Study: Heavy Marijuana Use Doesn't Damage Brain

[GladiatoRowdy]

Heavy Marijuana Use Doesn't Damage Brain

Analysis of Studies Finds Little Effect From Long-Term Use
By Sid Kirchheimer
Reviewed By Michael Smith, MD
on Tuesday, July 01, 2003
WebMD Medical News



July 1, 2003 -- Long-term and even daily marijuana use doesn't appear to cause permanent brain damage, adding to evidence that it can be a safe and effective treatment for a wide range of diseases, say researchers.


The researchers found only a "very small" impairment in memory and learning among long-term marijuana users. Otherwise, scores on thinking tests were similar to those who don't smoke marijuana, according to a new analysis of 15 previous studies.


In those studies, some 700 regular marijuana users were compared with 484 non-users on various aspects of brain function -- including reaction time, language and motor skills, reasoning ability, memory, and the ability to learn new information.


Surprising Finding


"We were somewhat surprised by our finding, especially since there's been a controversy for some years on whether long-term cannabis use causes brain damage," says lead researcher and psychiatrist Igor Grant, MD.


"I suppose we expected to see some differences in people who were heavy users, but in fact the differences were very minimal."


The marijuana users in those 15 studies -- which lasted between three months to more than 13 years -- had smoked marijuana several times a week or month or daily. Still, researchers say impairments were less than what is typically found from using alcohol or other drugs.


"All study participants were adults," says Grant, professor of psychiatry and director of the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research Center at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine.


"However, there might be a different set of circumstances to a 12-year-old whose nervous system is still developing."


10 States OK Marijuana Use


Grant's analysis, published in the July issue of the Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, comes as many states consider laws allowing marijuana to be used to treat certain medical conditions. Earlier this year, Maryland became the 10th state to allow marijuana use to relieve pain and other symptoms of AIDS, multiple sclerosis, cancer, glaucoma, and other conditions -- joining Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.


Medicinal marijuana is available by prescription in the Netherlands and a new marijuana drug is expected to be released in Great Britain later this year. In the U.S. and elsewhere, Marinol, a drug that is a synthetic form of marijuana and contains its active ingredient, THC, is available by prescription to treat loss of appetite associated with weight loss in AIDS patients.


Grant says he did the analysis to help determine long-term toxicity from long-term and frequent marijuana use. His center is currently conducting 11 studies to determine its safety and efficacy in treating several diseases.


"This finding enables us to see a marginal level of safety, if those studies prove that cannabis can be effective," Grant tells WebMD. "If we barely find this effect in long-term heavy users, then we are unlikely to see deleterious side effects in individuals who receive cannabis for a short time in a medical setting, which would be safer than what is practiced by street users."


Grant's findings come as no surprise to Tod Mikuriya, MD, former director of non-classified marijuana research for the National Institute of Mental Health Center for Narcotics and Drug Abuse Studies and author of The Marijuana Medical Handbook: A Guide to Therapeutic Use. He is currently president of the California Cannabis Medical Group, which has treated some 20,000 patients with medicinal marijuana and Marinol.


'Highly Effective Medicine'


"I just re-published a paper of the first survey for marijuana toxicity done in 1863 by the British government in India that was the most exhaustive medical study of its time in regards to possible difficulties and toxicity of cannabis. And it reached the same conclusion as Grant," Mikuriya tells WebMD.


"This is merely confirming what was known over 100 years ago, as well as what was learned by various government findings doing similar research -- marijuana is not toxic, but it is a highly effective medicine."


In fact, marijuana was available as a medicinal treatment in the U.S. until the 1930s.


Lester Grinspoon, MD, a retired Harvard Medical School psychiatrist who studied medicinal marijuana use since the 1960s and wrote two books on the topic, says that while Grant's finding provides more evidence on its safety, "it's nothing that those of us who have been studying this haven't known for a very long time.


"Marijuana is a remarkably safe and non-toxic drug that can effectively treat about 30 different conditions," he tells WebMD. "I predict it will become the aspirin of the 21st century, as more people recognize this."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SOURCES: The Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, July 2003. Igor Grant, MD, professor of psychiatry, University of California, San Diego School of Medicine; director, UCSD Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research Center. Tod Mikuriya, MD, president, the California Cannabis Research Medical Group, Oakland; former director of non-classified marijuana research, the National Institute of Mental Health Center for Narcotics and Drug Abuse Studies. Lester Grinspoon, MD, professor emeritus of psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston; author, Marijuana: The Forbidden Medicine and Marihuana Reconsidered.

[DaDakota]

ONE TRICK PONY RIDES AGAIN !!!!

Ignore list fast approaching.

DD

[GladiatoRowdy]

Maybe THIS is why the prohibitionists don't want studies done on MJ. Every study to come out lately (and most of the old studies too) has been finding less and less actual damage done by MJ over the long term.

While it is true that EVERY drug does SOME harm, it is interesting to me that the drugs that kill thousands of people every year (tobacco and alcohol) are legal while MJ remains prohibited.

Isn't it a bit egotistical to think that we could ban a plant that God put on this Earth?

Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed which is upon the face of all the earth.…To you it will be for meat. … And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. (Genesis 1:29-31)

[GladiatoRowdy]

Originally posted by DaDakota ONE TRICK PONY RIDES AGAIN !!!! Ignore list fast approaching. DD

You just can't handle evidence, can you DD?

[GladiatoRowdy]

You are kind of a two trick pony yourself.

1 - Ignore evidence and facts presented in discussion.
2 - Refuse to answer questions presented by opposition.

Maybe you are trying to add a third trick.
3 - Ignore what you don't agree with.

Go ahead, run away and stick your head in the sand. That seems to be something you do well.

[Dirt]

I work with a guy that used mj in his youth.He's,quite possibly,the worst worker we EVER had in our department.After seeing him "in action" the last 6 months,I have an incredibly hard time believing these studies.Than again,they're "experts",I only have to deal with reality. I bet they'd change their tune after working a week with him though.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by andymoon 2 - Refuse to answer questions presented by opposition.

Where's that timeline you promised for the pro-Choice POV?

[johnheath]

Heavy marijuana use is for F***ING losers.

Just thought I would chime in.

[bobrek]

andymoon

How was this study done? I didn;t see anything in the reports indicating that this study was done outside the U.S. You said the following:

"Actually, I would like to see it classified such that we CAN study it and find out what the long term effects are. Schedule I drugs cannot be studied in this country and MJ is in Schedule I."

You also posted the following in reference to the other story of a study that was done in order to measure long term effects:

"What I am saying is that we need to have LONG-TERM studies that simply cannot be done with marijuana in Schedule I. It can be studied to an extent but ANY study done today will have flaws because the drug is illegal to even study.

I posted that article sarcastically to show that there is not any empirical data that shows the long term effects. I know for a fact that drug use (any drug use) is dangerous and WILL have long term effects. That is why we have to regulate the industry so that we can reduce usage through demand reduction, education, and treatment."

So what is it? In one case the study showing long term effects wasn't valid even according to you, yet in this case the study showing long term effects is valid. Please explain why this study should be taken as serious while the last one you posted in your own words was posted 'sarcastically'.

[Rocketman95]

Originally posted by DaDakota ONE TRICK PONY RIDES AGAIN !!!! Ignore list fast approaching. DD

This is not a post in support or in opposition of andymoon, but may I ask why in the hell you even clicked on the thread?

Of course, he's already proven to you that he's not a one trick pony. Maybe a two trick pony, but not a one trick pony.

[Jeff]

Let's play the SAT game...

treeman is to the Middle East as andymoon is to...

[GladiatoRowdy]

Originally posted by giddyup Where's that timeline you promised for the pro-Choice POV?

I posted it yesterday or the day before in the Roe thread.

[GladiatoRowdy]

Originally posted by johnheath Heavy marijuana use is for F***ING losers. Just thought I would chime in.

Totally agreed. My opinion about prohibition does not change the FACT that drugs (alcohol and tobacco included) will limit your potential, kill your brain cells, and could take your life.

This is the biggest reason we need to limit access to responsible adults by making sure that only legitimate business people and the government distributes them.

[GladiatoRowdy]

Originally posted by bobrek andymoon How was this study done? I didn;t see anything in the reports indicating that this study was done outside the U.S. You said the following: "Actually, I would like to see it classified such that we CAN study it and find out what the long term effects are. Schedule I drugs cannot be studied in this country and MJ is in Schedule I." You also posted the following in reference to the other story of a study that was done in order to measure long term effects: "What I am saying is that we need to have LONG-TERM studies that simply cannot be done with marijuana in Schedule I. It can be studied to an extent but ANY study done today will have flaws because the drug is illegal to even study. I posted that article sarcastically to show that there is not any empirical data that shows the long term effects. I know for a fact that drug use (any drug use) is dangerous and WILL have long term effects. That is why we have to regulate the industry so that we can reduce usage through demand reduction, education, and treatment." So what is it? In one case the study showing long term effects wasn't valid even according to you, yet in this case the study showing long term effects is valid. Please explain why this study should be taken as serious while the last one you posted in your own words was posted 'sarcastically'.

Actually, this study was a reevaluation of studies going back to the 1860s. I do not completely believe the results as I know that long term MJ use CAN DEFINITELY have an impact.

Is it as much of an impact as alcohol or tobacco? Probably not.

Will it cause head cases like the worker mentioned in an earlier post? Certainly, especially if s/he is a heavy user.

Do the effects of MJ warrant prohibition? Emphatically NO!

[GladiatoRowdy]

Originally posted by Rocketman95 This is not a post in support or in opposition of andymoon, but may I ask why in the hell you even clicked on the thread? Of course, he's already proven to you that he's not a one trick pony. Maybe a two trick pony, but not a one trick pony.

And I also have posted in a minimum of 5 other threads having nothing to do with the WOD.

He is just upset because he can't find any evidence to prove me wrong.

That is what the prohibitionists do when their fallacies are shown up. Ignore it.

[GladiatoRowdy]

Originally posted by Jeff Let's play the SAT game... treeman is to the Middle East as andymoon is to...

While I admit that I am and will continue to be passionate about this topic, I will continue to disput DDs assertion that I ONLY debate this topic.

It appears as if I have gotten on his ignore list, which proves MY assertion that when the prohibitionists lose a debate, they act like spoiled children who have just had a shiny new toy taken from them.

It is not MY fault that their failed policy is being shown up for the failure it is!

[Major]

Actually, this study was a reevaluation of studies going back to the 1860s. I do not completely believe the results as I know that long term MJ use CAN DEFINITELY have an impact.

So now you're posting evidence that you don't even believe to support your argument?

[GladiatoRowdy]

Originally posted by Major Actually, this study was a reevaluation of studies going back to the 1860s. I do not completely believe the results as I know that long term MJ use CAN DEFINITELY have an impact. So now you're posting evidence that you don't even believe to support your argument?

When the study says that heavy long term use has NO adverse effect, I would take exception to that conclusion, yes.

This is another reason that we MUST reschedule MJ so that we can do legitimate study as to the long term health effects (you know, like we have done with tobacco).

Kids see these studies and assume that there is no problem with smoking pot. Once they start smoking, they are already exposed to the people who provide heroin and cocaine. Once the dealer starts the kids on those, they have a long-term user who will line the dealer's pockets for years.

All we have to do to DRASTICALLY cut drug use in this country is keep kids from getting to them, which we can do with regulation, as has been seen in Holland and over the past decade with alcohol and tobacco sales in this country. Once they reach adulthood, we provide them with the proper information about effects of usage, possible complications, and if they STILL choose to use, we tax the heck out of the product to pay for the eventual treatment and other social costs.

We CAN have a positive impact on overall drug use, we just have to change our tactics.

[GladiatoRowdy]

Originally posted by Major Actually, this study was a reevaluation of studies going back to the 1860s. I do not completely believe the results as I know that long term MJ use CAN DEFINITELY have an impact. So now you're posting evidence that you don't even believe to support your argument?

Besides, I said COMPLETELY believe.

I totally believe that the health effects of long term heavy alcohol use DRASTICALLY outweigh those of long term heavy marijuana use.

[Major]

This is another reason that we MUST reschedule MJ so that we can do legitimate study as to the long term health effects (you know, like we have done with tobacco).


That's not a good reason to legalize MJ -- we can already do those studies in the Netherlands.