Marijuana Use May Affect Cognitive Development of Youth

Advocates of any idea or substance discredit their stance when they dismiss out of hand studies that show negative aspects to what they advocate.  Yesterday*, a study was presented to Society for Neuroscience on the cognitive deficits  of marijuana users.

“Our data suggest that the earlier you begin smoking, the more marijuana you smoke and the more frequently you smoke [the greater the cognitive difficulty],” said Staci A. Gruber, director of the Cognitive and Clinical Neuroimaging Core at McLean Hospital and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School about marijuana use. According to an article on physorg.com and as reported on NPR this morning.

The study included 33 chronic marijuana smokers and 26 control subjects [all had similar education and income levels as per the NY Times] who did not smoke marijuana. They were given a battery of neurocognitive tests assessing executive function, including the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, which involves sorting different cards based on a set of rules given. During the test, the rules are changed without warning and subjects must adjust their responses to the new rules.

The findings showed habitual marijuana users made repeated errors even when told that they were wrong. Users also had more trouble maintaining a set of rules, suggesting an inability to maintain focus. Early-onset users and those who used the most marijuana had the most trouble with the test, making more than twice as many errors and fewer correct responses than later-onset smokers.

The researchers, who included Mary Kathryn Dahlgren, Kelly A. Sagar and Megan T. Racine, all of McLean Hospital’s Brain Imaging Center, also performed functional MRI (fMRI) scans on the subjects while they completed tests of cognitive control and inhibition.

Marijuana smokers showed increased brain activation in a frontal area of the anterior cingulate cortex, a key region for attention, inhibition, and error processing, compared with control subjects. Interestingly, early-onset smokers activated a different part of that brain region compared to later-onset smokers, perhaps suggesting a neural change in response to marijuana exposure at an early age.

“Our results provide further evidence that marijuana use has a direct effect on executive function and that both age of onset and magnitude of marijuana use can significantly influence cognitive processing,” said Gruber.

NPR also reported that all pot smokers showed more problems than non smokers.

 

 

__________________________

Unfortunately, I can’t find a link to the abstract.

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestmail

99 comments

  • well i`d have to disagree , i`ve been a nonstop user since i was 12 , and i hasn`t slowed my thought process at all.

    • @CharlieBrent – That comment demonstrates at the very least a problem with simple logic and a lack of critical thinking. That you don’t personally notice any impairment (and until that’s rigorously tested, it’s completely subjective and therefore without value in this discussion) doesn’t in any way have any bearing on the results of the study.

      • Mugen is exactly right. Spot on. And AJ, too, thanks for that bit about growing children. I have seen it happen and it is worse than a rough home life (although often accompanies it) because if you have the cognitive ability to overcome life’s bad situations you have a chance to make it out… but if you’re not given the chance to develop that cognitive ability you won’t. And this has nothing to do with IQ.

      • it’s completely subjective and therefore without value in this discussion

        Regarding subjective information as valueless is a limiting viewpoint. As far as I’m concerned the study itself is too narrow and of very little real value to humanity. I think it’s a inhumane gathering of data which is deficient in it’s means and approach. However I see no reason why this discussion should be limited to the rigidness of objective data only. So in my view Charlie’s comment is of true worth here. As if people were mere objects to be studied like white rats in a maze –bah! Without the subjective there is only a half a universe.

  • well i`d have to disagree , i`ve been a nonstop user since i was 12 , and i hasn`t slowed my thought process at all.

    • @CharlieBrent – That comment demonstrates at the very least a problem with simple logic and a lack of critical thinking. That you don’t personally notice any impairment (and until that’s rigorously tested, it’s completely subjective and therefore without value in this discussion) doesn’t in any way have any bearing on the results of the study.

      • Mugen is exactly right. Spot on. And AJ, too, thanks for that bit about growing children. I have seen it happen and it is worse than a rough home life (although often accompanies it) because if you have the cognitive ability to overcome life’s bad situations you have a chance to make it out… but if you’re not given the chance to develop that cognitive ability you won’t. And this has nothing to do with IQ.

      • it’s completely subjective and therefore without value in this discussion

        Regarding subjective information as valueless is a limiting viewpoint. As far as I’m concerned the study itself is too narrow and of very little real value to humanity. I think it’s a inhumane gathering of data which is deficient in it’s means and approach. However I see no reason why this discussion should be limited to the rigidness of objective data only. So in my view Charlie’s comment is of true worth here. As if people were mere objects to be studied like white rats in a maze –bah! Without the subjective there is only a half a universe.

        • suzy blah blah. nicely put. great perspective. you must become a writer.

          • Thanks MFern. I am happy to hear from you and that you relate to what I’m saying. The subjective view is extremely important. If there’s no subjective there’s really no universe at all as far as the human is concerned. Those who revere objective analysis while discrediting subjective wisdom are shortsighted to say the least.

  • The chronic users I knew in college were clearly a bit off even when not using, and already not exactly at the top of their class. Most of them did not make it past the first year. Did the drug negatively change their brain chemistry, or did they turn to it because of their natural failings in life? I can’t say.

    However, that a mind-altering drug can make permanent alterations in a growing child isn’t surprising to me, and I trust unbiased scientific research over faith.

    • no research is unbiased, no matter how scientific. trusting any research is a matter of faith – faith in the researchers and their methods

  • The chronic users I knew in college were clearly a bit off even when not using, and already not exactly at the top of their class. Most of them did not make it past the first year. Did the drug negatively change their brain chemistry, or did they turn to it because of their natural failings in life? I can’t say.

    However, that a mind-altering drug can make permanent alterations in a growing child isn’t surprising to me, and I trust unbiased scientific research over faith.

    • no research is unbiased, no matter how scientific. trusting any research is a matter of faith – faith in the researchers and their methods

  • 33 people huh? Anti-marijuana advertising DOES negatively affect logical thought in the fully developed brains of adults.

    There’s a crazy thing called common sense that every marijuana grower who has children understands the same way every carpenter who has children understands regarding paint thinner and meiter saws. Who wants or needs the government to impose force under the idea that anybody associated with marijuana is a criminal first and a cognitively capable human being second. This is a bogus and unecessary study, they could have looked at any number of villages in afghanistan or jamaica at just how devastatingly brutal marijuana use is to children, where entire closed populations have smoked for generations…that is IF they really cared about tried and true research.

    fuckin’ THIRTY THREE PEOPLE…smokers who sign up for government studies, nonetheless. Who was in the control group of an astonishing 26 people, nuns and priests?

  • 33 people huh? Anti-marijuana advertising DOES negatively affect logical thought in the fully developed brains of adults.

    There’s a crazy thing called common sense that every marijuana grower who has children understands the same way every carpenter who has children understands regarding paint thinner and meiter saws. Who wants or needs the government to impose force under the idea that anybody associated with marijuana is a criminal first and a cognitively capable human being second. This is a bogus and unecessary study, they could have looked at any number of villages in afghanistan or jamaica at just how devastatingly brutal marijuana use is to children, where entire closed populations have smoked for generations…that is IF they really cared about tried and true research.

    fuckin’ THIRTY THREE PEOPLE…smokers who sign up for government studies, nonetheless. Who was in the control group of an astonishing 26 people, nuns and priests?

  • “NPR also reported that all pot smokers showed more problems than non smokers.”

    Print out the report, wipe your ass with it, and send it over to NPR with a thank you card for some mindblowing journalism that’s really contributing to our collective whatever.

  • “NPR also reported that all pot smokers showed more problems than non smokers.”

    Print out the report, wipe your ass with it, and send it over to NPR with a thank you card for some mindblowing journalism that’s really contributing to our collective whatever.

  • Seems like pot smokers get mad easy, too. *winkwink*

  • Seems like pot smokers get mad easy, too. *winkwink*

  • so this means I only have to gather 50 people to conduct a study and have it internationally broadcast on an extremely popular NEWS program in hopes of changing people’s heads? I could round up well over 50 smokers this week who started smoking in their early teens.

  • so this means I only have to gather 50 people to conduct a study and have it internationally broadcast on an extremely popular NEWS program in hopes of changing people’s heads? I could round up well over 50 smokers this week who started smoking in their early teens.

  • Without seeing the abstract it’s hard to know what their methodology was , who funded the study, and other vital issues. We’re the participants stoned during these tests?

    First glance: the study was too narrow in scope. Using just 33 people is ridiculous if you’re trying to claim that’s it’s a valid study. What we have here is a slice of research that could have easily been flawed by the very methods used.

    I will say that youngsters should stay away from pot AND booze and other drugs. It’s too easy to mess up their formative years when their brains are still developing.

    I’d like to see a real study involving thousands of part-time and chronic pot smokers over a period of years. The only problem I see with that happening is too many people have political agendas and are going to try to slant the methodology involved.

    • I so agree Dave. The physics.org site hosting this has selectively chosen a list of experiments on the right side of the page, without mentioning marijauna’s lung cancer preventative qualities, mentioning only negative finding experiments.
      Besides the small sampling, how much daily use constitutes chronic?

      Marijuana smokers showed increased brain activation in a frontal area of the anterior cingulate cortex, a key region for attention, inhibition, and error processing, compared with control subjects. Well, yes, it does. In the mid-late ’80’s I saw a small article showing thermographic images of the brains of subjects on marijuana, and subjects on alcohol. The forebrain areas were “hot” in the mj smokers, and the midbrain lit up with alcohol. This should be common knowledge some 20+ years later, but it is not. It was in either Psychology Today or Discover magazine and I have never found it again.
      I have not given enough specifics to inform from that article, but I believe that lighting up the forebrain is not neccessarily such a bad idea, whereas activating the midbrain, housing the emotional centers and instinctive “fight or flight” behaviours and responses, clearly causes a lot of ‘brain-damaged’ behavior in life. I would like to see how pot and alchohol effect the amygdala. I believe that every cop would rather have someone more inclined to behave from an active forebrain, than midbrain.

      If anyone finds a link for the “…may effect…” study, I hope that they post. I also hope that someone with access to a large library could possibly find the thermographic article from the eighties.

  • Without seeing the abstract it’s hard to know what their methodology was , who funded the study, and other vital issues. We’re the participants stoned during these tests?

    First glance: the study was too narrow in scope. Using just 33 people is ridiculous if you’re trying to claim that’s it’s a valid study. What we have here is a slice of research that could have easily been flawed by the very methods used.

    I will say that youngsters should stay away from pot AND booze and other drugs. It’s too easy to mess up their formative years when their brains are still developing.

    I’d like to see a real study involving thousands of part-time and chronic pot smokers over a period of years. The only problem I see with that happening is too many people have political agendas and are going to try to slant the methodology involved.

    • I so agree Dave. The physics.org site hosting this has selectively chosen a list of experiments on the right side of the page, without mentioning marijauna’s lung cancer preventative qualities, mentioning only negative finding experiments.
      Besides the small sampling, how much daily use constitutes chronic?

      Marijuana smokers showed increased brain activation in a frontal area of the anterior cingulate cortex, a key region for attention, inhibition, and error processing, compared with control subjects. Well, yes, it does. In the mid-late ’80’s I saw a small article showing thermographic images of the brains of subjects on marijuana, and subjects on alcohol. The forebrain areas were “hot” in the mj smokers, and the midbrain lit up with alcohol. This should be common knowledge some 20+ years later, but it is not. It was in either Psychology Today or Discover magazine and I have never found it again.
      I have not given enough specifics to inform from that article, but I believe that lighting up the forebrain is not neccessarily such a bad idea, whereas activating the midbrain, housing the emotional centers and instinctive “fight or flight” behaviours and responses, clearly causes a lot of ‘brain-damaged’ behavior in life. I would like to see how pot and alchohol effect the amygdala. I believe that every cop would rather have someone more inclined to behave from an active forebrain, than midbrain.

      If anyone finds a link for the “…may effect…” study, I hope that they post. I also hope that someone with access to a large library could possibly find the thermographic article from the eighties.

  • Give me less than a month, I could round up over 100 regular and/or irregular marijuana smokers who first smoked and/or started smoking in their early teens and/or sooner. It’s not something people talk about themselves casually, but the world is full of them everywhere. I would challenge anybody to say they were cognitively sub par, let alone to their face.

    This “study” is like one big internet troll.

    • All over the internet world, all over the world, people who have anything “negative” to say about this study are being told that in a certain sense they’re “supporting” children smoking marijuana, which couldn’t be further from the truth. This is NPR, folks. 50 people in a study that’s in no uncertain terms anti-marijuana propoganda. Does anybody really think they’d broadcast a study that says “marijuana does not have latent effects in human development any more or less than coca cola or french fries”? What are the effects of not just human, but societal development from constant exposure to advertising (like this “study”), and doesn’t that begin at birth? What does it take to reverse these effects after literally a lifetime of accepted and often encouraged exposure?

      Studies like this are one of the reasons I really can’t stomach the internet anymore.

  • Give me less than a month, I could round up over 100 regular and/or irregular marijuana smokers who first smoked and/or started smoking in their early teens and/or sooner. It’s not something people talk about themselves casually, but the world is full of them everywhere. I would challenge anybody to say they were cognitively sub par, let alone to their face.

    This “study” is like one big internet troll.

    • All over the internet world, all over the world, people who have anything “negative” to say about this study are being told that in a certain sense they’re “supporting” children smoking marijuana, which couldn’t be further from the truth. This is NPR, folks. 50 people in a study that’s in no uncertain terms anti-marijuana propoganda. Does anybody really think they’d broadcast a study that says “marijuana does not have latent effects in human development any more or less than coca cola or french fries”? What are the effects of not just human, but societal development from constant exposure to advertising (like this “study”), and doesn’t that begin at birth? What does it take to reverse these effects after literally a lifetime of accepted and often encouraged exposure?

      Studies like this are one of the reasons I really can’t stomach the internet anymore.

  • I wonder what would have happened if somebody like carl sagan, isaac asimov, jeez the list goes on and on…or may I be so bold as to say myself or others who post in this blog…were in this “study”. They’d have had to change their entire story.

  • I wonder what would have happened if somebody like carl sagan, isaac asimov, jeez the list goes on and on…or may I be so bold as to say myself or others who post in this blog…were in this “study”. They’d have had to change their entire story.

  • If someone can find specific fault with the research, I’d like to hear it.

    We’ll likely see more research conducted on this topic. The nice thing about the scientific method is, additional research by other scientists will either corroborate or discredit these findings.

    • I’ve found specific fault with their research. They intentionally chose 33 dumb stoners. Far more studies of far more dumb stoners needs to be done to either corroborate or discredit these findings. /sarcasm [end internet]

    • AJ, are you pulling my leg?

      There are numerous ways that politics trumps science in things cannabical, from researchers knowing which topics to investigate to NIDA refusing to supply cannabis to projects investigating medical use.

      I want to see studies on the positive effects of cannabis. (I know there are some.)

      A study like this is great for drug politics trench warfare: it establishes that “it’s known” that X, Y, and Z. But if I have learned anything it is that you have to look closely at these things. Was selection skewed in some way to produce Un-Named’s dumb stoners? Does the Wisconsin Card Mumbo Jumbo mean anything about real life? Could I learn to play a new frickin’ kind of poker while really high?

      It might be a problem that “executive function” seems to stand in for “sentient response.” Try doing a test for increased empathy or balanced muscle tone or something like that. Are people who started smoking weed earlier worse off, or just different?

      My suspicion is that the scientific value of this research has an inverse relationship to its headline potential.

      Probably some research will come out refuting it, but we’ll all go to next election cycle battling stereotypes of stoned drivers (despite the government’s own research on the subject) along with this mess. Yup, this will feed anti-legalization rhetoric for sure.

  • If someone can find specific fault with the research, I’d like to hear it.

    We’ll likely see more research conducted on this topic. The nice thing about the scientific method is, additional research by other scientists will either corroborate or discredit these findings.

    • I’ve found specific fault with their research. They intentionally chose 33 dumb stoners. Far more studies of far more dumb stoners needs to be done to either corroborate or discredit these findings. /sarcasm [end internet]

    • AJ, are you pulling my leg?

      There are numerous ways that politics trumps science in things cannabical, from researchers knowing which topics to investigate to NIDA refusing to supply cannabis to projects investigating medical use.

      I want to see studies on the positive effects of cannabis. (I know there are some.)

      A study like this is great for drug politics trench warfare: it establishes that “it’s known” that X, Y, and Z. But if I have learned anything it is that you have to look closely at these things. Was selection skewed in some way to produce Un-Named’s dumb stoners? Does the Wisconsin Card Mumbo Jumbo mean anything about real life? Could I learn to play a new frickin’ kind of poker while really high?

      It might be a problem that “executive function” seems to stand in for “sentient response.” Try doing a test for increased empathy or balanced muscle tone or something like that. Are people who started smoking weed earlier worse off, or just different?

      My suspicion is that the scientific value of this research has an inverse relationship to its headline potential.

      Probably some research will come out refuting it, but we’ll all go to next election cycle battling stereotypes of stoned drivers (despite the government’s own research on the subject) along with this mess. Yup, this will feed anti-legalization rhetoric for sure.

  • Why should it surprise anyone that a mind altering DRUG that is used to treat cancer patients has a negative effect on cognitive reasoning? You want a study on this? Check out Humboldt County’s population of drug users. I have argued before that unless you see the negative aspects of pot use up close (the addiction, the damage done by growing to both the environment and business, the lack of parental involvement when stoned) then you’ll have your own skewed view of pot use.
    It’s a drug. Every drug has a frigging laundry list of bad things that could happen. What’s different about pot is that there’s no list given to users. Just a “smoke up, dude” and off they go.
    No, this study doesn’t “prove” anything conclusively. But it’s a better study than the ones NOT done to support the “pot is harmless” argument used to legalize it.

    Kym? I hope it’s okay to spout off like that. I wouldn’t, you know, except I feel I have a stake in the argument.

    • It’s not spouting off to talk about your opinions. The problem I have though is if someone seems fine and normal you aren’t including them in your study. How many “normal” folks smoke pot/grow pot but don’t mess up ie (the addiction, the damage done by growing to both the environment and business, the lack of parental involvement when stoned). If they don’t mess up and don’t tell you they do these things, how do you know? You don’t. I’m betting lots of folks you like and respect grow/smoke.

      Look at all the folks who use liquor and don’t wreck cars, don’t end up in jail etc. Yet we know that alcohol can be a horrible drug for some people. Should we prohibit it? Didn’t work. Should we prohibit marijuana? Doesn’t work.

      Should everybody use every drug? No Should everybody be allowed to choose? yes. Is this study accurate? to my mind there needs to be bigger studies with more controls. I do know plenty of smart folk who smoke and have since young. But I do think I see a correlation between young start and continuous use with some difficulty thinking. (And no not everybody, not even most, but enough that it makes me wonder.)

      • I completely hear you, Kym.
        I guess my question is this. Where is the line? Yes, alcohol is legal. Yes, we made it illegal and it failed. BUT where is the line drawn?
        Most “drugs” used for medicinal purposes are put through stringent FDA approval requirements.
        Pot isn’t.
        Most “drugs” are regulated so that the general public has recourse if there’s a problem.
        Pot isn’t.
        Most “drugs” are available in pharmacies that require special training so the drugs can be administered.
        Pot isn’t.
        So, if we legalize pot, we’re really just legalizing a chemical that gets folks high. Okay. What’s next? Heroine? Ecstasy? Where is the line?
        I remember when AIDS patients were dying–DYING– because the FDA insisted on putting the new lifesaving drugs through the same tedious process it does for all drugs.
        Why the hell are we so willing to hurry this up so that the recreational users can have their high without fear of repercussions?
        I’m aware that not every user has issues and not every grower is destructive, but unless there are some kind of boundaries for both, how can we continue to allow it? It’s a free for all. People CHOOSE to be responsible growers. But if they’re not, who is going to stop them?
        That’s my big problem with legalization.

  • Why should it surprise anyone that a mind altering DRUG that is used to treat cancer patients has a negative effect on cognitive reasoning? You want a study on this? Check out Humboldt County’s population of drug users. I have argued before that unless you see the negative aspects of pot use up close (the addiction, the damage done by growing to both the environment and business, the lack of parental involvement when stoned) then you’ll have your own skewed view of pot use.
    It’s a drug. Every drug has a frigging laundry list of bad things that could happen. What’s different about pot is that there’s no list given to users. Just a “smoke up, dude” and off they go.
    No, this study doesn’t “prove” anything conclusively. But it’s a better study than the ones NOT done to support the “pot is harmless” argument used to legalize it.

    Kym? I hope it’s okay to spout off like that. I wouldn’t, you know, except I feel I have a stake in the argument.

    • It’s not spouting off to talk about your opinions. The problem I have though is if someone seems fine and normal you aren’t including them in your study. How many “normal” folks smoke pot/grow pot but don’t mess up ie (the addiction, the damage done by growing to both the environment and business, the lack of parental involvement when stoned). If they don’t mess up and don’t tell you they do these things, how do you know? You don’t. I’m betting lots of folks you like and respect grow/smoke.

      Look at all the folks who use liquor and don’t wreck cars, don’t end up in jail etc. Yet we know that alcohol can be a horrible drug for some people. Should we prohibit it? Didn’t work. Should we prohibit marijuana? Doesn’t work.

      Should everybody use every drug? No Should everybody be allowed to choose? yes. Is this study accurate? to my mind there needs to be bigger studies with more controls. I do know plenty of smart folk who smoke and have since young. But I do think I see a correlation between young start and continuous use with some difficulty thinking. (And no not everybody, not even most, but enough that it makes me wonder.)

      • I completely hear you, Kym.
        I guess my question is this. Where is the line? Yes, alcohol is legal. Yes, we made it illegal and it failed. BUT where is the line drawn?
        Most “drugs” used for medicinal purposes are put through stringent FDA approval requirements.
        Pot isn’t.
        Most “drugs” are regulated so that the general public has recourse if there’s a problem.
        Pot isn’t.
        Most “drugs” are available in pharmacies that require special training so the drugs can be administered.
        Pot isn’t.
        So, if we legalize pot, we’re really just legalizing a chemical that gets folks high. Okay. What’s next? Heroine? Ecstasy? Where is the line?
        I remember when AIDS patients were dying–DYING– because the FDA insisted on putting the new lifesaving drugs through the same tedious process it does for all drugs.
        Why the hell are we so willing to hurry this up so that the recreational users can have their high without fear of repercussions?
        I’m aware that not every user has issues and not every grower is destructive, but unless there are some kind of boundaries for both, how can we continue to allow it? It’s a free for all. People CHOOSE to be responsible growers. But if they’re not, who is going to stop them?
        That’s my big problem with legalization.

  • Gruber et al. gave two papers.

    Here’s the first’s abstract:

    A number of investigations have reported alterations in chronic, heavy marijuana (MJ) smokers on tasks of cognitive performance and patterns of cortical activity as measured by fMRI techniques, however, few thus far have examined the specific neurobiologic impact of age of onset of MJ use. Results from a US school survey indicate that 15% of 8th graders have tried marijuana at least once, which increases to 43% by the 12th grade. Further, over the last several decades, while MJ use has continued to increase, albeit slightly, the age of onset of first use has declined. As adolescence is a time of neuromaturation, with increasing evidence that the adolescent brain may be more vulnerable to the effects of drugs and alcohol than the adult brain, those who are at the greatest risk for adverse consequences represent a growing population of consumers of marijuana. In order to assess the potential impact of age of onset of MJ use, we examined 17 chronic, heavy MJ smokers who completed the Multi Source Interference Task, which has been shown to reliably measure cognitive control and inhibition. Subjects were separated into those who used MJ prior to age 16 (early onset) and those who began MJ use at age 16 or older (later onset). Results from contrast analyses suggest that early onset MJ smokers demonstrate greater midcingulate activation during task relative to later onset smokers, while later onset MJ smokers demonstrate robust activation in a more anterior region of the anterior cingulate. Further, during the interference condition of the task, early onset MJ smokers tended to have faster reaction times than later onset smokers but made nearly twice as many errors of commission (p=.03), suggestive of a failure to inhibit inappropriate responses. Finally, number of smokes and total MJ used per week were positively correlated with commission errors, and inversely correlated with accuracy on the task for the group as a whole, suggesting that higher frequency and magnitude of use impairs inhibitory responses (p = .02). These data suggest that MJ use at earlier ages may result in impaired inhibitory function and both higher frequency and magnitude of MJ use relative to those who began MJ use later in life, and may ultimately result in a reorganization of critical brain regions.

    And the second’s:

    Marijuana (MJ) is the most commonly used illegal drug in the U.S. with 25.8 million Americans aged 12 and older reporting at least one instance of abuse in 2008. Several studies examining the impact of age of onset of MJ use have indicated that earlier onset of MJ use can lead to increased impairment on several cognitive domains, including verbal IQ, verbal memory, and time to complete visual scanning tasks. We hypothesized that MJ smokers would exhibit impaired performance on tasks of executive function relative to non-smoking control subjects, and that earlier age of onset of MJ use would be associated with higher levels of impairment. A battery of standard neurocognitive tests assessing executive function was administered to a group of 33 chronic, heavy MJ smoking subjects and a group of 26 healthy control subjects. As hypothesized, results indicated that control subjects performed better on several measures of executive function as compared to MJ smokers, specifically on the Wisconsin Card Sorting Task (WCST), an executive measure of cognitive flexibility during changing reinforcement schedules. On the WCST, the MJ smokers made significantly more perseverative errors on deck 1 (7.69 vs 3.55; p=.01) and during the entire task (10.97 vs 6.00; p=.02) relative to control subjects. The MJ smokers also had more losses of set in deck 2 (0.38 vs 0.16; p=.05) as compared to controls, suggestive of an inability to maintain cognitive set. In order to help clarify the impact of early vs later MJ use on executive function, the MJ group was separated into those who began smoking MJ prior to age 16 (n=19) and those who began MJ use at the age of 16 or older (n=14). As expected, early onset smokers achieved fewer categories on deck 1 of the WCST (3.50 vs 4.39; p=.05), and made more perseverative errors on both deck 1 (10.44 vs 4.31; p=.01) and during the entire task (14.69 vs 6.39; p=.01) relative to late onset smokers. In addition, the total number of categories achieved was positively correlated with age of MJ use onset (r=.364, p=.03) and negatively associated with grams of MJ used per week (r=-.316, p=.05) suggesting that MJ use has a direct effect on executive function. Results from this study indicate that MJ use affects executive processing, and that both age of onset and magnitude of MJ use can significantly influence these cognitive processes.

    Certainly provocative headlines. Not sure what it really means. Pete Guither at drugwarrant.com will probably have something intelligent to say about it.

  • Gruber et al. gave two papers.

    Here’s the first’s abstract:

    A number of investigations have reported alterations in chronic, heavy marijuana (MJ) smokers on tasks of cognitive performance and patterns of cortical activity as measured by fMRI techniques, however, few thus far have examined the specific neurobiologic impact of age of onset of MJ use. Results from a US school survey indicate that 15% of 8th graders have tried marijuana at least once, which increases to 43% by the 12th grade. Further, over the last several decades, while MJ use has continued to increase, albeit slightly, the age of onset of first use has declined. As adolescence is a time of neuromaturation, with increasing evidence that the adolescent brain may be more vulnerable to the effects of drugs and alcohol than the adult brain, those who are at the greatest risk for adverse consequences represent a growing population of consumers of marijuana. In order to assess the potential impact of age of onset of MJ use, we examined 17 chronic, heavy MJ smokers who completed the Multi Source Interference Task, which has been shown to reliably measure cognitive control and inhibition. Subjects were separated into those who used MJ prior to age 16 (early onset) and those who began MJ use at age 16 or older (later onset). Results from contrast analyses suggest that early onset MJ smokers demonstrate greater midcingulate activation during task relative to later onset smokers, while later onset MJ smokers demonstrate robust activation in a more anterior region of the anterior cingulate. Further, during the interference condition of the task, early onset MJ smokers tended to have faster reaction times than later onset smokers but made nearly twice as many errors of commission (p=.03), suggestive of a failure to inhibit inappropriate responses. Finally, number of smokes and total MJ used per week were positively correlated with commission errors, and inversely correlated with accuracy on the task for the group as a whole, suggesting that higher frequency and magnitude of use impairs inhibitory responses (p = .02). These data suggest that MJ use at earlier ages may result in impaired inhibitory function and both higher frequency and magnitude of MJ use relative to those who began MJ use later in life, and may ultimately result in a reorganization of critical brain regions.

    And the second’s:

    Marijuana (MJ) is the most commonly used illegal drug in the U.S. with 25.8 million Americans aged 12 and older reporting at least one instance of abuse in 2008. Several studies examining the impact of age of onset of MJ use have indicated that earlier onset of MJ use can lead to increased impairment on several cognitive domains, including verbal IQ, verbal memory, and time to complete visual scanning tasks. We hypothesized that MJ smokers would exhibit impaired performance on tasks of executive function relative to non-smoking control subjects, and that earlier age of onset of MJ use would be associated with higher levels of impairment. A battery of standard neurocognitive tests assessing executive function was administered to a group of 33 chronic, heavy MJ smoking subjects and a group of 26 healthy control subjects. As hypothesized, results indicated that control subjects performed better on several measures of executive function as compared to MJ smokers, specifically on the Wisconsin Card Sorting Task (WCST), an executive measure of cognitive flexibility during changing reinforcement schedules. On the WCST, the MJ smokers made significantly more perseverative errors on deck 1 (7.69 vs 3.55; p=.01) and during the entire task (10.97 vs 6.00; p=.02) relative to control subjects. The MJ smokers also had more losses of set in deck 2 (0.38 vs 0.16; p=.05) as compared to controls, suggestive of an inability to maintain cognitive set. In order to help clarify the impact of early vs later MJ use on executive function, the MJ group was separated into those who began smoking MJ prior to age 16 (n=19) and those who began MJ use at the age of 16 or older (n=14). As expected, early onset smokers achieved fewer categories on deck 1 of the WCST (3.50 vs 4.39; p=.05), and made more perseverative errors on both deck 1 (10.44 vs 4.31; p=.01) and during the entire task (14.69 vs 6.39; p=.01) relative to late onset smokers. In addition, the total number of categories achieved was positively correlated with age of MJ use onset (r=.364, p=.03) and negatively associated with grams of MJ used per week (r=-.316, p=.05) suggesting that MJ use has a direct effect on executive function. Results from this study indicate that MJ use affects executive processing, and that both age of onset and magnitude of MJ use can significantly influence these cognitive processes.

    Certainly provocative headlines. Not sure what it really means. Pete Guither at drugwarrant.com will probably have something intelligent to say about it.

  • thanks
    ” In spite of its extensive use, voices of caution have arisen against the use of WCST scores as direct markers of prefrontal damage or dysfunction. … These findings strongly suggest that WCST scores cannot be regarded as valid nor specific markers of prefrontal lobe function. However, they do provide some relevant clues to update our current knowledge about prefrontal function. In the long run, the integrative approach of cognitive neuroscience may help us design and develop more valid and sensitive tools for neuropsychological assessment.” from “<A HREF="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11705346&quot;

    I am not saying that there is not cognitive impairment from early or heavy pot use, I just want the best science available and the WCST is an old old tool in the field with acknowledged limitations.

    I wonder if they confounded for TV and video game use? And I still want to see the grams per week dosage they mention.

  • thanks
    ” In spite of its extensive use, voices of caution have arisen against the use of WCST scores as direct markers of prefrontal damage or dysfunction. … These findings strongly suggest that WCST scores cannot be regarded as valid nor specific markers of prefrontal lobe function. However, they do provide some relevant clues to update our current knowledge about prefrontal function. In the long run, the integrative approach of cognitive neuroscience may help us design and develop more valid and sensitive tools for neuropsychological assessment.” from “<A HREF="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11705346&quot;

    I am not saying that there is not cognitive impairment from early or heavy pot use, I just want the best science available and the WCST is an old old tool in the field with acknowledged limitations.

    I wonder if they confounded for TV and video game use? And I still want to see the grams per week dosage they mention.

  • Fiance here: As the mother of a Downs Syndrome child (who I lost at the age of 20 monts) I did quite a bit of research on how the various drugs they wanted to give him effected his abilites. What I found out (while spending about 16 of his months living in a childrens medical hospital with him) was that ANY substance that alters the mind has some effect on development. The flip side of that coin is that since most people will not allow their children to willingly be used in any “studies” involving drugs that NO ONE really knows how any drugs effect children.

    For this reason (check labels on over the counter drugs) they always use lower doseage recommendations for children, not really knowing how those drugs effect the body and mind. It seems to me that it is just common sense that ANY drugs would change a childs development in large quantities.

    I am a medical marijuana patient and have smoked on and off since my teens. I KNOW that it not only effects my mind set BUT also my congnetive abilities. I know not to smoke before I go to work, I know that when I do work really sucks, I can’t remember things that usually come naturally. I know that after I do smoke that I have to make sure I have time to adjust before I can do most anything.

    Pot like alcohol should be a personal choice made after a persons body is through growing. Any kind of substance can be harmful to a growing child. Hence the not smoking anything around growing children. No exposing them to chemicals or any other toxicants. In MY opinion, anyone who gives their children pot or alcohol, or lets them imbibe prior to adulthood should be prosecuted. It is your responsibility as a parent to make sure your chldren have opportunitites and every chance at a healthy adulthood. Allowing them to smoke or drink is adverse to that line of thought. Pot does effect the lungs, maybe not as badly as tobacco, but it does, so there are the physical health risks as well as the mental.

  • Fiance here: As the mother of a Downs Syndrome child (who I lost at the age of 20 monts) I did quite a bit of research on how the various drugs they wanted to give him effected his abilites. What I found out (while spending about 16 of his months living in a childrens medical hospital with him) was that ANY substance that alters the mind has some effect on development. The flip side of that coin is that since most people will not allow their children to willingly be used in any “studies” involving drugs that NO ONE really knows how any drugs effect children.

    For this reason (check labels on over the counter drugs) they always use lower doseage recommendations for children, not really knowing how those drugs effect the body and mind. It seems to me that it is just common sense that ANY drugs would change a childs development in large quantities.

    I am a medical marijuana patient and have smoked on and off since my teens. I KNOW that it not only effects my mind set BUT also my congnetive abilities. I know not to smoke before I go to work, I know that when I do work really sucks, I can’t remember things that usually come naturally. I know that after I do smoke that I have to make sure I have time to adjust before I can do most anything.

    Pot like alcohol should be a personal choice made after a persons body is through growing. Any kind of substance can be harmful to a growing child. Hence the not smoking anything around growing children. No exposing them to chemicals or any other toxicants. In MY opinion, anyone who gives their children pot or alcohol, or lets them imbibe prior to adulthood should be prosecuted. It is your responsibility as a parent to make sure your chldren have opportunitites and every chance at a healthy adulthood. Allowing them to smoke or drink is adverse to that line of thought. Pot does effect the lungs, maybe not as badly as tobacco, but it does, so there are the physical health risks as well as the mental.

  • I mean they got all these people where they asked them point blank on a survey do you smoke weed, have you smoked weed since you was 9, and send them a letter like you have been selected to play this dumb ass computer card simulator shit. You know every one of those people were high as hell at the test. Shit, wouldn’t you be?

    That Wisconsin test makes sense to me tho cause you ever try to play a new game of cards when you are hella faded and are like alright bid 8 and your boy is all you don’t bid in this game bruh bruh? The result they got was most people can’t learn card games while stoned, not that 0-15 year olds shouldn’t smoke weed 24/7.

    • “The result they got was most people can’t learn card games while stoned, not that 0-15 year olds shouldn’t smoke weed 24/7.”

      What more needs to be said? I’ll say something more anyway…the only thing this 50 person peanut study is good for is recognizing the insanity that information sourcing has become. It’s mind blowing if you step back and look at it. If you change every cannabis related word in this fake featurette to “bubblegum”, suddenly every bubblegum blog in the world would be linking to its affiliates. I bet NPR and associates have some kinda 50 person peanut study related to bubblegum somewhere in their archives for exaclty that reason.

      This is a 50 person peanut study, folks. They knew exactly what they were after. Cut and dried, curing in your brain. Not reality whatsoever. It’s not raising awareness, or drawing intelligent conversation, it’s dumbing everybody down.

  • I mean they got all these people where they asked them point blank on a survey do you smoke weed, have you smoked weed since you was 9, and send them a letter like you have been selected to play this dumb ass computer card simulator shit. You know every one of those people were high as hell at the test. Shit, wouldn’t you be?

    That Wisconsin test makes sense to me tho cause you ever try to play a new game of cards when you are hella faded and are like alright bid 8 and your boy is all you don’t bid in this game bruh bruh? The result they got was most people can’t learn card games while stoned, not that 0-15 year olds shouldn’t smoke weed 24/7.

    • “The result they got was most people can’t learn card games while stoned, not that 0-15 year olds shouldn’t smoke weed 24/7.”

      What more needs to be said? I’ll say something more anyway…the only thing this 50 person peanut study is good for is recognizing the insanity that information sourcing has become. It’s mind blowing if you step back and look at it. If you change every cannabis related word in this fake featurette to “bubblegum”, suddenly every bubblegum blog in the world would be linking to its affiliates. I bet NPR and associates have some kinda 50 person peanut study related to bubblegum somewhere in their archives for exaclty that reason.

      This is a 50 person peanut study, folks. They knew exactly what they were after. Cut and dried, curing in your brain. Not reality whatsoever. It’s not raising awareness, or drawing intelligent conversation, it’s dumbing everybody down.

  • Fiance here:

    On another note, generally speaking when these types of studies are done generally speaking who ever is funding it usually has some agenda they are trying to promote and many will squash any evidence contrary to that agenda. In one of this nature, considering that they only used a very small amount of people I don’t see how anyone could draw any conclusions one way or the other.

    Pot like any other drug effects different people differently. I know people that can smoke all day long and be sharp as a tack. As far as I’m concerned this study is pretty much null and void and the only way to really prove the point they are trying to make is to study thousands of people and to start studying them as they grow up. What parent is going to volunteer their children for it? None that I know!

  • Fiance here:

    On another note, generally speaking when these types of studies are done generally speaking who ever is funding it usually has some agenda they are trying to promote and many will squash any evidence contrary to that agenda. In one of this nature, considering that they only used a very small amount of people I don’t see how anyone could draw any conclusions one way or the other.

    Pot like any other drug effects different people differently. I know people that can smoke all day long and be sharp as a tack. As far as I’m concerned this study is pretty much null and void and the only way to really prove the point they are trying to make is to study thousands of people and to start studying them as they grow up. What parent is going to volunteer their children for it? None that I know!

  • To repeat Kym’s first sentence of this blog post: “Advocates of any idea or substance discredit their stance when they dismiss out of hand studies that show negative aspects to what they advocate.”

  • To repeat Kym’s first sentence of this blog post: “Advocates of any idea or substance discredit their stance when they dismiss out of hand studies that show negative aspects to what they advocate.”

  • I hear what you are saying AJ, but considering there have been decades of smear science, or propaganda science sensationalizing the effects of mj to promote an agenda… we have every reason to be skeptical and carefully read studies such as this one.

    Would alcohol pass similar scrutiny were it up for legalization today?

    • The only thing I read in the question is another tiny blip of legitimacy lent to either’s illegality in the first place.

    • If you can see a potential flaw in the research or have reason to question the honesty of the researchers, by all means, share it with us. Government propaganda is not science. Likewise, if you can point to scientific research from the 1930s, 1950s, or whenever, that has been disproved, then I will point to your examples and tell you, see, the scientific method works.

      Knowledge gained through the scientific method is not dogmatic, is not so rigid it cannot change. It changes when new evidence is discovered that disproves our understanding of the universe. An advance in human knowledge, in either direction, is still an advance. Virtually everything in our human-made environment we have today is thanks to this method of discovery.

      I’d point to Matthew Bailes as a fine example of how science is supposed to work. In 1991, he announced the discovery of the first planet detected orbiting a star outside our solar system. A year later, he stood before a meeting of the American Astronomical Society and announced he had made a fundamental error in his calculations and his discovery was invalid. He received a standing ovation. Now, if a researcher lies or hides her errors, he will eventually be discovered, too.

      The research we’re discussing here is comparatively simple, and is on a hot button issue. I have no doubt that someone else will attempt to replicate this study, or build upon it, and report conflicting findings if the original study is flawed. But much of what I read in this discussion thread isn’t people taking a wait-and-see approach. People are denying evidence, and that smacks of faith when we’re discussing a field of knowledge that does not require faith. I do love skepticism though. So, let’s wait and see.

      • Who’s arguing against science? Use the scientific method to denounce this “study”. It’s painfully easy.

        • The scientific method isn’t used to “denounce” anything. I believe you are referring to anonymous blogger opinion. Such opinion is indeed painfully easy to dispense.

          • Okay Mr. Snooty Science, use the scientific method to gather evidence regarding the hypothesis that the “study” in question might be either sound or flawed in regards to what it claims was an equally unbiased scientific gathering of evidence toward a hypothesis regarding either a positive or negative hypothesis on the cognitive abilities of certain marijuana smokers. I’d like to read your hypothesis hypothesising the hypothesisisses.

            • …my point is, being somebody who sounds like they’re of sound science, I’m surprised you lend any amount of credibility to the bogus study in question. Is my personal word over the internet worth anything, having observed well over the amount of marijuana smokers who began smoking in their youth than were those in this fake story, for a much longer period of time?

              • If you want to remain skeptical because of your own personal experiences, fine. If you have a claim for why this research may be flawed, please present it so that your claim may be examined. Otherwise, I think I’m done being trolled.

                • Not trolling whatsoever, AJ. Realze you seem as confident in the study as I seem skeptical to you. I’ve presented some ideas above under my former alias ‘un-named’.

                • I’m quick on the draw when I wanna be is all, AJ, if you’re one and the same as on the NCJ. Why not the same degree of immediate recognition regarding this editorial as your very intelligent observation on the NCJ editorial about google?

                • I was being facetious on the NCJ blog. I don’t really believe Google is working hand-in-hand with a secret cabal of banking, prison and Japanese restaurant interests to omit sections of Fifth Street in Eureka from Google Street View. I do however believe ill effects of marijuana, if there are any, are knowable through scientific research.

  • I hear what you are saying AJ, but considering there have been decades of smear science, or propaganda science sensationalizing the effects of mj to promote an agenda… we have every reason to be skeptical and carefully read studies such as this one.

    Would alcohol pass similar scrutiny were it up for legalization today?

    • The only thing I read in the question is another tiny blip of legitimacy lent to either’s illegality in the first place.

    • If you can see a potential flaw in the research or have reason to question the honesty of the researchers, by all means, share it with us. Government propaganda is not science. Likewise, if you can point to scientific research from the 1930s, 1950s, or whenever, that has been disproved, then I will point to your examples and tell you, see, the scientific method works.

      Knowledge gained through the scientific method is not dogmatic, is not so rigid it cannot change. It changes when new evidence is discovered that disproves our understanding of the universe. An advance in human knowledge, in either direction, is still an advance. Virtually everything in our human-made environment we have today is thanks to this method of discovery.

      I’d point to Matthew Bailes as a fine example of how science is supposed to work. In 1991, he announced the discovery of the first planet detected orbiting a star outside our solar system. A year later, he stood before a meeting of the American Astronomical Society and announced he had made a fundamental error in his calculations and his discovery was invalid. He received a standing ovation. Now, if a researcher lies or hides her errors, he will eventually be discovered, too.

      The research we’re discussing here is comparatively simple, and is on a hot button issue. I have no doubt that someone else will attempt to replicate this study, or build upon it, and report conflicting findings if the original study is flawed. But much of what I read in this discussion thread isn’t people taking a wait-and-see approach. People are denying evidence, and that smacks of faith when we’re discussing a field of knowledge that does not require faith. I do love skepticism though. So, let’s wait and see.

      • Who’s arguing against science? Use the scientific method to denounce this “study”. It’s painfully easy.

        • The scientific method isn’t used to “denounce” anything. I believe you are referring to anonymous blogger opinion. Such opinion is indeed painfully easy to dispense.

          • Okay Mr. Snooty Science, use the scientific method to gather evidence regarding the hypothesis that the “study” in question might be either sound or flawed in regards to what it claims was an equally unbiased scientific gathering of evidence toward a hypothesis regarding either a positive or negative hypothesis on the cognitive abilities of certain marijuana smokers. I’d like to read your hypothesis hypothesising the hypothesisisses.

            • …my point is, being somebody who sounds like they’re of sound science, I’m surprised you lend any amount of credibility to the bogus study in question. Is my personal word over the internet worth anything, having observed well over the amount of marijuana smokers who began smoking in their youth than were those in this fake story, for a much longer period of time?

              • If you want to remain skeptical because of your own personal experiences, fine. If you have a claim for why this research may be flawed, please present it so that your claim may be examined. Otherwise, I think I’m done being trolled.

                • Not trolling whatsoever, AJ. Realze you seem as confident in the study as I seem skeptical to you. I’ve presented some ideas above under my former alias ‘un-named’.

                • I’m quick on the draw when I wanna be is all, AJ, if you’re one and the same as on the NCJ. Why not the same degree of immediate recognition regarding this editorial as your very intelligent observation on the NCJ editorial about google?

                • I was being facetious on the NCJ blog. I don’t really believe Google is working hand-in-hand with a secret cabal of banking, prison and Japanese restaurant interests to omit sections of Fifth Street in Eureka from Google Street View. I do however believe ill effects of marijuana, if there are any, are knowable through scientific research.

  • You are rightly hearing skepticism AJ, but without the study I cannot make specific comments about design flaws in the study other than noting the small sampling as others have pointed out, that is why I asked for a link for more than an abstract. My skeptical bias wants to look at how much was smoked and what was confounded for in the study. I want to know what part of the brain changed in earlier users, and when the last use of pot occured by the subjects. (I feel like there is a “hang-over-ish” period for a short time after ceasing daily use.) I would hope that it is obvious to all that I am a blog opinionist, and not a scientist.

    My call is for good science. Repeated well designed studies. Yours too, I am sure.

    And I think that research in this area is very important, and should be duplicated with long term alchoholic users, since it is the most commonly abused recreational substance.
    From the little that I remember of reading the book Emotional Intelligence, the forebrain is a later developing structure for teens which makes good research very important. Teens will generally be exposed to and use alcohol first. Run the same tests for alcohol.

    To ignore the anecdotal observations of the past 40-50 years of pot users (and families) would be a waste.

    • what would the purpose for all that unecessary study be (that hasn’t already been determined by anybody who’s got a few neurons firing in their head)? That is, what do you personally hope to read from it, and how will it specifically affect you? Would you use third-party anecdotal evidence, like this 50 person peanut study, to lend support mandating forceful control of marijuana and alcohol use? (law boils down to physical force)

      It’s so much ado about nothing, I can’t help but make ado of its lack of ado. It’s THE INSANITY that information and the internet has become. It builds to peaks of hyper-awareness in my own mind, and I can’t be alone in that observation. Good night, muchachos y muchachas.

    • I don’t consider the sample small for the nature of the research. If the findings are genuine, this is a serious issue. However, if you want to lob criticism, point out that the paper is being presented at a conference, not in a peer-reviewed journal.

      Just the same, anecdotal observations about complex issues are the worst sort of untrustworthy evidence. They can be a starting point for investigation to see if there’s anything to them, but the last thing I would trust is folk wisdom unsupported by objective analysis.

  • You are rightly hearing skepticism AJ, but without the study I cannot make specific comments about design flaws in the study other than noting the small sampling as others have pointed out, that is why I asked for a link for more than an abstract. My skeptical bias wants to look at how much was smoked and what was confounded for in the study. I want to know what part of the brain changed in earlier users, and when the last use of pot occured by the subjects. (I feel like there is a “hang-over-ish” period for a short time after ceasing daily use.) I would hope that it is obvious to all that I am a blog opinionist, and not a scientist.

    My call is for good science. Repeated well designed studies. Yours too, I am sure.

    And I think that research in this area is very important, and should be duplicated with long term alchoholic users, since it is the most commonly abused recreational substance.
    From the little that I remember of reading the book Emotional Intelligence, the forebrain is a later developing structure for teens which makes good research very important. Teens will generally be exposed to and use alcohol first. Run the same tests for alcohol.

    To ignore the anecdotal observations of the past 40-50 years of pot users (and families) would be a waste.

    • what would the purpose for all that unecessary study be (that hasn’t already been determined by anybody who’s got a few neurons firing in their head)? That is, what do you personally hope to read from it, and how will it specifically affect you? Would you use third-party anecdotal evidence, like this 50 person peanut study, to lend support mandating forceful control of marijuana and alcohol use? (law boils down to physical force)

      It’s so much ado about nothing, I can’t help but make ado of its lack of ado. It’s THE INSANITY that information and the internet has become. It builds to peaks of hyper-awareness in my own mind, and I can’t be alone in that observation. Good night, muchachos y muchachas.

    • I don’t consider the sample small for the nature of the research. If the findings are genuine, this is a serious issue. However, if you want to lob criticism, point out that the paper is being presented at a conference, not in a peer-reviewed journal.

      Just the same, anecdotal observations about complex issues are the worst sort of untrustworthy evidence. They can be a starting point for investigation to see if there’s anything to them, but the last thing I would trust is folk wisdom unsupported by objective analysis.

  • Curious.
    Nope.

    I love the subject of brain science and want to know how pot affects the brain from the limited windows that science affords… as well as enjoy it.
    I will drop my contributions to the much a doo.

  • Curious.
    Nope.

    I love the subject of brain science and want to know how pot affects the brain from the limited windows that science affords… as well as enjoy it.
    I will drop my contributions to the much a doo.

  • AJ sez:

    >The nice thing about the scientific method is, additional research by other scientists will either >corroborate or discredit these findings.

    Things don’t look good for the scientific method when it comes to the near future of cannabis policy in the US. Looks like Michele Leonhart will sail through the confirmation process. This Bush-era holdover has persecuted medical marijuana providers despite the Obama administration’s memo.

    On the research end, according to the Drug War Chronicle,

    “Leonhart is also drawing fire from advocates for overturning a DEA administrative law judge’s decision to issue a license to UMass-Amherst Professor Lyle Craker to grow marijuana for FDA-approved research. That decision left intact the federal government’s monopoly on the cultivation of marijuana for research purposes. It is grown only at the University of Mississippi.”

    Cannabis is the only psychoactive drug that is so strictly controlled. They grow some schwaaa in Miss and that’s what you have to use. If we decide to let you. If you are not trying to show benefits of cannabis. Apparently it is a very low CBD strain, so never mind investigating how that kind of cannabinoid may impact our bodies.

  • AJ sez:

    >The nice thing about the scientific method is, additional research by other scientists will either >corroborate or discredit these findings.

    Things don’t look good for the scientific method when it comes to the near future of cannabis policy in the US. Looks like Michele Leonhart will sail through the confirmation process. This Bush-era holdover has persecuted medical marijuana providers despite the Obama administration’s memo.

    On the research end, according to the Drug War Chronicle,

    “Leonhart is also drawing fire from advocates for overturning a DEA administrative law judge’s decision to issue a license to UMass-Amherst Professor Lyle Craker to grow marijuana for FDA-approved research. That decision left intact the federal government’s monopoly on the cultivation of marijuana for research purposes. It is grown only at the University of Mississippi.”

    Cannabis is the only psychoactive drug that is so strictly controlled. They grow some schwaaa in Miss and that’s what you have to use. If we decide to let you. If you are not trying to show benefits of cannabis. Apparently it is a very low CBD strain, so never mind investigating how that kind of cannabinoid may impact our bodies.

  • Here’s the type of peanut studies you won’t see spread around the media…

    http://cannacentral.com/news/driving-high-on-marijuana-not-an-impairment-study-says/

    just to be a smartass, I’m a bet everybody who was quick to defend the one test will detest the other test.

  • Here’s the type of peanut studies you won’t see spread around the media…

    http://cannacentral.com/news/driving-high-on-marijuana-not-an-impairment-study-says/

    just to be a smartass, I’m a bet everybody who was quick to defend the one test will detest the other test.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *