Smoking Cannabis Associated with Dopamine Deficits in the Brain
iflscience.com
iflscience.com
I smoke more weed than I probably should, but I had a screwed up dopamine system to start with - the genes don't lie.
Actually, on that note, perhaps people with preexisting dopamine deficits are more likely to become heavy cannabis users because it's the only way that they can experience dopamine - going through life with people going "what an achievement! Aren't you proud??" and only being able to reply "meh, I should've done better than first place" or whatever sucks. I can only reflect upon and feel good about what I've done with my life when stoned. I don't have a reward cycle, otherwise - I learned to motivate myself with a punishment cycle instead, and only now am I slowly unlearning it.
Yes, the title is extremely sensationalized, as is sadly the norm with science reporting [1]. However, the results are important when you consider the number of teenagers on ADHD medication (generally amphetamines) who might be trying cannabis.
Yes, the original title is sensaionalized and didn't actually agree or align with the contents of the article which is why when I submitted this story I changed the title for HN to be what it is above "Smoking Cannabis Associated with Dopamine Deficits in the Brain". I suppose I could have used correlated instead of associated but the article seemed to link the two fairly poorly and I felt associated is a lower threshold of a link than correlation. I was more interested in the discussion this would invoke from HNers. Thank you HNers for your thoughts and insights.
Also, I know plenty of counter-examples to the "lazy stoner" stereotype. You just didn't know that the CEO of your company has a stealth grow op in his basement because that's not the kind of thing you advertise. Anecdotally, I would say that regular and heavy cannabis use very common among management consultants and software developers -- and it's hard to remain in those jobs long if you're unable to motivate yourself. But if work is stressful, a few bong rips at the end of the day can be a nice way to relax.
I also know many counter-examples, but most people I know that have used cannabis regularly for years or decades seem to sort of auto-regulate their use. It waxes and wanes - sometimes daily, sometimes monthly.
I don't suspect that it has extremely negative effects, but it wouldn't surprise me if their were a mix of effects that occur with heavy and regular use that don't occur with more moderate use.
To each their own -- I also know highly functional regular opiate users, and some who have fallen off the functional boat hard. I'm all about harm reduction and personal freedom when it comes to altering ones consciousness.
Also, of course we know that probably the most toxic substance to use heavily and regularly is alcohol. I expect many orders of magnitude more harmful for both the brain and body than cannabis will ever be shown to be.
I do notice that if I smoke crazy amounts (ounces per week) then I do end up with latent cognitive deficits, such as substituting homophones in my writing and losing my train of thought mid-sentence, but they vanish with a few weeks of abstinence.
I'm not ruling out the possibly of cumulative, long term effects, and I'll vouch that massively overdoing it over a long period will make you REALLY ill (read up on Cannabis Hyperemesis Syndrome... It's worse than death), but from my idiopathic stance I'm not seeing long term cognitive effects. I started as an adult, my only childhood vice was drink.
1. http://perspectivesinmedicine.cshlp.org/content/2/8/a012229....
2. http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/mp201621...
The abstract doesn't really state if they attempted to test the effect of cannabis on dopamine with ongoning chronic use or after abstinence. It seems to be the latter, though, since the users stayed abstinent for 5-7 days before the brain scans. That's a rater short time for the brain to "recover" from chronic cannabis use.
It is also worth nothing that they measured dopamine binding by administrating amphetamine.
People, for some reason, want to cling to this naive idea that cannabis consumption has zero negative effects.
Can't we all just accept that it is indeed harmful to your body and brain, especially if used habitually? Continue to use it as you wish, but understand it very well is causing long term harm, just as any other sin-of-choice! Is that really so rejectionable?
That's what parent poster is asking for.
Any time I post about cannabis on HN i have to include the line "I am strongly in favour of drug legalisation" or tediously predictable replies accusing me of shilling for the government appear.
And my position - that for some people smoking large amounts of cannabis is probably a bad idea (especially if they've young; have a history of psychosis; or have a family history of psychosis) - doesn't feel particularly un-nuanced.
But you're right, I'm really interested in learning the actual science around it so I'm happy that work is being done. I suppose that perspective doesn't lead to the need to comment.
And it's not only the "sins-of-choice" that cause long term harm. Life itself has quite a few negative effects and is the leading cause of death, after all.
There are positive and negative aspects. You ask why people are biased towards the positive and, similarly, I ask why are you focused on the negative?
There is much research to be done. Let's wait and see how it turns out. :)
Well, I'm not. Of course there can be, and there are positive medical effects. The issue is, most users aren't using for real bona fide medical purposes.
These are the same users who reject any notion that their favorite pastime may indeed be causing them long term harm. I ask, why reject it? Alcohol can have good effects in moderation, but when abused it causes long term harm as well. Why treat it any different?
> There is much research to be done. Let's wait and see how it turns out.
Indeed there is. Most of the claims of harmlessness are based on bad science conducted decades ago! Unfortunately, no matter how many studies are published since then, people cling to the old invalidated data which furthers the narrative they desire most.
I agree with you... as with any choice, an individual should try to compare the pros & cons of any decision.
My argument would be, if a group happens to be "self-medicating" or simply "getting high", is marijuana not one of the better drugs for that purpose?
Yes, drugs (the kind that make you feel good) are probably not something we should encourage, but if it must happen, marijuana is perhaps the best choice. Let's assume abstinence is impossible.
People with psychosis smoke cigarettes; more of them smoke than the general population and they smoke more than the general population.
Hydrocarbons from cigarettes interact with, and reduce the efficacy of, antipsychotic medication.
That means people who have psychosis and smoke need more meds.
This - the side effects of strong medication, and the smoking - causes people with psychosis to die on average 20 years earlier than the general population.
It also causes a distressing number of house fires. (People smoking while sedated). People with psychosis are over represented in stats for death by home fire.
So smoking tobacco is probably a bad idea for that group of people.
When you add a psychoactive component that may[1] make psychosis worse it just seems like a terrible idea.
People with psychosis should probably have access to good quality early intervention teams rather than access to cannabis.
[1] one of the frustrating things of criminalisation is that it's really hard to do any research; and cannabis strains have moved onto strains that focus on THC rather than a more balanced mix of THC and CBD.
Generally, the studies that indicate long term negative effects use a limited population or confounders (such as amphetamines in this case). Those studies indicate one method/combination is harmful, but (AFAICT) are not generalizable to most users.
I am happy to be shown wrong, but have yet to come across a generalizable study that shows long term negative health effects of cannabis consumption.
Usually what I see is people pointing out that whatever new negative result is no worse than other substances and activities that are legal.
This is exactly the responses I was talking about.
The study clearly says THC causes the harmful cognition effects. You're still getting THC by eating/vaporizing it! (otherwise it'd be a pointless activity).
Consumption method is pretty irrelevant, other than less carcinogens when not smoking it (the only appreciable difference between consumption methods).
This is also just a single study with some questionable methods. It's just as ignorant to blindly dismiss this study as it is to blindly accept it.
How many studies need to come out before folks start to accept that maybe their favorite pastime isn't so harmless after all?
It's fairly obvious introducing chemicals to your body long term will have undesirable side effects.
In the end, it doesn't matter how harmful or harmless this substance is. People will continue to use and abuse it regardless. But we should not reject modern studies simply because we want to believe old data.
Lung cancer, on the other hand, doesn't have a positive reference frame.
You willingly cause harm to your body and brain daily. I choose to drink too many energy drinks, knowing full well all the chemicals and additives are not good for me.
The point is, I don't go around claiming energy drinks are totally harmless simply because I enjoy them. Of course they're not good for me.
Accept cannabis causes harm, and then make an educated choice to continue using or not. I just ask that we be realistic about this - it's a foreign chemical being introduced to your body.
I'm not aware of a clear scientific consensus that cannabis is harmful.
Vapes are better, but the quality varies widely. THC is not water-soluble, so you need a hydrocarbon solvent (usually butane) to extract it and dilute it into enough of a liquid that it won't separate. Those vapes are actually pretty good and hit almost like smoking a pipe, but then again you're breathing in solvents along with it. Also, this type of liquid is close to impossible to make yourself -- at least safely (since it requires subjecting volatile solvents to high pressures and temperature).
There are "solvent free" blends that use things like coconut oil, but IMO those vapes don't work nearly as well and give a very thin vapor that is very hard to draw on. For this reason, some people prefer "dabbing" which is basically taking refined THC (in either solid or paste form) and burning it at very high temperatures, then inhaling the smoke. That way you get high without solvents or the majority of the burnt plant material, but a dabbing setup is expensive and it's really only feasible in places where you can easily buy the "wax" (i.e. Colorado).
If you mean the hot air vaporizers... they tend to be expensive and use twice as much material as smoking it, plus they don't "hit" like a pipe or bong (you have to inhale for a much longer time to get the same effect).
I built a closed loop (butane retaining) essential oils extractor for around $1500 and I never felt unsafe operating it. There are no high pressures involved, I pull the system to a slight vacuum then flood it with butane to around 15 psi (all my valves, ports, and joints are rated to 300 psi). There are no high temperatures involved either, butane boils at 30.2°F so I just leave the system at room temperature with the gas reclaimer running till all my solvent is back in the cylinder. The largest risk is actually developing a butane leak and flooding the area with an odorless flammable gas, but basic precautions can protect against this.
In fact, if I think about it this was probably my first real project as a "maker", my design document was literally a single sheet of graph paper. Since then I've embarked on much more ambitious projects (frame-up electric bicycle, cnc plasma cutter, modular light up dance floor...) and I feel like my skills have probably increased many-fold over where I was at the time. If I were to build another one today I'd probably introduce considerably more complexity (electronically actuated valves with process automation for example, perhaps co2 as a solvent which would require cooling with liquid nitrogen). Shit, at the time I think my toolbag consisted of a screwdriver and an adjustable spanner.
For me it's generally 120 minutes for the effects to start, then another 60 or so before the peak.
> THC is not water-soluble, so you need a hydrocarbon solvent (usually butane) to extract it and dilute it into enough of a liquid that it won't separate
While it does seem to be very fashionable in the US just now - you don't have to vape concentrates. There are lots of 'dry herb' vaporisers that are capable of vaping weed and hash.
A good alternative to edible is a cannabis tincture which is used sublingually. The onset is rapid, and so it's much easier to dose.
Yeah, I personally think these vaporizers don't provide a very "satisfying" experience; and you have to draw on them a whole lot to get the same effect. They also use far more "herb" than many are willing to commit to consuming at a single time (most use at least half a gram, when you'd probably load a pipe with less than a quarter gram).
I've used a "Volcano" (uber high-quality German vaporizer) and while it actually works quite well, it's a novelty and it's basically a freaking $600 electronic bong. And it still has the problem where it requires a whole lot of material to adequately fill the chamber.
I've seen the tinctures, but never tried them. Too many new products these days... :)
With some you do need to draw on them a lot, but they definately make your herb go a lot further, which more than makes it worth it, I think :)
Tinctures are actually an 'old' product that's sort of becoming more popular again.
A water pipe (bong) is a great high for about 20mins, then you pretty much fall asleep. Vape takes a long time to get high, it's not as strong, and you fall asleep after 20mins. Edibles take a really long time to hit you, like 2 hours, it comes on very quickly and fades very quickly, but doesn't really knock you out. Joints hit you pretty quick, the high is average, and doesn't really knock you out.
So it depends on what you're feeling! Joints are very social, good for smoking with friends. Vapes and bongs get dirty quickly, I don't like using them socially. Edibles are great for novices or when you're going to the movies or something.
Being as, if you keep ignoring these signals, and pushing that envelope, eventually your brain will start letting you know in ways that aren't so gentle - or as forgiving.
You can buy the oil and bake your own, but that requires more money and effort up front ($50-$100).
Vaping using concentrate is likewise not cheap.
And if you grow your own, you end up with plenty of "trim" (plant parts that aren't suited for smoking but still have lots of psychoactive ingredients). Most home growers will cook their trim with butter for a few hours, strain off the plant material, and use that to make edibles. It's not as scientific or consistent as the commercial methods, but it's easy and completely safe.
It doesn't require much money or effort at all. I regularly make small batches of oil using as little as 0.5g of kief.
I melt a little coconut oil, dump in the kief (would work with weed too, of course) and cover with tinfoil. Then I bake it at 115C/240F for 27 minutes - cannaoil, done!
THC is metabolised into a stronger form, THC-9-COOH, so edibles really make it go further. Plus the effects last several hours instead of the 1-2 when smoking or vaping.
> Vaping using concentrate is likewise not cheap.
Erm.. you don't have to use concentrates.
Dopamine is a neurotransmitter that plays a key role in the
brain’s so-called reward center, and is released in response
to pleasurable stimuli like eating cake, having sex, and taking
drugs. This is what makes many drugs so addictive (and cake
so irresistible), although research suggests that excessive use
of these substances causes a dopamine imbalance, with lower
concentrations of the chemical being released in parts of the
brain such as the striatum.
Importantly, dopamine deficits in the striatum have been associated with
reduced cognitive performance. Given that THC – the active ingredient in
cannabis – is known to stimulate dopamine neurons throughout the brain,
lead researcher Anissa Abi-Dargham explained that “it is important to look
more closely at the potentially addictive effects of cannabis on key
regions of the brain.”
Whereas, in the article it clearly says "Nope, we didn't see any causal effect. The patients could have had a deficit already and we wouldn't know." Are the title, copy, and image editors all different people?
Ok thanks bye.