Effects on the Brain

Scientists have learned a great deal about how THC acts in the brain to
produce its many effects. When someone smokes marijuana, THC rapidly passes
from the lungs into the bloodstream, which carries the chemical to organs
throughout the body, including the brain.

In the brain, THC connects to specific sites called cannabinoid receptors on
nerve cells and influences the activity of those cells. Some brain areas
have many cannabinoid receptors; others have few or none. Many cannabinoid
receptors are found in the parts of the brain that influence pleasure,
memory, thought, concentration, sensory and time perception, and coordinated
movement(5).

The short-term effects of marijuana can include problems with memory and
learning; distorted perception; difficulty in thinking and problem solving;
loss of coordination; and increased heart rate. Research findings for
long-term marijuana use indicate some changes in the brain similar to those
seen after long-term use of other major drugs of abuse. For example,
cannabinoid (THC or synthetic forms of THC) withdrawal in chronically
exposed animals leads to an increase in the activation of the
stress-response system(6) and changes in the activity of nerve cells
containing dopamine(7). Dopamine neurons are involved in the regulation of
motivation and reward, and are directly or indirectly affected by all drugs
of abuse.


Effects on the Heart

One study has indicated that a user's risk of heart attack more than
quadruples in the first hour after smoking marijuana(8). The researchers
suggest that such an effect might occur from marijuana's effects on blood
pressure and heart rate and reduced oxygen-carrying capacity of blood.


Effects on the Lungs

A study of 450 individuals found that people who smoke marijuana frequently
but do not smoke tobacco have more health problems and miss more days of
work than nonsmokers(9). Many of the extra sick days among the marijuana
smokers in the study were for respiratory illnesses.

Even infrequent use can cause burning and stinging of the mouth and throat,
often accompanied by a heavy cough. Someone who smokes marijuana regularly
may have many of the same respiratory problems that tobacco smokers do, such
as daily cough and phlegm production, more frequent acute chest illness, a
heightened risk of lung infections, and a greater tendency to obstructed
airways(10). Smoking marijuana increases the likelihood of developing cancer
of the head or neck, and the more marijuana smoked the greater the
increase(11). A study comparing 173 cancer patients and 176 healthy
individuals produced strong evidence that marijuana smoking doubled or
tripled the risk of these cancers.

Marijuana use also has the potential to promote cancer of the lungs and
other parts of the respiratory tract because it contains irritants and
carcinogens(12, 13). In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50 to 70 percent more
carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke(14). It also produces high
levels of an enzyme that converts certain hydrocarbons into their
carcinogenic form-levels that may accelerate the changes that ultimately
produce malignant cells(15). Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and
hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which increases the lungs'
exposure to carcinogenic smoke. These facts suggest that, puff for puff,
smoking marijuana may increase the risk of cancer more than smoking tobacco.


Other Health Effects

Some of marijuana's adverse health effects may occur because THC impairs the
immune system's ability to fight off infectious diseases and cancer. In
laboratory experiments that exposed animal and human cells to THC or other
marijuana ingredients, the normal disease-preventing reactions of many of
the key types of immune cells were inhibited(16). In other studies, mice
exposed to THC or related substances were more likely than unexposed mice to
develop bacterial infections and tumors(17, 18).


Effects of Heavy Marijuana Use on Learning and Social Behavior

Depression(19), anxiety(20), and personality disturbances(21) have been
associated with marijuana use. Research clearly demonstrates that marijuana
has potential to cause problems in daily life or make a person's existing
problems worse. Because marijuana compromises the ability to learn and
remember information, the more a person uses marijuana the more he or she is
likely to fall behind in accumulating intellectual, job, or social skills.
Moreover, research has shown that marijuana's adverse impact on memory and
learning can last for days or weeks after the acute effects of the drug wear
off(22, 23).

Students who smoke marijuana get lower grades and are less likely to
graduate from high school, compared with their non-smoking peers(24, 25, 26,
27). A study of 129 college students found that, for heavy users of
marijuana (those who smoked the drug at least 27 of the preceding 30 days),
critical skills related to attention, memory, and learning were
significantly impaired even after they had not used the drug for at least 24
hours(28). The heavy marijuana users in the study had more trouble
sustaining and shifting their attention and in registering, organizing, and
using information than did the study participants who had used marijuana no
more than 3 of the previous 30 days. As a result, someone who smokes
marijuana every day may be functioning at a reduced intellectual level all
of the time.

More recently, the same researchers showed that the ability of a group of
long-term heavy marijuana users to recall words from a list remained
impaired for a week after quitting, but returned to normal within 4
weeks(29). Thus, it is possible that some cognitive abilities may be
restored in individuals who quit smoking marijuana, even after long-term
heavy use.

Workers who smoke marijuana are more likely than their coworkers to have
problems on the job. Several studies associate workers' marijuana smoking
with increased absences, tardiness, accidents, workers' compensation claims,
and job turnover. A study of municipal workers found that those who used
marijuana on or off the job reported more "withdrawal behaviors"-such as
leaving work without permission, daydreaming, spending work time on personal
matters, and shirking tasks-that adversely affect productivity and
morale(30). In another study, marijuana users reported that use of the drug
impaired several important measures of life achievement including cognitive
abilities, career status, social life, and physical and mental health(31).


Effects on Pregnancy

Research has shown that babies born to women who used marijuana during their
pregnancies display altered responses to visual stimuli, increased
tremulousness, and a high-pitched cry, which may indicate neurological
problems in development(32). During infancy and preschool years,
marijuana-exposed children have been observed to have more behavioral
problems than unexposed children and poorer performance on tasks of visual
perception, language comprehension, sustained attention, and memory(33, 34).
In school, these children are more likely to exhibit deficits in
decision-making skills, memory, and the ability to remain attentive(35, 36,
37).


Addictive Potential

Long-term marijuana use can lead to addiction for some people; that is, they
use the drug compulsively even though it interferes with family, school,
work, and recreational activities. Drug craving and withdrawal symptoms can
make it hard for long-term marijuana smokers to stop using the drug. People
trying to quit report irritability, sleeplessness, and anxiety(38). They
also display increased aggression on psychological tests, peaking
approximately one week after the last use of the drug(39).


Genetic Vulnerability

Scientists have found that whether an individual has positive or negative
sensations after smoking marijuana can be influenced by heredity. A 1997
study demonstrated that identical male twins were more likely than
non-identical male twins to report similar responses to marijuana use,
indicating a genetic basis for their response to the drug(40). (Identical
twins share all of their genes.)

It also was discovered that the twins' shared or family environment before
age 18 had no detectable influence on their response to marijuana. Certain
environmental factors, however, such as the availability of marijuana,
expectations about how the drug would affect them, the influence of friends
and social contacts, and other factors that differentiate experiences of
identical twins were found to have an important effect.

Gosh, I almost forgot the references. Peer-reviewed research mostly.I am
sure they would entertain your learned queries. And to think I dug these up
in less than three minutes. Where is your enquiring mind Ken? Do you read
stuff, or just proclaim, like Virt?


1 NSDUH (formerly known as the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse) is
an annual survey conducted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration. Copies of the latest survey are available from the National
Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information at 1-800-729-6686.

2 These data are from the 2003 Monitoring the Future Survey, funded by the
National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, DHHS, and
conducted by the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research. The
survey has tracked 12th-graders' illicit drug use and related attitudes
since 1975; in 1991, 8th- and 10th-graders were added to the study. The
latest data are online at www.drugabuse.gov.

3 These data are from the 2003 Monitoring the Future Survey.

4 These data are from the annual Drug Abuse Warning Network, funded by the
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, DHHS. The survey
provides information about emergency department visits that are induced by
or related to the use of an illicit drug or the nonmedical use of a legal
drug. The latest data (2002) are available at 1-800-729-6686 or online at
www.samhsa.gov.

5 Herkenham M, Lynn A, Little MD, Johnson MR, et al: Cannabinoid receptor
localization in the brain. Proc Natl Acad Sci, USA 87:1932-1936, 1990.

6 Rodriguez de Fonseca F, et al: Activation of cortocotropin-releasing
factor in the limbic system during cannabinoid withdrawal. Science
276(5321):2050-2064, 1997.

7 Diana M, Melis M, Muntoni AL, et al: Mesolimbic dopaminergic decline after
cannabinoid withdrawal. Proc Natl Acad Sci 95:10269-10273, 1998.

8 Mittleman MA, Lewis RA, Maclure M, et al: Triggering myocardial infarction
by marijuana. Circulation 103:2805-2809, 2001.

9 Polen MR, Sidney S, Tekawa IS, et al: Health care use by frequent
marijuana smokers who do not smoke tobacco. West J Med 158:596-601, 1993.

10 Tashkin DP: Pulmonary complications of smoked substance abuse. West J Med
152:525-530, 1990.

11 Zhang ZF, Morgenstern H, Spitz MR, et al: Marijuana use and increased
risk of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Cancer Epidemiology,
Biomarkers & Prevention 6:1071-1078, 1999.

12 Ibid ref 10.

13 Sridhar KS, Raub WA, Weatherby, NL Jr, et al: Possible role of marijuana
smoking as a carcinogen in the development of lung cancer at a young age.
Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 26(3):285-288, 1994.

14 Hoffman D, Brunnemann KD, Gori GB, et al: On the carcinogenicity of
marijuana smoke. In: VC Runeckles, ed, Recent Advances in Phytochemistry.
New York. Plenum, 1975.

15 Cohen S: Adverse effects of marijuana: selected issues. Annals of the New
York Academy of Sciences 362:119-124, 1981.

16 Adams IB, Martin BR: Cannabis: pharmacology and toxicology in animals and
humans. Addiction 91:1585-1614, 1996.

17 Klein TW, Newton C, Friedman H: Resistance to Legionella pneumophila
suppressed by the marijuana component, tetrahydrocannabinol. J Infectious
Disease 169:1177-1179, 1994.

18 Zhu L, Stolina M, Sharma S, et al: Delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol inhibits
antitumor immunity by a CB2 receptor-mediated, cytokine-dependent pathway. J
Immunology, 2000, pp. 373-380.

19 Brook JS, et al: The effect of early marijuana use on later anxiety and
depressive symptoms. NYS Psychologist, January 2001, pp. 35-39.

20 Green BE, Ritter C: Marijuana use and depression. J Health Soc Behav
41(1):40-49, 2000.

21 Brook JS, Cohen P, Brook DW: Longitudinal study of co-occurring
psychiatric disorders and substance use. J Acad Child and Adolescent Psych
37:322-330, 1998.

22 Pope HG, Yurgelun-Todd D: The residual cognitive effects of heavy
marijuana use in college students. JAMA 272(7):521-527, 1996.

23 Block RI, Ghoneim MM: Effects of chronic marijuana use on human
cognition. Psychopharmacology 100(1-2):219-228, 1993.

24 Lynskey M, Hall W: The effects of adolescent cannabis use on educational
attainment: a review. Addiction 95(11):1621-1630, 2000.

25 Kandel DB, Davies M: High school students who use crack and other drugs.
Arch Gen Psychiatry 53(1):71-80, 1996.

26 Rob M, Reynolds I, Finlayson PF: Adolescent marijuana use: risk factors
and implications. Aust NZ J Psychiatry 24(1):45-56, 1990.

27 Brook JS, Balka EB, Whiteman M: The risks for late adolescence of early
adolescent marijuana use. Am J Public Health 89(10):1549-1554, 1999.

28 Ibid ref 22.

29 Pope, Gruber, Hudson, et al: Neuropsychological performance in long-term
cannabis users. Archives of General Psychiatry.

30 Lehman WE, Simpson DD: Employee substance abuse and on-the-job behaviors.
Journal of Applied Psychology 77(3):309-321, 1992.

31 Gruber, AJ, Pope HG, Hudson HI, Yurgelun-Todd D: Attributes of long-term
heavy cannabis users: A case control study. Psychological Medicine
33:1415-1422, 2003.

32 Lester, BM; Dreher, M: Effects of marijuana use during pregnancy on
newborn cry. Child Development 60:764-771, 1989.

33 Fried, PA: The Ottawa prenatal prospective study (OPPS): methodological
issues and findings-it's easy to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Life Sciences 56:2159-2168, 1995.

34 Fried, PA: Prenatal exposure to marihuana and tobacco during infancy,
early and middle childhood: effects and an attempt at synthesis. Arch
Toxicol Supp 17:233-60, 1995.

35 Ibid ref 33.

36 Ibid ref 34.

37 Cornelius MD, Taylor PM, Geva D, et al: Prenatal tobacco and marijuana
use among adolescents: effects on offspring gestational age, growth, and
morphology. Pediatrics 95:738-743, 1995.

38 Kouri EM, Pope HG, Lukas SE: Changes in aggressive behavior during
withdrawal from long-term marijuana use. Psychopharmacology 143:302-308,
1999.

39 Haney M, Ward AS, Comer SD, et al: Abstinence symptoms following smoked
marijuana in humans. Psychopharmacology 141:395-404, 1999.

40 Lyons MJ, et al: Addiction 92(4):409-417, 1997.

41 These data from the Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) 1992-2000: National
Admissions to Substance Abuse Treatment Services, November 2001, funded by
the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration, DHHS. The
latest data are available at 1-800-729-6686 or online at www.samhsa.gov.

42 Stephens RS, Roffman RA, Curtin L: Comparison of extended versus brief
treatments for marijuana use. J Consult Clin Psychol 68(5):898-908, 2000.

43 Budney AJ, Higgins ST, Radonovich KJ, et al: Adding voucher-based
incentives to coping skills and motivational enhancement improves outcomes
during treatment for marijuana dependence. J Consult Clin Psychol
68(6):1051-1061, 2000.

stuart wrote:
> Effects on the Brain
>
> Scientists have learned a great deal about how THC acts in the brain to
> produce its many effects. When someone smokes marijuana, THC rapidly passes
> from the lungs into the bloodstream, which carries the chemical to organs
> throughout the body, including the brain.
>
> In the brain, THC connects to specific sites called cannabinoid receptors on
> nerve cells and influences the activity of those cells. Some brain areas
> have many cannabinoid receptors; others have few or none. Many cannabinoid
> receptors are found in the parts of the brain that influence pleasure,
> memory, thought, concentration, sensory and time perception, and coordinated
> movement(5).
>
> The short-term effects of marijuana can include problems with memory and
> learning; distorted perception; difficulty in thinking and problem solving;
> loss of coordination; and increased heart rate. Research findings for
> long-term marijuana use indicate some changes in the brain similar to those
> seen after long-term use of other major drugs of abuse. For example,
> cannabinoid (THC or synthetic forms of THC) withdrawal in chronically
> exposed animals leads to an increase in the activation of the
> stress-response system(6) and changes in the activity of nerve cells
> containing dopamine(7). Dopamine neurons are involved in the regulation of
> motivation and reward, and are directly or indirectly affected by all drugs
> of abuse.
>
>
> Effects on the Heart
>
> One study has indicated that a user's risk of heart attack more than
> quadruples in the first hour after smoking marijuana(8). The researchers
> suggest that such an effect might occur from marijuana's effects on blood
> pressure and heart rate and reduced oxygen-carrying capacity of blood.
>
>
> Effects on the Lungs
>
> A study of 450 individuals found that people who smoke marijuana frequently
> but do not smoke tobacco have more health problems and miss more days of
> work than nonsmokers(9). Many of the extra sick days among the marijuana
> smokers in the study were for respiratory illnesses.
>
> Even infrequent use can cause burning and stinging of the mouth and throat,
> often accompanied by a heavy cough. Someone who smokes marijuana regularly
> may have many of the same respiratory problems that tobacco smokers do, such
> as daily cough and phlegm production, more frequent acute chest illness, a
> heightened risk of lung infections, and a greater tendency to obstructed
> airways(10). Smoking marijuana increases the likelihood of developing cancer
> of the head or neck, and the more marijuana smoked the greater the
> increase(11). A study comparing 173 cancer patients and 176 healthy
> individuals produced strong evidence that marijuana smoking doubled or
> tripled the risk of these cancers.
>
> Marijuana use also has the potential to promote cancer of the lungs and
> other parts of the respiratory tract because it contains irritants and
> carcinogens(12, 13). In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50 to 70 percent more
> carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke(14). It also produces high
> levels of an enzyme that converts certain hydrocarbons into their
> carcinogenic form-levels that may accelerate the changes that ultimately
> produce malignant cells(15). Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and
> hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which increases the lungs'
> exposure to carcinogenic smoke. These facts suggest that, puff for puff,
> smoking marijuana may increase the risk of cancer more than smoking tobacco.
>
>
> Other Health Effects
>
> Some of marijuana's adverse health effects may occur because THC impairs the
> immune system's ability to fight off infectious diseases and cancer. In
> laboratory experiments that exposed animal and human cells to THC or other
> marijuana ingredients, the normal disease-preventing reactions of many of
> the key types of immune cells were inhibited(16). In other studies, mice
> exposed to THC or related substances were more likely than unexposed mice to
> develop bacterial infections and tumors(17, 18).
>
>
> Effects of Heavy Marijuana Use on Learning and Social Behavior
>
> Depression(19), anxiety(20), and personality disturbances(21) have been
> associated with marijuana use. Research clearly demonstrates that marijuana
> has potential to cause problems in daily life or make a person's existing
> problems worse. Because marijuana compromises the ability to learn and
> remember information, the more a person uses marijuana the more he or she is
> likely to fall behind in accumulating intellectual, job, or social skills.
> Moreover, research has shown that marijuana's adverse impact on memory and
> learning can last for days or weeks after the acute effects of the drug wear
> off(22, 23).
>
> Students who smoke marijuana get lower grades and are less likely to
> graduate from high school, compared with their non-smoking peers(24, 25, 26,
> 27). A study of 129 college students found that, for heavy users of
> marijuana (those who smoked the drug at least 27 of the preceding 30 days),
> critical skills related to attention, memory, and learning were
> significantly impaired even after they had not used the drug for at least 24
> hours(28). The heavy marijuana users in the study had more trouble
> sustaining and shifting their attention and in registering, organizing, and
> using information than did the study participants who had used marijuana no
> more than 3 of the previous 30 days. As a result, someone who smokes
> marijuana every day may be functioning at a reduced intellectual level all
> of the time.
>
> More recently, the same researchers showed that the ability of a group of
> long-term heavy marijuana users to recall words from a list remained
> impaired for a week after quitting, but returned to normal within 4
> weeks(29). Thus, it is possible that some cognitive abilities may be
> restored in individuals who quit smoking marijuana, even after long-term
> heavy use.
>
> Workers who smoke marijuana are more likely than their coworkers to have
> problems on the job. Several studies associate workers' marijuana smoking
> with increased absences, tardiness, accidents, workers' compensation claims,
> and job turnover. A study of municipal workers found that those who used
> marijuana on or off the job reported more "withdrawal behaviors"-such as
> leaving work without permission, daydreaming, spending work time on personal
> matters, and shirking tasks-that adversely affect productivity and
> morale(30). In another study, marijuana users reported that use of the drug
> impaired several important measures of life achievement including cognitive
> abilities, career status, social life, and physical and mental health(31).
>
>
> Effects on Pregnancy
>
> Research has shown that babies born to women who used marijuana during their
> pregnancies display altered responses to visual stimuli, increased
> tremulousness, and a high-pitched cry, which may indicate neurological
> problems in development(32). During infancy and preschool years,
> marijuana-exposed children have been observed to have more behavioral
> problems than unexposed children and poorer performance on tasks of visual
> perception, language comprehension, sustained attention, and memory(33, 34).
> In school, these children are more likely to exhibit deficits in
> decision-making skills, memory, and the ability to remain attentive(35, 36,
> 37).
>
>
> Addictive Potential
>
> Long-term marijuana use can lead to addiction for some people; that is, they
> use the drug compulsively even though it interferes with family, school,
> work, and recreational activities. Drug craving and withdrawal symptoms can
> make it hard for long-term marijuana smokers to stop using the drug. People
> trying to quit report irritability, sleeplessness, and anxiety(38). They
> also display increased aggression on psychological tests, peaking
> approximately one week after the last use of the drug(39).
>
>
> Genetic Vulnerability
>
> Scientists have found that whether an individual has positive or negative
> sensations after smoking marijuana can be influenced by heredity. A 1997
> study demonstrated that identical male twins were more likely than
> non-identical male twins to report similar responses to marijuana use,
> indicating a genetic basis for their response to the drug(40). (Identical
> twins share all of their genes.)
>
> It also was discovered that the twins' shared or family environment before
> age 18 had no detectable influence on their response to marijuana. Certain
> environmental factors, however, such as the availability of marijuana,
> expectations about how the drug would affect them, the influence of friends
> and social contacts, and other factors that differentiate experiences of
> identical twins were found to have an important effect.
>
>
>
>
i get the hint dude. I never advocated the stuff
anyway.

Bryan <bekberg@charter.net> wrote in message
news:btUdf.2659$mY4.377@fe06.lga...
>> >
> i get the hint dude. I never advocated the stuff
> anyway.

Hey no matter. I quit it 15 years ago..

stuart wrote:

>Gosh, I almost forgot the references. Peer-reviewed research mostly.I am
>sure they would entertain your learned queries. And to think I dug these up
>in less than three minutes. Where is your enquiring mind Ken? Do you read
>stuff, or just proclaim, like Virt?
>
>
Stuart,

I haven't read all that you posted. I don't want to spend all night
here but the fact that marijuana smoke is bad for the lungs is hardly
clever scientific research pointing out something that is
counter-intuitive. The idea that marijuana contains carcinogens is
hardly surprising either. The most popular vegetables considered a part
of a healthy diet _also_ contain carcinogens. If you were to read a
study on any of them, you might be afraid to ever eat spinach again.

I don't know of anyone who seriously states that marijuana has no
negative effects. However, mixing the effects of marijuana itself and
the effects of marijuana being illegal ("laced" product, smoked rather
than "vaporized" or baked, used by those most likely to have problems
under _any_ circumstances, etc.) and then writing as if _anything_ is
100% safe (asprin kills 2,000 people a year, I hear. Marijuana kills
none.) is simply something akin to yellow journalism and most certainly
is not good science.

Household surveys conducted to _prove_ harm rather than to simply gather
information is useless. I can remember years ago reading of a study
which found that marijuana smokers were the _best_ students with the
best grades in their schools. In my day, it was the students at the Ivy
League colleges that smokes marijuana. Of course, with the
anti-marijuana campaign of the last few decades, this may no longer be
so. (No, I'm not suggesting marijuana makes anyone smarter.) But either
way, so what?

There is a lot of money used to fund studies that will prove marijuana
harmful. If the same effort was put into proving brussel sprouts
carcinogenic, we'd end up with the same crap. Good science doesn't
prove what a scientist already knows, nor does it sensationalize the
obvious. It is capable of proving what the scientist already knows is
wrong. The government seems to have the uncanny ability to pretty much
stick to only funding studies with politicallly acceptable results.
Scientists in government employ seem to have an uncanny ability to
interpret results in accordance with prevailing political winds.

There are plenty of studies that show the beneficial effects of
intercessory prayer. Of course, rarely is it mentioned that, aside from
the studies being poorly designed specifically to "prove" such a point,
little or nothing is said of all the studies in which such points are
overwhelmingly proved invalid.

While I am far from convinced of any overwhelming harm caused by
marijuana and have little interest in investing the weeks to actually
read the studies _and_ what other scientists have to say about the
particular studies, I'd really like to see you post some
_methodologically sound_ studies showning AA effective vs. no treatment
or any other treatment. Now that is something I would not mind spending
time on.

Of course, I'm not holding my breath. Such has never been produced
yet. This is not to say you can't quote some nonsense from the NIAAA or
NCADD that claims such, but I mean actual studies.

Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com

>
>1 NSDUH (formerly known as the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse) is
>an annual survey conducted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
>Administration. Copies of the latest survey are available from the National
>Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information at 1-800-729-6686.
>
>2 These data are from the 2003 Monitoring the Future Survey, funded by the
>National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, DHHS, and
>conducted by the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research. The
>survey has tracked 12th-graders' illicit drug use and related attitudes
>since 1975; in 1991, 8th- and 10th-graders were added to the study. The
>latest data are online at www.drugabuse.gov.
>
>3 These data are from the 2003 Monitoring the Future Survey.
>
>4 These data are from the annual Drug Abuse Warning Network, funded by the
>Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, DHHS. The survey
>provides information about emergency department visits that are induced by
>or related to the use of an illicit drug or the nonmedical use of a legal
>drug. The latest data (2002) are available at 1-800-729-6686 or online at
>www.samhsa.gov.
>
>5 Herkenham M, Lynn A, Little MD, Johnson MR, et al: Cannabinoid receptor
>localization in the brain. Proc Natl Acad Sci, USA 87:1932-1936, 1990.
>
>6 Rodriguez de Fonseca F, et al: Activation of cortocotropin-releasing
>factor in the limbic system during cannabinoid withdrawal. Science
>276(5321):2050-2064, 1997.
>
>7 Diana M, Melis M, Muntoni AL, et al: Mesolimbic dopaminergic decline after
>cannabinoid withdrawal. Proc Natl Acad Sci 95:10269-10273, 1998.
>
>8 Mittleman MA, Lewis RA, Maclure M, et al: Triggering myocardial infarction
>by marijuana. Circulation 103:2805-2809, 2001.
>
>9 Polen MR, Sidney S, Tekawa IS, et al: Health care use by frequent
>marijuana smokers who do not smoke tobacco. West J Med 158:596-601, 1993.
>
>10 Tashkin DP: Pulmonary complications of smoked substance abuse. West J Med
>152:525-530, 1990.
>
>11 Zhang ZF, Morgenstern H, Spitz MR, et al: Marijuana use and increased
>risk of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Cancer Epidemiology,
>Biomarkers & Prevention 6:1071-1078, 1999.
>
>12 Ibid ref 10.
>
>13 Sridhar KS, Raub WA, Weatherby, NL Jr, et al: Possible role of marijuana
>smoking as a carcinogen in the development of lung cancer at a young age.
>Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 26(3):285-288, 1994.
>
>14 Hoffman D, Brunnemann KD, Gori GB, et al: On the carcinogenicity of
>marijuana smoke. In: VC Runeckles, ed, Recent Advances in Phytochemistry.
>New York. Plenum, 1975.
>
>15 Cohen S: Adverse effects of marijuana: selected issues. Annals of the New
>York Academy of Sciences 362:119-124, 1981.
>
>16 Adams IB, Martin BR: Cannabis: pharmacology and toxicology in animals and
>humans. Addiction 91:1585-1614, 1996.
>
>17 Klein TW, Newton C, Friedman H: Resistance to Legionella pneumophila
>suppressed by the marijuana component, tetrahydrocannabinol. J Infectious
>Disease 169:1177-1179, 1994.
>
>18 Zhu L, Stolina M, Sharma S, et al: Delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol inhibits
>antitumor immunity by a CB2 receptor-mediated, cytokine-dependent pathway. J
>Immunology, 2000, pp. 373-380.
>
>19 Brook JS, et al: The effect of early marijuana use on later anxiety and
>depressive symptoms. NYS Psychologist, January 2001, pp. 35-39.
>
>20 Green BE, Ritter C: Marijuana use and depression. J Health Soc Behav
>41(1):40-49, 2000.
>
>21 Brook JS, Cohen P, Brook DW: Longitudinal study of co-occurring
>psychiatric disorders and substance use. J Acad Child and Adolescent Psych
>37:322-330, 1998.
>
>22 Pope HG, Yurgelun-Todd D: The residual cognitive effects of heavy
>marijuana use in college students. JAMA 272(7):521-527, 1996.
>
>23 Block RI, Ghoneim MM: Effects of chronic marijuana use on human
>cognition. Psychopharmacology 100(1-2):219-228, 1993.
>
>24 Lynskey M, Hall W: The effects of adolescent cannabis use on educational
>attainment: a review. Addiction 95(11):1621-1630, 2000.
>
>25 Kandel DB, Davies M: High school students who use crack and other drugs.
>Arch Gen Psychiatry 53(1):71-80, 1996.
>
>26 Rob M, Reynolds I, Finlayson PF: Adolescent marijuana use: risk factors
>and implications. Aust NZ J Psychiatry 24(1):45-56, 1990.
>
>27 Brook JS, Balka EB, Whiteman M: The risks for late adolescence of early
>adolescent marijuana use. Am J Public Health 89(10):1549-1554, 1999.
>
>28 Ibid ref 22.
>
>29 Pope, Gruber, Hudson, et al: Neuropsychological performance in long-term
>cannabis users. Archives of General Psychiatry.
>
>30 Lehman WE, Simpson DD: Employee substance abuse and on-the-job behaviors.
>Journal of Applied Psychology 77(3):309-321, 1992.
>
>31 Gruber, AJ, Pope HG, Hudson HI, Yurgelun-Todd D: Attributes of long-term
>heavy cannabis users: A case control study. Psychological Medicine
>33:1415-1422, 2003.
>
>32 Lester, BM; Dreher, M: Effects of marijuana use during pregnancy on
>newborn cry. Child Development 60:764-771, 1989.
>
>33 Fried, PA: The Ottawa prenatal prospective study (OPPS): methodological
>issues and findings-it's easy to throw the baby out with the bath water.
>Life Sciences 56:2159-2168, 1995.
>
>34 Fried, PA: Prenatal exposure to marihuana and tobacco during infancy,
>early and middle childhood: effects and an attempt at synthesis. Arch
>Toxicol Supp 17:233-60, 1995.
>
>35 Ibid ref 33.
>
>36 Ibid ref 34.
>
>37 Cornelius MD, Taylor PM, Geva D, et al: Prenatal tobacco and marijuana
>use among adolescents: effects on offspring gestational age, growth, and
>morphology. Pediatrics 95:738-743, 1995.
>
>38 Kouri EM, Pope HG, Lukas SE: Changes in aggressive behavior during
>withdrawal from long-term marijuana use. Psychopharmacology 143:302-308,
>1999.
>
>39 Haney M, Ward AS, Comer SD, et al: Abstinence symptoms following smoked
>marijuana in humans. Psychopharmacology 141:395-404, 1999.
>
>40 Lyons MJ, et al: Addiction 92(4):409-417, 1997.
>
>41 These data from the Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) 1992-2000: National
>Admissions to Substance Abuse Treatment Services, November 2001, funded by
>the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration, DHHS. The
>latest data are available at 1-800-729-6686 or online at www.samhsa.gov.
>
>42 Stephens RS, Roffman RA, Curtin L: Comparison of extended versus brief
>treatments for marijuana use. J Consult Clin Psychol 68(5):898-908, 2000.
>
>43 Budney AJ, Higgins ST, Radonovich KJ, et al: Adding voucher-based
>incentives to coping skills and motivational enhancement improves outcomes
>during treatment for marijuana dependence. J Consult Clin Psychol
>68(6):1051-1061, 2000.
>
>
>
>

"stuart" <fred@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:kjUdf.122674$yS6.109529@clgrps12...
>
>
> Gosh, I almost forgot the references. Peer-reviewed research
> mostly.I am
> sure they would entertain your learned queries. And to think I dug
> these up
> in less than three minutes. Where is your enquiring mind Ken? Do
> you read
> stuff, or just proclaim, like Virt?
>

Stuart, given your past proclamations, it's a sign of progress you
brought that proclaiming business up.

Were *you* to have actually read that stuff, instead of just
proclaiming, surely you could actually post documented scientific
proof regarding marijuana use, instead of that plethora of
speculative "research" pertaining to drug abuse.

Ironically, even the first (and subsequently, naturally, only) one of
those links I checked http://tinyurl.com/alwj7 propagates such utter
bullshit it would have given Mitch Kapor, Larry Ellison, Steve Jobs,
The Woz, Bill Gates, Stephen Ballmer, Paul Allen, John Gilmore, (and
most developers of the computer the entire ten of you Stuarts are
using) a bloody good chuckle http://tinyurl.com/basog

Bob

Robert McGregor wrote:

>"stuart" <fred@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:kjUdf.122674$yS6.109529@clgrps12...
>
>
>>Gosh, I almost forgot the references. Peer-reviewed research
>>mostly.I am
>>sure they would entertain your learned queries. And to think I dug
>>these up
>>in less than three minutes. Where is your enquiring mind Ken? Do
>>you read
>>stuff, or just proclaim, like Virt?
>>
>>
>>
>
>Stuart, given your past proclamations, it's a sign of progress you
>brought that proclaiming business up.
>
>Were *you* to have actually read that stuff, instead of just
>proclaiming, surely you could actually post documented scientific
>proof regarding marijuana use, instead of that plethora of
>speculative "research" pertaining to drug abuse.
>
>Ironically, even the first (and subsequently, naturally, only) one of
>those links I checked http://tinyurl.com/alwj7 propagates such utter
>bullshit it would have given Mitch Kapor, Larry Ellison, Steve Jobs,
>The Woz, Bill Gates, Stephen Ballmer, Paul Allen, John Gilmore, (and
>most developers of the computer the entire ten of you Stuarts are
>using) a bloody good chuckle http://tinyurl.com/basog
>
>Bob
>
>
Bob,

As much as we've disagreed on various topics, I'm curious if you can
explain to me why I feel somehow like a "marijuana pusher" in
challenging a whole lot of silly, baseless attacks on what is, all
things considered, a _relatively_ innocuous illegal drug. This isn't
crack cocaine, methamphetamine or PHP we are talking about here. I
don't even smoke and for all practical purposes never even been a
marijuana smoker.

Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com

"Ken" <nospam@nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:e66dnfm6eqEUseXenZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Robert McGregor wrote:
>
>>"stuart" <fred@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>news:kjUdf.122674$yS6.109529@clgrps12...
>>
>>>Gosh, I almost forgot the references. Peer-reviewed research
>>>mostly.I am
>>>sure they would entertain your learned queries. And to think I dug
>>>these up
>>>in less than three minutes. Where is your enquiring mind Ken? Do
>>>you read
>>>stuff, or just proclaim, like Virt?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Stuart, given your past proclamations, it's a sign of progress you
>>brought that proclaiming business up.
>>
>>Were *you* to have actually read that stuff, instead of just
>>proclaiming, surely you could actually post documented scientific
>>proof regarding marijuana use, instead of that plethora of
>>speculative "research" pertaining to drug abuse.
>>
>>Ironically, even the first (and subsequently, naturally, only) one
>>of
>>those links I checked http://tinyurl.com/alwj7 propagates such
>>utter
>>bullshit it would have given Mitch Kapor, Larry Ellison, Steve
>>Jobs,
>>The Woz, Bill Gates, Stephen Ballmer, Paul Allen, John Gilmore,
>>(and
>>most developers of the computer the entire ten of you Stuarts are
>>using) a bloody good chuckle http://tinyurl.com/basog
>>
>>Bob
>>
> Bob,
>
> As much as we've disagreed on various topics, I'm curious if you
> can explain to me why I feel somehow like a "marijuana pusher" in
> challenging a whole lot of silly, baseless attacks on what is, all
> things considered, a _relatively_ innocuous illegal drug. This
> isn't crack cocaine, methamphetamine or PHP we are talking about
> here. I don't even smoke and for all practical purposes never even
> been a marijuana smoker.
>

If, heaven forbid, we are anything alike, I have my notion of what is
a fair, true, and balanced spread of information here. Other than
when my humour or resentment predominates, I usually try and post the
pertinent pro or con when that notion of "balance" is unreasonably
skewed. In similar circumstances, I usually merely mention that if I
could drink like I can drug, I would not be an alcoholic. However in
this instance, I believe posts were untruthfully skewed way too much.

I have no intention at all of joining *any* pro pot lobby. However, I
must accept that unless I digress deep into personal trivia merely to
explain my stance in detail, to the thinking challenged amongst us
who quickly forget I post about pot in reply, not as a thread
originator, I do appear to be a pro pot campaigner.

In case you didn't know, bro, during my AA stint that was called
sharing, so consider yourself shared, and remember, you asked for it!

PS I haven't bothered taking a toke for years either.

Bob

Ken <nospam@nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:e66dnfm6eqEUseXenZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Robert McGregor wrote:
>
> >"stuart" <fred@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >news:kjUdf.122674$yS6.109529@clgrps12...
> >
> >
> >>Gosh, I almost forgot the references. Peer-reviewed research
> >>mostly.I am
> >>sure they would entertain your learned queries. And to think I dug
> >>these up
> >>in less than three minutes. Where is your enquiring mind Ken? Do
> >>you read
> >>stuff, or just proclaim, like Virt?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Stuart, given your past proclamations, it's a sign of progress you
> >brought that proclaiming business up.
> >
> >Were *you* to have actually read that stuff, instead of just
> >proclaiming, surely you could actually post documented scientific
> >proof regarding marijuana use, instead of that plethora of
> >speculative "research" pertaining to drug abuse.
> >
> >Ironically, even the first (and subsequently, naturally, only) one of
> >those links I checked http://tinyurl.com/alwj7 propagates such utter
> >bullshit it would have given Mitch Kapor, Larry Ellison, Steve Jobs,
> >The Woz, Bill Gates, Stephen Ballmer, Paul Allen, John Gilmore, (and
> >most developers of the computer the entire ten of you Stuarts are
> >using) a bloody good chuckle http://tinyurl.com/basog
> >
> >Bob
> >
> >
> Bob,
>
> As much as we've disagreed on various topics, I'm curious if you can
> explain to me why I feel somehow like a "marijuana pusher" in
> challenging a whole lot of silly, baseless attacks on what is, all
> things considered, a _relatively_ innocuous illegal drug. This isn't
> crack cocaine, methamphetamine or PHP we are talking about here. I
> don't even smoke and for all practical purposes never even been a
> marijuana smoker.

Actually, the difference in harm between pot and crack is mainly in its
street price. It's easier to get rid of a crack habit than to stop smoking
pot. The pot high also lasts for hours at a time as it is an oil soluable
drug. Much more subtly damaging. Anyone who labels pot as a "relatively
innocuous" drug is kidding themselves and probably not smoked any recently.
The newer strains are 20X more potent than when you were a teenager in the
50's Ken.



>
> Ken Ragge
> http://www.morerevealed.com

stuart wrote:

>Ken <nospam@nowhere.org> wrote in message
>news:e66dnfm6eqEUseXenZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@comcast.com ...
>
>
>>Robert McGregor wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>"stuart" <fred@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>news:kjUdf.122674$yS6.109529@clgrps12...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Gosh, I almost forgot the references. Peer-reviewed research
>>>>mostly.I am
>>>>sure they would entertain your learned queries. And to think I dug
>>>>these up
>>>>in less than three minutes. Where is your enquiring mind Ken? Do
>>>>you read
>>>>stuff, or just proclaim, like Virt?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Stuart, given your past proclamations, it's a sign of progress you
>>>brought that proclaiming business up.
>>>
>>>Were *you* to have actually read that stuff, instead of just
>>>proclaiming, surely you could actually post documented scientific
>>>proof regarding marijuana use, instead of that plethora of
>>>speculative "research" pertaining to drug abuse.
>>>
>>>Ironically, even the first (and subsequently, naturally, only) one of
>>>those links I checked http://tinyurl.com/alwj7 propagates such utter
>>>bullshit it would have given Mitch Kapor, Larry Ellison, Steve Jobs,
>>>The Woz, Bill Gates, Stephen Ballmer, Paul Allen, John Gilmore, (and
>>>most developers of the computer the entire ten of you Stuarts are
>>>using) a bloody good chuckle http://tinyurl.com/basog
>>>
>>>Bob
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Bob,
>>
>>As much as we've disagreed on various topics, I'm curious if you can
>>explain to me why I feel somehow like a "marijuana pusher" in
>>challenging a whole lot of silly, baseless attacks on what is, all
>>things considered, a _relatively_ innocuous illegal drug. This isn't
>>crack cocaine, methamphetamine or PHP we are talking about here. I
>>don't even smoke and for all practical purposes never even been a
>>marijuana smoker.
>>
>>
>
>Actually, the difference in harm between pot and crack is mainly in its
>street price. It's easier to get rid of a crack habit than to stop smoking
>pot. The pot high also lasts for hours at a time as it is an oil soluable
>drug. Much more subtly damaging. Anyone who labels pot as a "relatively
>innocuous" drug is kidding themselves and probably not smoked any recently.
>The newer strains are 20X more potent than when you were a teenager in the
>50's Ken.
>
>
>
Stuart,

Where did you come up with the above information? None of it is true,
although you aren't the first person to claim such nonsense.

Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com