The title of this post is clearly misleading, even with the word 'might' in it. Neurogenesis in mice was detected when the mice were given Prozac or HU210, a cannabinoid different from the active ingredient in marijuana.
The article then goes on to describe another experiment in which mice dosed with D9-tetrahydrocannabinol (the cannabinoid in weed) did not show any signs of neurogenesis, no matter what dose was used.
I'm glad this article actually presents both sides. The latter paragraphs talk about another study in which THC did nothing to cell growth, and makes it pretty clear that the entire affair's still really uncertain. I don't think this shows up in many of the pro-marijuana (pseudo-)scientific articles on the web.
It would be great if I could read something like this without running into a comment in which someone describes it in terms of "sides".
This is not a debate. There are no sides.
There are just studies: one that found that particular chemicals assisted new cell growth in some parts of rat brains, and another that found that a different set of chemicals did not assist new cell growth in the brains of different rats.
It's interesting stuff. Trying to frame it in the limited context of a social debate really diminishes its value.
This is great news for the pharmaceutical industry. The successful testing was done with a synthetic chemical very much like THC while real THC failed to get results. Sounds like a good way to monetize to me.
"Monazite is a reddish-brown phosphate mineral containing rare earth metals and is an important source of thorium, lanthanum, and cerium. It occurs usually in small isolated crystals."
I would love to see a study that adjusts for the effects of inhaling carbon monoxide and other byproducts of plant combustion. Much cannabinoid research concerns THC-similar compounds that are directly applied to the research subject; conventional recreational use is at best tangential to the method at hand.
I wonder how many of these 'researchers' actually smoke marijuana on a regular basis. I definitely found that a prolonged use had the complete opposite effect of "reducing anxiety and depression".
I understand that many professionals use marijuana, but how many marijuana users are able to maintain a professional career?
I smoke every morning before shower and ever evening before bed. I've done so for many years now and it's helped reduce my depression (inherited) and keep my GAD under control. It's been much more successful than traditional treatment regimes (SSRIs et al - tried it all) I'm currently running a successful business and have never been in any trouble with the law. Without marijuana I'd never have been able to achieve what I did.
Yeah, there are lots of anecdotal stories that at the least suggest that the effects of marijuana seem to vary from user to user.
I knew one guy that had habitually smoked a bowl pretty much every single day ever since the 70s. He was a brilliant programmer, had a much better short-term and long-term memory than I do, and was well-versed in numerous other topics.
I also knew another person that was mostly average, and then started smoking marijuana, and lost all drive to do anything or the ability to recall conversations from the previous day.
And I knew yet another person that wanted to get something done in life, so he quit smoking marijuana and felt a lot better, much sharper, started studying again, etc.
It depends. The important part is that you spend enough time in introspection to understand what's good for you and what isn't.
There's nothing intrinsically good or bad about marijuana.
I know a lot of professionals who use drugs responsibly and recreationally. Even the ones who use hard drugs or abuse alcohol heavily tend to walk the fine line between functional addict and basket-case. Of course, there's a survivorship bias to my anecdotal evidence.
I don't smoke pot, but I think it's one of the least harmful drugs if someone enjoys getting high regularly. Physical and psychological dependance are rare, the effects are mild for most people, and it isn't especially harmful to the body (at least if you vaporize or eat it).
More than you think. In my experience the professionals who use marijuana keep it under the radar. They have too much to lose. As such the whole stereotype of marijuana users is based around the people who are public about it. If you look at the amount of marijuana coming into this country, and being grown here, it's just so much product that it has to cover a pretty massive demographic. There just aren't enough unemployed Phish fans to account for all of it.
When the company I work for recently needed a number of us to undergo drug testing to land a big contract, I discovered that my boss and a number of folks on my team were regular MJ smokers. The company we were contracting with didn't specify the testing methodology that was to be used, so my boss picked the one with the shortest detection window -- two days for the saliva test.
I really would not have suspected that any of these folks were pot smokers, they're all very professional and do not fall into any of the stereotypes you might expect. I myself smoke 3-4 times a week, usually on the weekends.
We flat out do not have a good understanding of how a brain is effected by drugs. And, it is amazing that the drugs that are least harmful, or not harmful at all, are the most illegal. There are, of course, devious reasons for that.
Whether we are aware it or not, everything that we perceive and consume effects us. One person will react differently to the sight of a bowl of cereal than another.
It is the same with drugs, but just more blatantly obvious. Even though there is no physical damage done, there is still a change occurring. Whether this change amounts to a damaged psyche or enlightenment is really hard to measure since the only precedent to hold our experiences against is anecdote.
Is there a reliable method to harness the positive effects of drugs? Probably, but it is a long way out there.
A person is indulging in a risk by taking drugs; but, there is an inherent perception of risk in most new experiences. Ever meet someone who is afraid of a new kind of food? Actually, I don't know if that's related, but whatever.
So, to answer your question. It is not always the case that drugs will effect a person negatively, or positively. There's a lot involved, but the laws simply do not allow us to understand the specifics of what's involved.
I'm more curious why psychedelics are (or were) viewed as something that can cause social problems. It's more clear with drugs that create physical dependence, like opioids or dopamine reuptake inhibitors (cocaine, amphetamines). However, drugs in those classes, along with other addictive drugs like benzodiazepines, are legal with a doctor's prescription.
Why can't people take LSD once a year in a safe, supervised setting?
``In a second procedure, which is the favored treatment in the United States, a single, very high LSD dose (0.3 to 0.6 mg) is administered after correspondingly intensive psychological preparation of the patients. This method, described as psychedelic therapy, attempts to induce a mystical-religious experience through the shock effects of LSD. This experience can then serve as a starting point for a restructuring and curing of the patient's personality in the accompanying psychotherapeutic treatment. The term psychedelic, which can be translated as "mind-manifesting" or "mind-expanding," was introduced by Humphry Osmond, a pioneer of LSD research in the United States.''[1]
Read the rest of the reference, you'll find why/how LSD became associated with the counter-culture, and then became illegal because of that. My take is that LSD, when administered responsibly, can lead to major positive life changes for those in need.
It is a pity that it is illegal, which only increases the risk of abuse/work dosage/mixing with other stuff, but perhaps in a more civilized age...
I don't have a good answer, but I do know that LSD came around when there was a lot of change going on in the world. That might have had something to do with it.
I'm actually pretty curious now, so I'll look into it.
While I disagree to some extent with your parent's point(that legality of drug use isn't strongly correlated with the danger of said drug use), one data point(not illegal, mostly non-harmful) is hardly enough to refute it. To refute it, it is better to point out that relatively few controlled substances in the US have any significant controversy over their criminalization(marijuana and ecstasy are the only two that I recall).
I smoke ganj every evening, been doing so for probably 10 years + now. I'm nowhere near the amount heavy tokers smoke, (somehow i'm still a lightweight) but as long as I only smoke in the evening it has no bearing on my productivity or ability.
It isn't addictive. If I have none, I just go without, it's annoying (as I like to smoke in the evenings) but its not a problem.
I work as a contractor, developer and software architect. At the moment i'm working on a rather large system in a senior role. I also do little bits of work in my own time for other businesses I have relationships with.
Wouldn't the consumption of marijuana increase the tendency to consume food, resulting in faster metabolism, and hence in faster decay of cells in the longer term?
The article then goes on to describe another experiment in which mice dosed with D9-tetrahydrocannabinol (the cannabinoid in weed) did not show any signs of neurogenesis, no matter what dose was used.