Jump to content



Photo

Chronic Cannabis Use May Cause Brain Inflammation

coordination learning immune cells cerebellum delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol microglial cell activation

  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

#31 Growled

Growled

    Neowinian Senior

  • 41,508 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 08
  • Location: USA

Posted 26 June 2013 - 14:58

^ Even sex ? :p

Yes. I know from experience too. :p




#32 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Badass Viking

  • 20,217 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway

Posted 26 June 2013 - 15:10

You should try getting out more often. Steve Jobs, Carl Sagan, Bill Gates, Sergey Brin, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Richard Branson, ect. all bright pot smoking people. 


 

 

 

Like everything else in life, moderation is key.

 

Pot smokers is not the same as "tried pot a few times in school"



#33 compl3x

compl3x

    ✮؛✮؛✮؛✮؛✮

  • 7,226 posts
  • Joined: 06-December 09
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
  • OS: Windows 7
  • Phone: Samsung Galaxy S4

Posted 27 June 2013 - 03:32

Pot smokers is not the same as "tried pot a few times in school"

 
I am fairly sure Carl Sagan was a recreational pot smoker. I cannot speak for the rest.
 
 
 

you know the first part doesn't need proof. its not something you have to go far and wide to get. if you haven't been living under a rock you would have heard and seen such examples already. it takes a few seconds to get your proof. asking for proof for something a little obscure is totally different.

 

 
 You said "animals testing means absolutely nothing". That is absolutely false. I then invited you to do and read why animals are used for testing. If you did you would see why your "absolutely nothing" statement was false.
 
 

nobody is disputing why mice are used for testing.


 
You said "Animal testing means absolutely nothing". If you think it means nothing than you obviously think testing on animals has no benefit. This is demonstrably false. You then said "if you believe mice and humans match 100% gene expression patterns then you are out to lunch" - a claim I never made - but one which made it seem as if you beleiuved because we don't match identically no results from an animal study is valid. Again, false.
 
 

I said this study means nothing in that because it hasn't been tested on humans,it may or may not apply to us, NOT because its a waste of time for testing or scientific purposes. I never said such a thing,and this is what you're accusing me of,which isn't true. I just said we don't match up 100% to these animals we are testing,so test results shouldn't be taken as truth until we test on ourselves.
 
People are going to read this and to them it will become a fact that will get spread around. I don't even smoke marijuana so its not like im using illogical points to defend something I like.


 
 
The kind of testing they would be doing on mice wouldn't be ethical to do on humans. They're exposing them to lots of the active ingredient of the drug then administering other drugs to counter the effect. After the experiment they no doubt dissect the animals and study them. In this case they would study the brain of the animal.
 
Mice are used because their genetics and biology are very close to humans and we can easily replicate conditions that effect us in mice and then conduct tests on them. If you read the title it says "may cause brain inflammation" -- because of our shared genes and biology something that has an effect on mice may effect us in the same way -- No one is being asked to take this as wholesale truth. If people on the internet or the idiot mainstream media misinterpret the findings and spread nonsense, which I entirely agree with you that they sometimes do, it has no bearing on the validity of the study.



#34 panacea

panacea

    technical cannibal

  • 5,369 posts
  • Joined: 20-November 01
  • OS: win 7
  • Phone: nexus 5

Posted 27 June 2013 - 03:49

Depending on the country, there will be a different number of pot smokers.    I have seen people who make $1000000+  smoke pot on regular basis.

Entrepreneurs, lawyers, doctors, etc.   Extremely bright people.    

 

 

It can dumb you down, true, but everyone is affected.  I have also seen tons of people overdo it and loose all the motivation and act dumb, but those people were not much motivated and/or smart in the first place!

 

comparing to the damage alcohol does, weed is much safer.  yet a lot of smart successful people drink!



#35 vcfan

vcfan

    POP POP RET

  • 4,519 posts
  • Joined: 12-June 11

Posted 27 June 2013 - 04:33

 
 You said "animals testing means absolutely nothing". That is absolutely false. I then invited you to do and read why animals are used for testing. If you did you would see why your "absolutely nothing" statement was false.
 
 

You said "Animal testing means absolutely nothing". If you think it means nothing than you obviously think testing on animals has no benefit. This is demonstrably false. You then said "if you believe mice and humans match 100% gene expression patterns then you are out to lunch" - a claim I never made - but one which made it seem as if you beleiuved because we don't match identically no results from an animal study is valid. Again, false.
 
 

The kind of testing they would be doing on mice wouldn't be ethical to do on humans. They're exposing them to lots of the active ingredient of the drug then administering other drugs to counter the effect. After the experiment they no doubt dissect the animals and study them. In this case they would study the brain of the animal.
 
Mice are used because their genetics and biology are very close to humans and we can easily replicate conditions that effect us in mice and then conduct tests on them. If you read the title it says "may cause brain inflammation" -- because of our shared genes and biology something that has an effect on mice may effect us in the same way -- No one is being asked to take this as wholesale truth. If people on the internet or the idiot mainstream media misinterpret the findings and spread nonsense, which I entirely agree with you that they sometimes do, it has no bearing on the validity of the study.

 

I explained what I meant. it means nothing as in, this isn't tested and proven to happen to humans,as things in the past that worked on animals didn't translate to humans. I agreed that they can gain insight testing on animals, but it still doesn't give us definitie answers because these animals are not humans,and there are differences in how some of their cells function. I do realize no one is asked to take this as a wholesale truth, but how many times have you read articles in magazines and online about how scientists cured cancer, or HIV, or diabetes?  that's my beef, not the actual testing on animals. 



#36 compl3x

compl3x

    ✮؛✮؛✮؛✮؛✮

  • 7,226 posts
  • Joined: 06-December 09
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
  • OS: Windows 7
  • Phone: Samsung Galaxy S4

Posted 27 June 2013 - 05:25

I explained what I meant. it means nothing as in, this isn't tested and proven to happen to humans,as things in the past that worked on animals didn't translate to humans. I agreed that they can gain insight testing on animals, but it still doesn't give us definitie answers because these animals are not humans,and there are differences in how some of their cells function. I do realize no one is asked to take this as a wholesale truth, but how many times have you read articles in magazines and online about how scientists cured cancer, or HIV, or diabetes?  that's my beef, not the actual testing on animals. 

 

Actually never. I have seen articles about shrinking tumors and increasing resistance but I have never read articles saying "Scientists cure cancer in rats".

 

Even if they do exist that would be magazines exaggerating breakthroughs to sell magazines or sites creating click-bait for page views.



#37 Davo

Davo

    Neowinian

  • 1,381 posts
  • Joined: 15-September 06

Posted 27 June 2013 - 05:36

Arnold Schwarzenegger..all bright pot smoking people. 

Do tell



#38 FloatingFatMan

FloatingFatMan

    Resident Fat Dude

  • 14,309 posts
  • Joined: 23-August 04
  • Location: UK

Posted 27 June 2013 - 13:00

Actually never. I have seen articles about shrinking tumors and increasing resistance but I have never read articles saying "Scientists cure cancer in rats".

 

Even if they do exist that would be magazines exaggerating breakthroughs to sell magazines or sites creating click-bait for page views.

 

Oh it happens, but only in tabloids.  And tbh, if someone believes anything they read in a tabloid, they probably ARE whacked out on something causing them brain inflammation! :p



#39 firey

firey

    F͎̗͉͎͈͑͡ȉ͎̣̐́ṙ͖̺͕͙̓̌è̤̞͉̟̲͇̍̍̾̓ͥͅy͓̍̎̌̏̒

  • 7,988 posts
  • Joined: 30-October 05
  • Location: Ontario, Canada
  • OS: Windows 7
  • Phone: Android (4.1.2)

Posted 27 June 2013 - 13:26

comparing to the damage alcohol does, weed is much safer.  yet a lot of smart successful people drink!

 

My thoughts exactly





Click here to login or here to register to remove this ad, it's free!