridiculous hippy jibberish :hippy:
have fun

---

lol no you are absolutely correct as I and others before me in this thread have stated. In more or less words, and while using "their" and "there" in place of the correct form of "they're" you said the same thing we have all been saying so fear not, your stoned ramblings were true enough.

Now here's what I think of this article. I think they are twisting the real evidence. When they say that it causes "psychosis after a dose," just think that anybody there would believe it means that it causes psychosis even after the dose has worn off. But it's not being specific at all. Do they mean that psychosis was apparent during the time that the person was high, or after the effects wore off? But like I said, most people who read this wouldn't think of that. I just think it's the way they worded it (on purpose) is a mind-trick. They know that everyone will think they mean it can cause permanent psychosis. I cannot say whether it does or not afterwards for anybody that I know, but I'm sure there are those few out there who have had psychotic episodes after smoking cannabis (see what I mean when I say that? what I mean is a long-term psychosis, not temporary (as in during the time that one is high). Ever hear things when high, and then you find out that nothing had caused the sound, because the sound is not real? Well, that's very mild psychosis, and I believe it to be part of the high sometimes (in the real trippy sativa strains). But then again, I don't believe it to be harmful, or permanent.

I hope I made sense, because I'm stoned right now. But I have thought of this when I have not been stoned before.

The beauty of cannabis is that cannabidiol off-sets the harm T.H.C. can cause, and vice versa.

BBC NEWS | Health | Cannabis hospital admissions rise

Just for one time! it would be nice to tune into the news and find an article praising the benefits of cannabis, I don't think that will happen though. Something like this maybe...

YouTube - Bill Hicks - Positive LSD Story

:hippy:

lots of debate, im liking it.

I have been compiling up as many of the pros and cons of marijuana as I can for the past few years. I wanna have an argument ready for every negative thing they can try and bring to the table. Throw 10 reasons why its beneficial at them for every detractory remark. Propogandists have no chance against me... I will humiliate them to the point of suicide if I must.