Hacker News Reader

Comment by tyn | Hacker News Reader

Marijuana actually impairs memory and learning http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn10607

All Marijuana studies actually funded in the US (they are rare and typically have 1 result) should be cautiously taken into account with the knowledge that our administration does whatever it can to spread FUD to the public about the drug. Follow the money trail ...

That's an ad hominem argument write large. You can't dismiss a study just because it was funded by someone you disagree with. You have to take it on its own terms. If the study is flawed, show the flaws, if not, it shouldn't matter who funded it.

Funding, like all procedures and data used in the study is very relevant. In a perfect world it wouldn't, but sadly who is paying the bills often dictates the results of these studies. In that perfect world, there would also be scores of scientists who are paid to analyze studies like this to prove/disapprove the conclusion, but again our imperfect system means funding for intelligent study of Marijuana is severely lacking.

I would imagine getting US government funds to study the "potential damage of marijuana on x" would be a lot easier than getting funding for the "potential benefits of marijuana on y".

Just because we don't see competing studies does not mean the data is not there.

If the data is there, show it. I'm open. I think that the 'drug war' is a total waste of time and money, and that having one fewer red-herring for the police to chase around can only be a good thing.

But you can't dismiss a study just because it was funded by biased people. All people are biased. It's up to you to attempt to look past the bias to see what is genuine, and to see to it that your own viewpoint is expressed.

There are plenty of well funded liberal and libertarian groups that would be more than willing to fund the kind of research that you want. In fact I've seen stuff by Cato that would be right up your ally. You'll do far more good by finding this stuff than by criticizing the only studies being presented.

I wonder which of the following describes best the downvoter's reasoning:

a) The study is flawed, thus it shouldn't be cited b) You misinterpreted the study c) The study is valid but it's bad news for me, so I decided to shoot the messenger.

or d) the messenger was paid to deliver only certain messages, whilst the other messengers were fired/never hired in the first place.

or e) the drivel in this study is an example of winning at propaganda by getting people sucked into superficial debates over the wrong questions, which are formulated to stick in peoples heads on repeated hearing.

Get them asking the wrong questions and the answers don't matter. The assumption coded into the question matters. "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" "Does your drunk driving put your two kids at equal risk?"

By "messenger" I refer to myself (bringing the study to the attention of this thread's readers), it seems that I failed in communicating my point clearly - I'm quite sure you don't imply that I was paid to write this comment:) I admit that it would be better to add 'according to this study' (although there are more, one of them is cited in the article in my link).

Since we're referencing science articles, I have two:

"... researchers have concluded that neurocognitive changes that can be reasonably attributed to chronic cannabis use are subtle compared, for example, with those seen in neurological illness, and depend on prolonged and quite heavy levels of consumption." (Rogers and Robbins, 2001)

"Some cognitive deficits appear detectable at least 7 days after heavy cannabis use but appear reversible and related to recent cannabis exposure rather than irreversible and related to cumulative lifetime use." (Pope, et al., 2001)

Sources: http://research.lycaeum.org/researchpdfs/2001_rogers_1.pdf http://www.cannatrade.com/pdfdocuments/new/Neuropsychologica...

Right. We all know that Carl Sagan, as well as most musicians, have horrible memories and suck at learning because drug use fried their brain. Marijuana doesn't impair learning. Stupidity (like this study) impairs learning.

Marijuana modulates the way your short term memory works. It does not impair long term memory or recall. The effects of marijuana on short term memory may contribute to creativity by breaking down cognitive structures and creating a space for new concepts to plug into parts of the dissolving short term memories.

If drugs are so harmful, why are they winning the drug war?

As an occasional user who lives in just 2 hours driving distance from Amsterdam I will be happy to be convinced by what you say (I mean it). Any references?

I gotta go right now. I got a ton of references, but I'm off to some my yoga class and a nice walk on a beautiful day. I'll post it tonight or tomorrow.

http://www.marijuana-uses.com/essays/002.html Mr. X By Carl Sagan This account was written in 1969 for publication in Marihuana Reconsidered (1971). Sagan was in his mid-thirties at that time. He continued to use cannabis for the rest of his life.

http://www.marijuana-uses.com/essays/028.html

By "Russell Ambrose" Russell Ambrose (a pseudonym) is a musician: aged 47, composer, jazzer, conductor, teacher. Time alteration, contact highs, and intensified sensual experiences are discussed, while cannabis is considered as a gateway for access to altered states in a non-drug context.

http://www.marijuana-uses.com/essays/076.html Marijuana Stimulates Creativity and Enriches Experience By Jon Byrne, MD Dr. Byrne has, on and off, explored the role of cannabis in enhancing consciousness and enriching experience since his late teenage years. After attending a top five medical school, he came to San Francisco to undergo residency training at UCSF and currently lives and practices medicine in the San Francisco Bay Area. As a successful part-time researcher, he has published in prominent journals and has frequently presented his work at national meetings. (Jon Byrne is a pseudonym).

LPTS, do you have any sources that provide actual data to back up your claim?

I'm not trying to be snarky ~ I am legitimately interested in seeing data; too much of this debate is founded in anecdote, editorial, and propaganda on both sides.

In rats. And nerve cells in a dish. And that's only the neural firing patterns.

There isn't any actual proof that this HAS a detrimental effect. Did they give THC to the rats and then ask them to memorize some information, then quiz them later?

Hell, do that to a few users of cannabis. Then, perhaps, real results will be forthcoming.

Neuroscience is still very new, and a lot of things are ascribed without true understanding, to various actions within the brain. Just take a look at the farce of fMRIs, for instance.

You clearly know little about psychological research techniques if you don't know how they test rats for memory. Ever heard of the term "rat in a maze"?

And, what do you mean by "farce of fMRIs"?

I meant complex memory, not simply pathing repetition that can be replicated with an EEPROM and a few lines of code.

And by that, I mean, how people are using activity in areas of the brain to say that a person is 'x' or what thinking about 'y'. It's phrenology for a new age.

Define "complex memory". Do you mean episodic memory?

fMRI only shows correlation, not causation; any neuroscientist knows this. To prove a causative relationship, you need to use other methods (lesions or TCMS, for example). Show me an example of what you're talking about.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com