There is a difference between disciplining your children and beating them.

Eric, you are right... New discipline methods don't work. Old discipline methods worked wonderful but are now considered inhumane by a soft, pansy generation.

No one said anything about beating a child. I agree with cathee. Kids need discipline and structure and these days it seems like they get neither. They all get an award for showing up. This generation will have a tough time getting into the work force. You don't get paid JUST for showing up.

oathee the great... how did it help you??? obviously the generations that have followed yours have not benefitted from your generations lack of parenting skills and the arguement that you cant beat them is really great (sarcasm). People arent allowed to beat their kids so their kids use drugs? Really american there, beat everyone down until they submit (and we are seeing this approach doesnt win any longterm battles, it only leaves scars).

This story is bogus. The story 'says' pot usage has NOT increased, so the whole medical pot is a sham argument actually FAILS here due to the recent increase of medical pot availability and regulation/legalization all around the US within several STATE GOVERNMENTS.

Alcohol is noted to be the biggest negative issue in this article, so maybe that should be more clearly pointed out for some readers. Also it's the most dangerous, because it can have toxic effects on every major organ and system of the human body AND its usage can be a DIRECT result of death due to overconsumption OR more likely, can be a very common contributing factor in a major accident involving motor vehicles. Oh... but alcohol is legal so lets not argue about it.

I was never spanked as a child and I have never, and will never do drugs. The people I know of who have done drugs were spanked. The way parents discipline their children and the choices those children make when they are teens are not related. (a complete lack fo discipline might show in their actions when they are older, but spanking is not the only means of discipline.)

My Parents used to spank me and my brother and sister. The method used most was a swat or many with a belt to the ass. My mom would somtimes just use her open hand and I remember how strong she was. It wasn't the spankings that caused me to start smokoing pot and drinking at age 14-15, it was when I came home one day at 13 and mom was packing her car. She was leaving, she couldn't put up with my Dad. He always had us walking on eggshells. He was not abusive physically but emotionally. Of course that wasn't talked about back in the 60's and 70's. The fact I went from 2 parent household to a 1 person household probably had more to me starting alcohol and drugs. Today I'm a recoving alcoholic who still likes to smoke pot. Good spankings aren't the problem, it's not having the parents around

Choirboy
I couldn't agree with you more. Spanking should only be used when there's direct rebellion or challenge to their parent's authority in the home. Of course, it would it a little easier if children were taught they should honor their parents, but Atheists nixed that in the bud long time ago and look how a lot of our youth are acting today. There are no or very small amount of positive role models in the media. Parents don't reward children for positive behavior; only negative behavior. There are a lot of teens out there getting into trouble because that's only when SOME (NOT all) parents take notice of them.

Although I agree that parents should be able to control their children and the government social services has failed to be helpful, constantly applying pain compliance is not effective and bringing it up in this fashion is very ignorant. Beating's sometimes were uncalled for and got out-of-control more than not back then. And they often created more social and individual problems later. A lack of moral values and discipline is often because the parents lack it as well. Growing up in a dysfunctional family means you pass on the trends you experienced. And the lack of social responsibility causing the escalating divorce rate exemplifies this also. We have had a problem for years and it's just getting worse. Its many thing's compounding the problem. And this recession will create more social problems as well with people wanting to suspend reality by substance abuse. Face it; people take drugs and abuse alcohol and tobacco because of their reality. It's not a world that is ideal to face these days and it's getting worse. About the only thing I can say I've seen that helps is having a belief in the one true God that can change someone's circumstance dramatically. But this has been available for years and very few use this means to adapt and persevere thru this life. They often hit bottom and hurt many others before they face this issue. Often the realization means facing the painful issue which everyone tends to deny and says their parents were perfect. Thus, unknowingly passing on bad attributes. But hey, what do I know. I could be wrong....

there's a difference between spanking and beatings, people. get real.

So Cathee, here is the thing. 1st) the 60's were a response to, too much discipline. It is obvious that you do not know very much but if you think about the numbers it is the greatest generation that raised the flower children of the 60's, who did not buy into all that discipline and conformity. So to simplify it for you, they got a lot of discipline and rejected it.

2nd) since you are using the spare the rod, spoil the child bit, do you know where it comes from????? (this is rhetorical b/c you obviously do not) Sheep herders used there rod to guide sheep. The shepards rod was a very big long rod and the shepard would hold it parallel to guide the sheep in the direction that they want them to walk in. They did not beat the sheep to get them to walk in a slightly different line. The etymology of the phrase is about guidance, something you are severely in need of and had nothing to do with beating animals or children. Unfortunately at some point some moron came along and misunderstood the phrase and a bunch of people (much like the sheep or yourself) just followed right a long with it without giving it any thought or having any idea what you are talking about.

The phrase is actually "spare the rod and spoil the child" not "spare the rod and have the sheep wander off".

The phrase clearly means that a lack of punishment as needed to correct a child leads to spoiled children.

it's in the way you interpet it. the way rubbersoul puts it, it's about guiding your children through life. without guidance, the child becomes spoiled. makes sense to me. never saw it that way until today, and have to think it over now, i've always used that quote (although I don't really spank, thanks to differences of opinion between my wife and I), and now i'm gonna have to reassess my perception of that quote...thanks rubbersoul, for the point of view.

I would argue that this is the result of people actually focusing on and studying this now, more than the result of some enormous difference in parenting styles. I'm not saying that you personally enjoyed cigarettes, pot, or alcohol as a teenager, but honestly are you really that surprised that 3/4 of teenagers say they've tried one of the three?

This isn't a groundbreaking study; it isn't even really an interesting study. Teenagers have been experimenting since the dawn of man. The only difference is that now it's documented, studied, and reported on, whereas before people didn't talk about it or didn't care about it.

Please explain how "the government" prevents someone from spanking or disciplining their children.

If you spank your child and they tell someone (or even if you didn't hit them and they say you did), expect a Child Services or Department of Human Resources worker on your doorstep the next day!!

Yes carnelian, I think Joe explained it beautifully, but yes without teaching or guiding a child early in life then you spoil them. I am not oppossed to spanking in some instances, I was just pointing out that cathee's rant was entirely lacking of accurate information and that I doubt the lack of spanking your child leads them to drink or smoke pot. For example do you drink because you weren't beaten as a child or because it is fun??? Do you ( or did) you smoke pot because you weren't beaten as a child or because it was enjoyable??? That is really the point, I do think cigarettes and pain pills or bad habits to pick up at a young age, but pot and alcohol, IF they are not overused are in no way bad for you. Why would 17 year olds not use those things at parties and so on? How many adults go to a party and do not drink? There is no latent drive manifesting itself necessary to make a 17 year old realize that some of those things are fun and relatively harmless. Teenagers are trying to make sense out of life and what is hard to understand about them attempting to do so by seeking pleasure, I believe our emphasis should be on trying to make them understand that black or white thinking does not apply to drugs, "drugs are good" and "drugs are bad" are equally false. Alcohol and pot used responsibly are fun but will not have lasting negative consequences on your life. Hydrocodeine, coke, meth, very well may.

I don't disagree with the philosophy behind your viewpoint Rubbersoul, I'm just pointing out that the aphorism relates to using a rod to discipline children not herding sheep.

"Won't somebody please think of the children!!!!!!!!!!!!"

- Mrs. Flanders, The Simpsons

I don't disagree with the philosophy behind your viewpoint Rubbersoul, I'm just pointing out that the aphorism relates to using a rod to discipline children not herding sheep.

well...kinda hard to imagine that it was common practice to spank your children with a shepard's rod back in those days...those things are like 6 feet long and as thick as a wrist...no matter how brutal the times were back then, i don't see them actually using a shepard's rod on their kids for punishment. so it's kinda easy to see rubber's point...

MisterFrank - Put down your joint and get real. Can you please show me even 1 industrialized country where legalized pot is working?

Smoking pot kills brain cells too. Kids brains are still developing into the early 20's.

Is 2 better than 1?

HOLLAND:

Tourists no longer welcome in cannabis-selling coffee shops (News Staff)
Published: 9 September 2009 10:27 | Changed: 3 May 2010 14:34

(excerpts)
"The Dutch government wants to maintain its tolerant policy towards cannabis and keep so-called coffee shops open, but they should no longer be tourist attractions,...

The ministers want municipalities to implement a members-only system, where members can by up to three grammes of hash or weed each with their (Dutch) bank card. This should make it less appealing for tourists to travel to the Netherlands to buy cannabis. The ministers will also allow experiments where coffeeshops can have larger quantities of drugs stocked. Currently, a coffeeshop can have 500 grammes in store and an alternative supply system via drugs runners is a source of nuisance.

The three coalition parties in the government have long disagreed about the overhaul of the drug policy. Christian democrat CDA had called for an end to the tolerance policy and the orthodox Christian ChristenUnie agreed, but the Labour party PvdA believes banning coffeeshops will not solve the problems of crime, nuisance and health and wants to legalise the whole chain of supply."

The problems Holland have are not with the drug, marijuana, itself, but they are having problems with the supply of the product which is in control of illegal drug traffickers. The problem does not lie with legalization of marijuana and the people who partake of the drug. And here are more excerpts from another article on Sept. 6th, 2010 (I can give source if needed):

"The Dutch government has announced that it does not have enough prisoners to fill its prisons, and as a result is closing down 8 prisons. ...The shutting down of these prisons are being attributed to an ever decreasing crime rate in the Netherlands.

These laws are a clear indication that the current drug-related legal system in most countries today is completely incorrect and could stand to see serious reform in the coming months and years.

There is a bad side to this action however – 1,200 prison workers will unfortunately see themselves being let go due to cutbacks."

Need I say more?

PORTUGAL:

Excerpts from a Cato Institute article:
Drug Decriminalization in Portugal:
Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies

April 2, 2009 (by Glenn Greenwald)

"Notably, decriminalization has become increasingly popular in Portugal since 2001. Except for some far-right politicians, very few domestic political factions are agitating for a repeal of the 2001 law. And while there is a widespread perception that bureaucratic changes need to be made to Portugal's decriminalization framework to make it more efficient and effective, there is no real debate about whether drugs should once again be criminalized. More significantly, none of the nightmare scenarios touted by preenactment decriminalization opponents — from rampant increases in drug usage among the young to the transformation of Lisbon into a haven for "drug tourists" — has occurred."

Links:

http://www.nrc.nl/international/article2354008.ece/Tourists_no_longer_welcome_in_cannabis-selling_coffee_shops

http://www.lifemeanshealth.com/health-videos/health-politics/netherlands-closing-8-prisons-due-to-plummeting-crime-rates.html

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080

@Bill in Houston: Well for starters, in the U.S., MEDICAL MJ is legal in 16 states plus Washington D.C. and it's been working fine. And medical is the closest thing to outright legalization.

Not sure what percentage of the U.S. population has access to medical mj, but California contains a full 20% of the U.S. population all by itself, and then there are the other 15 states, plus D.C. as the center of our country.

D.C. has not crumbled, nor have the 16 states with medical mj. But these places do keep the cops from attacking and exploiting peaceful potheads... Also, separately, many states have decriminalized it, meaning it is still illegal, but with limited consequences if the cops get ya. That works fine too, though we'd rather have medical mj, or outright legalization, to keep the pigs away altogether.

Here is Wikipedia's map of World Cannabis Laws:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World-cannabis-laws.png

^Looks like complete legalization is still rare in the world, yet there are huge areas of decriminalization, as well as huge areas where it's illegal but often unenforced, which seems to be working fine for Canada...

The map doesn't show MEDICAL MJ which is legal in the U.S. (16 states plus D.C.), plus other countries including Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Israel, etc....

And what happens when some pothead does something he shouldn't while high (like driving)? Frankly, I like the idea of it being illegal. Sure a lot of people use it still, but at least there is some discouragement that comes from fear of prosecution.

I'm with Johnny367! I'm all for medical MJ but legalization is going just too far. Like I said in a post above, I don't want people driving high, using machinery high, flying a plane high, teaching my kids high - its just make some sense that there has to be some kind of control.

Plus, smoking pot affects your sperm count!

Smoking pot kills brain cells too.

Blatant lie. Research that tired old myth, you'll see. Alcohol doesn't kill brain cells either

@Johnny: If driving high caused driving accidents, it would already have been happening for decades. It doesn't. Alcohol causes car crashes, not pot.

It also doesn't kill brain cells -- these are just scary myths, invented by the government, who has to justify its long-failed war on drugs...

NEVER FEAR! There are already laws to protect us from people driving while high! These laws are generally referred to as "driving while intoxicated." Most people are aware of these laws; I'm suprised to find how many commenters here seem to be completely unaware of, if not oblivious to, them.

Frank,

Are you telling me that there has never been an accident due to the slower reaction time or impaired judgment that came with marijuana use? Just because it doesn't happen as often as an alcohol related accident doesn't make it safe and okay. Right?

Good post Johnny.

I have known a couple people that have smoked pot their adult life and let me tell you they do not fire on all cylinders. Just saying. It does something to their brain.

@Johnny:

Accidents happen to everyone, and if they happen to someone who has smoked pot, it's still not pot that's to blame in those cases (although it would probably be blamed on pot, in such a case). Accidents happen to everyone. Just like if a coffee drinker has a car crash, it's not coffee's fault. Or if a cigarette smoker has a car crash, no one blames cigarettes.

People die by the THOUSANDS every year from drunk crashes. It does not happen from pot, although people drive high all the time, whether we like it or not, and whether we acknowledge it or not...

Maybe people fail to realize that there are always lots of drivers who are high, because they don't stand out, and they don't get into accidents...

I'm for legalizing marijuana just so it can be taxed. In my opinion, it should only be smoked recreationally by responsible adults who understand the concept of moderation.

And to those that say it isn't addictive, people can get addicted to anything, TV, games, internet, whatever. It may not be a chemical addiction, but you're still addicted. I know a few people who have tried to quit but just can't get through the day without the sensation that comes with being high.

Are you the real Frank Black???

Smoking pot is somehow less dangerous to your lungs than smoking (regular tabacco) cigarettes? Let alone brain cells? I think it's killed a few too many neurons for MisterFrankBlack.

I posted on that earlier Johnny, and no, thay have not found any link to increased accidents while under the influence of marijuana(alone), over driving while completely sober.

The thing to understand, is the difference in intoxication between being stoned or drunk. When drunk, most people don't realize it, or refuse to admit it. When stoned, people are fully aware of the level of intoxication and will act accordingly. When driving, they drive slower and put their focus on the road. When drunk, its exact opposite. In fact, here, check this for yourself, interesting article:

h t t p://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/misc/driving/dot78.htm (minus the spaces)

One of the issues addressed by the first driving study was whether it would be safe to continue using the same approach for subsequent on-road studies in traffic. The first group complied with all instructions, even after high doses of THC. Changes in mood were often reported but changes in personality were never observed. Most importantly, the subjects were always able to complete every ride without major interventions by the driving instructors and their safety was never compromised. The same occurred in the subsequent studies showing that it is possible to safely study marijuana's effects on actual driving performance in the presence of other traffic. In this respect, the drug is no different from many others studied by the same investigators and their colleagues.

Standard deviations of speed and steering wheel movements were unaffected by the drug. Subjective ratings of perceived driving quality followed a similar pattern as SDLP (Standard deviation of lateral position) indicating that the subjects were well aware of their diminished ability to control the vehicle after marijuana smoking.

For comparative purposes another group of subjects was treated with a modest dose of alcohol, producing a mean BAC of about 0.04g%. Results of the study showed that the modest dose of alcohol, but not THC, produced a significant impairment in driving performance, relative to placebo. Alcohol impaired driving performance but subjects did not perceive it. THC did not impair driving performance yet the subjects thought it had. After alcohol, there was a tendency towards faster driving and after THC, slower.

Weed is psychologically addictive and is cancer causing, though not as addictive or cancer causing than alcohol.

Vaporizer or edibles

For those of you who think weed is harmless you are wrong. It actually can cause the same amount of harm that smoking cigarettes can. It is actually addictive, no you cannot become physically addicted, however you can become addicted to getting high and the feelings that come with it. If you don't know, THC is in weed and that is what triggers your brain to release dopamine, the feel good hormone. Dopamine is associated with many actions including sex, eating chocolate, achieving a goal, ect. It does alter your mood, can cause a lack of inhibitions, among other things, just like alcohol. So if you think driving while high is ok, you are WRONG!! I know this last bit by being in a car w someone while they were high, it was the most terrifying experience of my life, she was not driving slow or cautious, she was doing the opposite, it was dark and there were no street lights and a very good chance we would hit a deer.

Those of you who are for this need to really look at the facts. Just bc something is "natural" as you put it, doesn't mean it is safe. People lace weed w weird stuff all the time, and you all know that. Don't go around finding articles and info on something just because it supports your opinion look at both sides. And always be safe if your going to do it, don't drive, don't put your self out there impaired to hurt you or someone else.

Those are both wrong Randi. MJ is itself not addictive at all. The only people that could become addicted, in a way, are the people that are predisposed with that personality, that is "addictive personality disorder", these are the same people that can become addicted to anything, such as video games, or to working out, etc. Substances that are actually psychologically addictive would be things like caffeine, or chocolate, in which it is the substance itself causes the addiction. (IE, someone addicted to caffeine, literally cannot function in the morning without coffee to get started, whereas the addictive personality claims they need to smoke pot, or play worl of Warcraft, but in truth they can get by without them).

And the cancer is totally false, there are some carcinogens released when burning the plant material (but this can be eliminated altogether with use of a vaporiser), but these cancer-causing effects are actually reduced by the THC. h t t p://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20051017/pot-smoke-less-carcinogenic-than-tobacco

Rachel, I'm willing to bet she wasn't only under the influence of marijuana then, she was also drinking alcohol, which is actually what would be to blame for her actions.

And you need to review your facts, the studies you are trying to cite were ones that were conducted during the Reagan administration, when they liked to falsify results through erroneous study procedures.

One example of this, is the STUPID claim that marijuana use kills brain cells. The report from Dr. Heath had concluded that Rhesus monkeys, smoking the equivalent of only 30 joints a day, began to atrophy and die after 90 days. Research methodology involved strapping Rhesus monkeys into a chair and pumping them with equivalent of 63 Colombian strength joints in “five minutes, through gas masks,” losing no smoke. Heath had administered the equivalent to 63 joints in five minutes over just three months instead of administering 30 joints per day over a one-year period as he had first reported. Heath did this, it turned out, in order to avoid having to pay an assistant’s wages every day for a full year. The monkeys were suffocating! Three to five minutes of oxygen deprivation causes brain damage—“dead brain cells.” (Red Cross Lifesaving and Water Safety Manual) With the concentration of smoke used, the monkeys were a bit like a person running the engine of a car in a locked garage for 5, 10, 15 minutes at a time—every day! The Heath Monkey study was actually a study in animal asphyxiation and carbon monoxide poisoning.

Of course its the little studies like this one that they love to use as the poster child for their claims as to how dangerous it is.

Evidence speaks for itself:

"Cannabis leads to a more cautious style of driving, [but] it has a negative impact on decision time and trajectory. [However,] this in itself does not mean that drivers under the influence of cannabis represent a traffic safety risk. … Cannabis alone, particularly in low doses, has little effect on the skills involved in automobile driving."

REFERENCE: Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs. 2002. Cannabis: Summary Report: Our Position for a Canadian Public Policy. Ottawa. Chapter 8: Driving Under the Influence of Cannabis.

"[In] cases in which THC was the only drug present were analyzed, the culpability ratio was found to be not significantly different from the no-drug group."

REFERENCE: G. Chesher and M. Longo. 2002. Cannabis and alcohol in motor vehicle accidents. In: F. Grotenhermen and E. Russo (Eds.) Cannabis and Cannabinoids: Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Therapeutic Potential. New York: Haworth Press. Pp. 313-323.

"This report has summarized available research on cannabis and driving.
… Evidence of impairment from the consumption of cannabis has been reported by studies using laboratory tests, driving simulators and on-road observation. ... Both simulation and road trials generally find that driving behavior shortly after consumption of larger doses of cannabis results in (i) a more cautious driving style; (ii) increased variability in lane position (and headway); and (iii) longer decision times. Whereas these results indicate a 'change' from normal conditions, they do not necessarily reflect 'impairment' in terms of performance effectiveness since few studies report increased accident risk."

REFERENCE: UK Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (Road Safety Division). 2000. Cannabis and Driving: A Review of the Literature and Commentary. Crowthorne, Berks: TRL Limited.

"Overall, we conclude that the weight of the evidence indicates that:
1) There is no evidence that consumption of cannabis alone increases the risk of culpability for traffic crash fatalities or injuries for which hospitalization occurs, and may reduce those risks.
2) The evidence concerning the combined effect of cannabis and alcohol on the risk of traffic fatalities and injuries, relative to the risk of alcohol alone, is unclear.
3) It is not possible to exclude the possibility that the use of cannabis (with or without alcohol) leads to an increased risk of road traffic crashes causing less serious injuries and vehicle damage."

REFERENCE: M. Bates and T. Blakely. 1999. "Role of cannabis in motor vehicle crashes." Epidemiologic Reviews 21: 222-232.

"In conclusion, marijuana impairs driving behavior. However, this impairment is mitigated in that subjects under marijuana treatment appear to perceive that they are indeed impaired. Where they can compensate, they do, for example by not overtaking, by slowing down and by focusing their attention when they know a response will be required. … Effects on driving behavior are present up to an hour after smoking but do not continue for extended periods.
With respect to comparisons between alcohol and marijuana effects, these substances tend to differ in their effects. In contrast to the compensatory behavior exhibited by subjects under marijuana treatment, subjects who have received alcohol tend to drive in a more risky manner. Both substances impair performance; however, the more cautious behavior of subjects who have received marijuana decreases the impact of the drug on performance, whereas the opposite holds true for alcohol."

REFERENCE: A. Smiley. 1999. Marijuana: On-Road and Driving-Simulator Studies. In: H. Kalant et al. (Eds) The Health Effects of Cannabis. Toronto: Center for Addiction and Mental Health. Pp. 173-191.

From the comments posted here it seems the DARE drug war propaganda has done its job when the topic is MJ for most of the sheep here. SMH.

Addicted? Kills brain cells? Reduced sperm count? LMFAO! Yeah and the Earth is flat, tax cuts create jobs and climate change is a hoax.

Kids IMO should not be smoking but teens? Always have been always will. Its a time of experimentation and kids/teens who have tried cannabis know the nonfactual propaganda about it is just that.

All anyone has to do is look at who funded this study to see that they equate use to abuse and have a motive behind their "study".

The REAL drug problem is pharmaceuticals and alcohol. These bring the real danger. Therefore uneducated boogieman tactics and lies about one drug (MJ) doesn't give the teens a conceptual idea of the dangers of others.

The tired old propaganda of MJ users being dumb, unmotivated, unsuccessful ect.. is akin to racial propaganda about minorities being dumb, lazy, shifty ect..

Its the person people not the substance of MJ. Why not give teens FACTS about each drug individually and its benefits/dangers instead of BS propaganda that only makes them think every drug is harmless?

also, someone here mentioned that alcohol does not kill brain cells...yet it cause brain damage...hmm...and the herb doesn't:

Government experts now admit that pot doesn't kill brain cells.1 This myth came from a handful of animal experiments in which structural changes (not actual cell death, as is often alleged) were observed in brain cells of animals exposed to high doses of pot. Many critics still cite the notorious monkey studies of Dr. Robert G. Heath, which purported to find brain damage in three monkeys that had been heavily dosed with cannabis.2 This work was never replicated and has since been discredited by a pair of better controlled, much larger monkey studies, one by Dr. William Slikker of the National Center for Toxicological Research3 and the other by Charles Rebert and Gordon Pryor of SRI International.4 Neither found any evidence of physical alteration in the brains of monkeys exposed to daily doses of pot for up to a year. Human studies of heavy users in Jamaica and Costa Rica found no evidence of abnormalities in brain physiology.4 Even though there is no evidence that pot causes permanent brain damage, users should be aware that persistent deficits in short-term memory have been noted in chronic, heavy marijuana smokers after 6 to 12 weeks of abstinence.5 It is worth noting that other drugs, including alcohol, are known to cause brain damage.

Footnotes

1. Dr. Christine Hartel, Acting Director of Research, National Institute of Drug Abuse, cited by the State of Hawaii Dept of Health, Alcohol and Drug Abuse Division in memo of Feb. 4, 1994.

2. For an overview, see NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Report, op. cit., pp. 81-2. R.G. Heath et al, "Cannabis sativa: effects on brain function and ultrastructure in Rhesus monkeys," Biol. Psychiatry 15: 657-90 (1980).

3. William Slikker et al., "Chronic Marijuana Smoke Exposure in the Rhesus Monkey," Fundamental and Applied Toxicology 17: 321-32 (1991).

4. Charles Rebert & Gordon Pryor - "Chronic Inhalation of Marijuana Smoke and Brain Electrophysiology of Rhesus Monkeys," International Journal of Psychophysiology V 14, p.144, 1993.

5. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Report, pp. 82-7.

6. "Cannabis and Memory Loss," (editorial) British Journal of Addiction 86: 249-52 (1991)

Marijuana’s Impact On Brain Function “Minimal,” New Study Says

Authors wrote, “We reviewed literature reporting neuroimaging studies of chronic or acute cannabis use published up until January 2009. … Sixty-six studies were identified, of which 41 met the inclusion criteria. Thirty-three were functional (SPECT/PET/fMRI) and eight structural (volumetric/DTI) imaging studies. … Only three of the structural imaging studies found differences between users and controls.”

Investigators concluded, “Minimal evidence of major effects of cannabis on brain structure has been reported,” noting that marijuana users and controls perform similarly on cognitive tasks.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19627647

hey hey hey..smoke weed every day. all these anti pot fags just can't admit they believe the lies and that they are WRONG! It's amazing how easy a little research is but yet they still refuse to do it and recite lies that have no factual evidence that exist only in their heads.

Read if you read all of joe420er
Evidence speaks for itself:
"Cannabis leads to a more cautious style of driving, [but] it has a negative impact on decision time and trajectory.<--path=road, and decision time= individual response to what is going on. [However,] Insert justification #1. this in itself does not mean that drivers under the influence of cannabis represent a traffic safety risk. so meaning that even though it has an negative impact on decision time and trajectory that is not a traffic risk. Cannabis alone, particularly in low doses, has little effect on the skills involved in automobile driving." It does have an effect on driving by this statement.
"This report has summarized available research on cannabis and driving.
… Evidence of impairment from the consumption of cannabis has been reported by studies using laboratory tests, driving simulators and on-road observation. ... Both simulation and road trials generally find that driving behavior shortly after consumption of larger doses of cannabis results in (i) a more cautious driving style; (ii) increased variability doesnt this meaning changing in lane position (and headway); and (iii) longer decision times. so if someone is about to crash into me or I am crashing in them it is going to take me longer to decide to get out of the way? Okay completely safe there. Whereas these results indicate a 'change' from normal conditions, they do not necessarily reflect 'impairment' in terms of performance effectiveness since few studies report increased accident risk." so what is impairment? "to make or cause to become worse; diminish in ability, value, excellence, etc.; weaken or damage" reference dictionary.com
"Overall, we conclude that the weight of the evidence indicates that:
1) There is no evidence that consumption of cannabis alone increases the risk of culpability for traffic crash fatalities or injuries for which hospitalization occurs, and may reduce those risks. Then the reports and all the satements before show no evidence of problems.
2) The evidence concerning the combined effect of cannabis and alcohol on the risk of traffic fatalities and injuries, relative to the risk of alcohol alone, is unclear. Unclear comparing to alcohol how bout comparing it to normal driving not under the influence of substances and/or cell phone.
3) It is not possible to exclude the possibility that the use of cannabis (with or without alcohol) leads to an increased risk of road traffic crashes causing less serious injuries and vehicle damage."
"In conclusion, marijuana impairs driving behavior. However, this impairment is mitigated in that subjects under marijuana treatment appear to perceive that they are indeed impaired. What they are not impaired but simply thinking they are hmmm does that work the same with alcohol depending if you are an alcoholic or pot user. Where they can compensate, they do, for example by not overtaking, by slowing down and by focusing their attention when they know a response will be required. How do we know they compensate were we in the car with them all. People drunk also compensate for being intoxicated however compensation for being under the influence of a substance is often wrong no matter the substance. Effects on driving behavior are present up to an hour after smoking but do not continue for extended periods. You have the munchies and drive at this point or do you not drive and just suffer through the munchies until you can drive safely.
So with all this, is it really that safe to drive under the influence whether it be any substance?. If you were trying to say that pot is safe to drive under I am sorry but I do not see it with the studies that you used.

It's truly disenheartening to read so many ignorant, wrong opinions on cannabis. Those of you without first-hand experience know not what you type about, and probably babble as mindlessly over every other topic under the sun.

For those of you who do not indulge: it is a safe, wonderful medicine. And all the garbage you believe will never obviate that simple little fact.

Addiction. What a stupid, stupid term! Aren't we all addicted to eating, sleeping, drinking water, breathing oxygen, and working? Where is all the worried hand-wringing over those addictions?

please.....ok, let me take some quotes out of context too, and show you how wrong you are by taking some stuff out of context too:

"Cannabis alone, particularly in low doses, has little effect on the skills involved in automobile driving."

('nuff said)

"Whereas these results indicate a 'change' from normal conditions, they do not necessarily reflect 'impairment' in terms of performance effectiveness since few studies report increased accident risk."

(so, in other words, it's not impairment as we know impairment)

"1) There is no evidence that consumption of cannabis alone increases the risk of culpability for traffic crash fatalities or injuries for which hospitalization occurs, and may reduce those risks."

(after all these years, no evidence....hmmm, insidious indeed...)

"With respect to comparisons between alcohol and marijuana effects, these substances tend to differ in their effects. In contrast to the compensatory behavior exhibited by subjects under marijuana treatment, subjects who have received alcohol tend to drive in a more risky manner. Both substances impair performance; however, the more cautious behavior of subjects who have received marijuana decreases the impact of the drug on performance, whereas the opposite holds true for alcohol."

(hmm...'nuff said there too)

also, how would we know if they compensate or not? since we're not there with them? cuz there would be proof in accident statistics and police reports, etc...man, that report was from '99...you're telling me that we don't know anything because there's no proof linking marijuana to accidents before that report was written? so there hasn't been cases where marijuana was at fault in all these decades? ok, that really proves your point...

You still did not prove that driving under the influence of marijuana was safe only that it might be safer then alcohol. As far I have heard from marijuana users about about driving cautiously it is often below the speed limit and braking sooner than needed. In a large city like Dallas, Houston among others driving below the speed limit can get you killed nuff said. And by the way there is nothing out of context no rabbit out of a hat. It is not impairment as we see impairment so if it was alcohol it would be the impairment that we see but since it is pot it is different. It is what it is, drive sober.

not exactly advocating getting high and driving, just pointing out that there is no real inherent danger to driving while stoned. it is what it is.

Ronnie you just admitted the thing we are FULLY condoning:

" only that it(driving under the influence of pot) might be safer then alcohol"

Why would you stand for keeping a substance, that (you just admitted it yourself) is safer than the legal alternative, illeagal? In doing so, you are in effect arguing for the case that you would rather see the continued number of drunk driving cases we have now. If, pot were legalized, and some people actually started using it as an alternative to alcohol, then it stands to reason, that the number of cases of driving under the influence of alcohol would decrease, since some of those people would instead be smoking pot. A perfectly logical conclusion.

Now, you mention that driving below the speed limit is unsafe, I fully agree with you there, when I have had to drive after smoking a little MJ (again, I actually hate having to drive, because it forces me to concentrate on the road, therefore killing my buzz during that time.) I don't generally drive under the speed limit, I will drive at, or, if in traffic and they seem to be going about 5 over, then I will go with the traffic. The main thing I am saying here is that, like the study showed, I tend to compensate for my knowledge of intoxication, by wanting to go with the flow, no faster than anyone else, and no slower either. On the otherhand, if I'm driving sober, I am anything but, I tend to drive at least 10 miles over if traffic conditions allow, I'm always changing the radio as soon as I hear something that bores me (when driving after smoking, I will sit through several songs in a row that I hate until I get to a red light where I feel I can safely change the station or put on an mp3 album), and I'm always weaving in and out of slower cars that are only going at or slightly above the speed limit. So, from my own personal experience, I can say I fully am aware that pot actually makes me a safer driver. Part of that, I also am aware of, comes from the fact that I am ADD (Attention Defecit Disorder, not ADHD, which is hyperactiviy thrown in), and pot actually makes me stay focused on the task at hand. There is a medical theory on the reason for this, but my ADD is actually a rare diagnosis, ADHD is the one that is more common, and so pot may not be the same medical help that it is for me.

I never said that I think alcohol should be legal either yes I am a crazy teetotaler if that is what it is called. I think people should not use cocaine, alcohol, methamphetemine, opiates, chocalate, food, or even pot to change the way they feel. I think that being sober is one of the treasures in life that people do not see. I have not seen much good with any substance use including marijuana and when it comes to driving I would rather take my chances with sober drivers rather than one under the influence.

a runner's high activates the same endocannabinoids system in your body that marijuana does...two different natural approaches, one same result...so, by your words, exercising is not good either...

also, evidence speaks for itself:

"Cannabis leads to a more cautious style of driving, [but] it has a negative impact on decision time and trajectory. [However,] this in itself does not mean that drivers under the influence of cannabis represent a traffic safety risk. … Cannabis alone, particularly in low doses, has little effect on the skills involved in automobile driving."

REFERENCE: Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs. 2002. Cannabis: Summary Report: Our Position for a Canadian Public Policy. Ottawa. Chapter 8: Driving Under the Influence of Cannabis.

"[In] cases in which THC was the only drug present were analyzed, the culpability ratio was found to be not significantly different from the no-drug group."

REFERENCE: G. Chesher and M. Longo. 2002. Cannabis and alcohol in motor vehicle accidents. In: F. Grotenhermen and E. Russo (Eds.) Cannabis and Cannabinoids: Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Therapeutic Potential. New York: Haworth Press. Pp. 313-323.

"This report has summarized available research on cannabis and driving.
… Evidence of impairment from the consumption of cannabis has been reported by studies using laboratory tests, driving simulators and on-road observation. ... Both simulation and road trials generally find that driving behavior shortly after consumption of larger doses of cannabis results in (i) a more cautious driving style; (ii) increased variability in lane position (and headway); and (iii) longer decision times. Whereas these results indicate a 'change' from normal conditions, they do not necessarily reflect 'impairment' in terms of performance effectiveness since few studies report increased accident risk."

REFERENCE: UK Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (Road Safety Division). 2000. Cannabis and Driving: A Review of the Literature and Commentary. Crowthorne, Berks: TRL Limited.

"Overall, we conclude that the weight of the evidence indicates that:
1) There is no evidence that consumption of cannabis alone increases the risk of culpability for traffic crash fatalities or injuries for which hospitalization occurs, and may reduce those risks.
2) The evidence concerning the combined effect of cannabis and alcohol on the risk of traffic fatalities and injuries, relative to the risk of alcohol alone, is unclear.
3) It is not possible to exclude the possibility that the use of cannabis (with or without alcohol) leads to an increased risk of road traffic crashes causing less serious injuries and vehicle damage."

REFERENCE: M. Bates and T. Blakely. 1999. "Role of cannabis in motor vehicle crashes." Epidemiologic Reviews 21: 222-232.

"In conclusion, marijuana impairs driving behavior. However, this impairment is mitigated in that subjects under marijuana treatment appear to perceive that they are indeed impaired. Where they can compensate, they do, for example by not overtaking, by slowing down and by focusing their attention when they know a response will be required. … Effects on driving behavior are present up to an hour after smoking but do not continue for extended periods.
With respect to comparisons between alcohol and marijuana effects, these substances tend to differ in their effects. In contrast to the compensatory behavior exhibited by subjects under marijuana treatment, subjects who have received alcohol tend to drive in a more risky manner. Both substances impair performance; however, the more cautious behavior of subjects who have received marijuana decreases the impact of the drug on performance, whereas the opposite holds true for alcohol."

REFERENCE: A. Smiley. 1999. Marijuana: On-Road and Driving-Simulator Studies. In: H. Kalant et al. (Eds) The Health Effects of Cannabis. Toronto: Center for Addiction and Mental Health. Pp. 173-191.

I do not exercise and stop with the studies if you look enough you can find studies that will say anything you want them to. You probably could find one that says fetal alcohol syndrome is not caused by alcohol wait I think there is one!! I bet there is a study that says cocaine and meth are safe for use wait there is probably that one too. Studies are baised upon writers bias that is why you do not see good confident studies. Just like supposedly we that are against marijuana find the studies that say it is not okay and those for marijuana find ones that are okay. Oh wait you are posting the same study from earlier where I did magic tricks on the statements and took everything way out of context by giving definitions out of a dictionary for trajectory and impairment.

yeah, i thought i was on another article and was responding to somebody else...my bad. and you don't exercise? oookay...say no more. also, you didn't really prove anything earlier...

Good point Ronnie, thats why I tried to find a neutral study that still gave the same conclusion. The one I referrenced above actually comes from the Department of Transportaion itself. If anything they would TRY to purposely bias the study against MJ, yet, again:

The first group complied with all instructions, even after high doses of THC. Changes in mood were often reported but changes in personality were never observed. Most importantly, the subjects were always able to complete every ride without major interventions by the driving instructors and their safety was never compromised.

Standard deviations of speed and steering wheel movements were unaffected by the drug. Subjective ratings of perceived driving quality followed a similar pattern as SDLP indicating that the subjects were well aware of their diminished ability to control the vehicle after marijuana smoking.

h t t p://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/misc/driving/dot78.htm

exactly. When i graduated high school, there were 1500 graduating seniors. so basicly this article is based on an artible writen about a 'ground breaking' study that used a very small sample of individuals and i dont that in itself doesnt represents anything relavant. Thats less than a percent of one student if you consider all high schools around our ENTIRE nation. too mbig of a margin of error imo. High school kids smoke cigs, drink alcohol, take pills, and smoke pot??? big surprise. and all the old foogies are remenising about beating kids... this is the problem, you cant beat people and try to justify it. stop believing propaganda old timers. and this should be a states rights issue reguarding pot legalization - less fed government interference - so if you're a republican get your party morals aligned with what you preach before you go pre-judging all the evil young people out there.

For god's sake "shut up", take a research or statistics class. That was a representative sample regardless whether you agree with the results. This is why your arguments are not taken seriously- you have a glaring hole in your education and clearly know very little about research. Or am I just being an old fogie. (not foogie genius).

G.Mark; Part of what you said is reminiscent of the my time, the mid to later 60's. We said the same about our parents and it took some time but we joined them as well. But I have to say it's not Reagans fault. He came years later.

The world today is better than it has ever been. I think that some people, for whatever reason, think that they are entitled to have been born into a perfect world.

Great- I like your positive outlook on the world! But to be fair, it depends upon where one is born. Those in the U.S. are lucky but - certain parts of Africa? Probably not the best time to be born there!

I totally disagree with this statement. The world is getting worse and teens see it also but lack the ability to help participate in it. I'm not being in denial, I am completely worried my sons will not have the same advantage I did. In fact, I'm sure of it! The whole system has not worked for some time now and the sad fact is, any who denies this is not altogether seeing what is currently happening economically and politically. He's 20 and we can't afford to get him what he needs in life because of the recession which there IS one still going on. He knows this too. Worse off are college people who think a degree will help their future. We are in an economic down trend here. And they DID deserve better but from who? We all don't exactly know how to reverse what has happened and it didn't happen just since BO took office. Get real. Selfish greed has played a big part in this being screwed up period. History has shown that those we put in office have turned against humanity and were all out for themselves, in every country this has been the norm. Your just uninformed or helplessly in denial. Time to face the facts...Man cannot effectively govern himself period and now it's too late to change the trends. There's a class division; the rich and powerful run the show. If you're one of the lucky few that have staved off poverty, just wait. Their coming for you too! Sooner or later but not much later. But, hey, as long as you're doing great-why worry...for now.

Gwen--obviously one can't speak in generalities about "the world" if one wants to be wholly accurate.

1guynoc -"the rich and powerful run the show."

Duh; this has always been the case. Otherwise they wouldn't be "the rich and powerful". *facepalm*

However, humanity's scientific understanding, medicine, access to information, etc. increase daily.

Exactly Jim! These same people without the drugs would just have another excuse. Most people are lazy and stupid. Most.

Jim i'm glad that you managed to succeed and get out of that lifestyle as you matured and grew up. I am a recently turned 18 year old and drug addict. I started smoking marijuana last year when i was 17. ever since that first hit from the bong i knew I hit the jackpot. All my worries dissappeared and i was livin life. But how quickly this spiraled out of control confuses me and saddens me, because i couldn't even see it happening. I started smoking and driknking and partying like so called "normal teenagers". pretty quickly I became interested in other drugs and did 100's of hours of research on EVERY single drug you've heard of and haven't heard of. (most via erowid.org) I learned the truth about drugs and how most are not bad for your body or mind. SO i began using pure mdma (x) and LSD (cid) and smoking daily over last summer. eventually weed wasnt as exciting as it first was, so i kept expirementing.

I had limits. I knew i wasn't EVER going to shoot up, do coke, etc etc etc. that changed quickly. I found cheaper highs and legal highs which blow ur mind. i began using methylone (legal coke/ecsasy) and nitrous oxide and everything else i could get my hands on. I didn't notice a problem. I was happy and having fun and going places 99% of you will never experience in your life times. But the relationships i built on drugs were FAKE. everything about drugs are FAKE.

I was spending all my money, I had to begin stealing to keep up my use, I was failing school, i didn't give a @!$%# about anything else. AND I WAS HAPPY. the countless hours i wasted on drugs, much less the money, tears me apart. The damage I've done to my family and friends is terrible. I had to change schools twice in less than ! 8 MONTHs ! from when I started smoking weed. if i could stick to weed, i'd be fine. but for many kids that isn't possible. kids are stupid. i've seen countless after me heading in the same direction. I've seen methylone destroy and kill my "friends" and fellow users. I've seen WEED ADDICTS beat the @!$%# out of friends for a blunt or revenge or for some other crap that drugs caused. The damage drug use causes to your life is so hard to detect and so prevalent.

Sure, many people can smoke weed with other people or on weekeds and never have it spiral out of control. But what i've seen in society in these past years are kids starting younger and younger and it damaging them and people around them.

I am still addicted to drugs. I have no intentions of using today and I HATE DRUGS. but so did i yesterday and I STILL ENDED UP GETTING SUCKED IN. when you begin habitual use, the way it changes your brain function is bad. and it causes inner turmoil and negative coping mechanisms.

I'm glad you didn't have this problem and I'm sure a lot didn't. But why would you want to risk it? one wrong step and it can happen! whether or not they know it. alcohol and drugs are bad news.

don't get me wrong I love marijuana. everything about it. and thats the problem. keep weed out of teens hands. the drugs that kids can fiund these days you've never heard of!

JWH-018, JWH-073, JWH 201, etc

bk-MDMA, MCAT, FLephedrone, 2C-E, 2C-C, 2C-T, ect

All those are legal^ you can buy them online and in gas stations! they are addictive! I've shot most of these up! they RUIN LIVES!

the JWH's are legal substitutes for weed and they ARE 10 times as mentally addictive.

Come to your senses america. teach kids the truth about drugs without just SCARING them into believeing @!$%#, cuz that never works. legalize marijuana and LSD. i'm fine with that. they are safe and not addictive, to most. but the legal highs are destroying our youth, me being a part of it.

wrong JJ,

The JWH chemicals we're recently banned by the DEA. They are now illegal.

Wow JJ. What a testimony! But saying impairing your consciousness at all seems like contrary to the truth. Staying straight obviously is difficult (or so it may be) but seems to be the all intuitive answer. Wanting to stray from feeling normal indicates a problem. Don't you think that makes sense?

JJ= contrary trollage.

Your right. I was running from my problems for a long time. I used drugs initially as a means to escape from depression and such, and that makes it 100x easier to become addicted. II know staying clean is what I'm looking for, things get better when I am clean, i know this now, experienced it and it makes sense. But drug addiction is confusing. I can't understand the drive sometimes and I have to put all my faith in God to help. Thanks for your support.

And pete,

some of the JWH's are illegal. but there are dozens of analogs. and the legal highs that are being sold as k2 and syn and headtrip are all STILL legal. and also a hundered times more potent. a lot of these kids that end up in the hospital cannot handle the drug themselves, they freakout and I know from experience the "badtrip" side of these legal incenses are utter hell. like feeling like there are demons in your body tearing you up and paranoia to the extreme. and if I am wrong and every 1 of the 50+ JWH analogs are illegal, then whatever they made to substitute for that is wrecking homes as well.

JJ:

All the more reason to keep drugs out of the hands of teenagers. Twenty-one and up, I say. Same as alcohol.

Sorry JJ ,but I think it`s just you! I have a friend just like you. He`s addicted to anything & everything smoking,booze,pot,LSD,gambling etc...... IT`s all or nothing, you do it 100% and all is great or you have to quit 100% and then it`s stupid for you & everyone else! Most people find a happy medium in life & live happy, you can`t so it`s bad for everybody. You need to see a doctor and be put on meds for whatever is in you.

Yes, your anecdotes are so much more valid than studies.

The point is that the anecdotes are probably just as valid as the "studies."

TheGreat... And an anecdote is needed, why? Another government push to cure a non problem. Our society is so good at inventing problems and demanding cures for them.

Why are anecdotes just as valid as studies now? Jim-- apparently you felt that one was needed as you posted one about your high school reunion. Also, you do realize that you are in fact part of "society." Why people such as yourself constantly separate from and place themselves above the rest of "society" always bemuses me.

Wow, you're making no sense...

What specifically makes no sense?

To Jimcolorado-It never bothers anyone how someone else may have it unless it affects them; then they want to know who's at fault. There's definitely different degrees of life you can live-you can be selfish and unconcerned for your fellow men or the opposite. It's a free choice to make, but definitely an obvious one if your already in a position of wealth and prosperity-hence; it's easier for a camel to go thru the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Life gives many opportunities to learn from, but only after you make the mistake! Does that make any sense?

Teachers are not all unionized. There are some poor teachers, there are some excellent teachers. There are good kids that want to learn, there are kids that just don't give a damn. Perhaps parental involvement could be a motivator for the children...but then again...the parents say 'it's not my job!' Hell, half the parents shouldn't have had kids anyway.

Jim- This is just a stupid comment. And you'd be surprised how many of those kids who use or abuse drugs (because they are two separate things) are actually honors students. I would not assume that the kids with poor test scores are the "druggies," while the kids in AP classes are all squeaky clean. If you ever had teens, I'm thinking maybe you were one of those idiot parents with blinders on who blamed the school when your own kid got caught with pot in his/her locker. Or maybe you just didn't realize that your own sweet little angel probably didn't graduate a virgin and loved to party. Wake up, dude. Your comment is simply irrelevant.

I think this is a good argument. I don`t want minors smoking pot until their of drinking/smoking age. Dealers don`t care if your 5 years old as long as you have CASH! Legalize & tax it,just give the laws more teeth this time. Any store/person/owner/employee selling to minors gets 1 year first offence, 2nd time 5 years no ifs ands or buts. The store would also lose its selling rights for 5 years min. Would they sell to minors to make a sale for that punishment,NO!

We would occasionally splurge for TJ Swann but it was usually Boones Farm for us too...

Such good times.

lawful, Just look around at your peers are they over the hill? NO! The Boomer Generation says it all, we are the reason we have all the electronics we have today.

Shawn, we all know it, but since doing studies seems to be all the rage these days, I would really like to see the "numbers". Who knows, maybe our "drug induced haze" was really heightened awareness and foresight into the world of technology. Far out, man.

We won't see those numbers because the Boomers are still in protective mode. In other words they won't risk all they have if word got out to the law.

Teenagers have been the same as they have been for generations. This story confirms that.

To Pete-Yes, I agree with this! I was just thinking how we all endure the same pressure as teens.

Interesting what you said, however, the kids today are not smarter and so in-tuned with the government. Most high school students do not even care about politics. This generation of kids is basically concerned about themselves and what they can get out of life. If that involves drugs, alcohol...all the better. Most are not this way, they continue to do well in school, lead normal lives, hoping to rise above and become a contributing member of society.

.

they have bad grades and dont dress nice probably.

" every single thing I or anyone else for that matter enjoys doing on a regular basis is in fact an "addiction". "

That is correct.

And that is bad how?

To Jr-are you socially involved with the majority or E-V-E-R-Y-O-N-E you ever knew in hs? I seriously doubt that and unless you can really see how they turned out-you can't discredit this by using unprovable exaggerations. And it should make you sick. Instead of getting better, thing's are worse. How? We have more addictive substances to deal with and explain how unsafe they are while smoking and drinking a beer in front of our kids. HA! (note the sarcasm...)

Unless they have cancer?

Pot doesn't treat cancer, it helps the patient with the side effects. That said, I would assume if a child has cancer, then that would be a case by case thing. I would think the benefits vs the negatives would have to be taken into the equation. My general point is that marijuana is harmful to the brain when not fully developed. It kills brain cells in all, but for a developing brain, that damage happens to VITAL brain cells. In adults, it still kills brain cells, but the effects are much less due to the organ being fully developed.

I guess my point is that it is indeed harmful to children, and felt it should be said. I think it should be legal for all 21 and over, but that is a different discussion.

Pot does NOT kill brain cells.

I never said pot treats cancer.

@GreenJesus:

It doesn't kill brain cells.

It does treat cancer actually. We're familiar with it helping cancer patients' general well-being, and ALSO, in lab tests, direct applications of THC to cancer cells actually kills those cancer cells.

Another study of folks who smoke tobacco AND pot shows that pot lowered the rates of cancer from the cigarettes...

As for minors, I guess all recreational substances should still be illegal for minors, but when they do experiment -- and they do -- then I'd much rather see teens smoking pot, than drinking, or smoking cigarettes, or swallowing pills...

But you would let your child or teen take pain killers?

Studies assessing the anticancer properties of cannabinoids have shown that they inhibit the proliferation of a wide range of cancers, including brain cancer, prostate cancer, oral cancers, lung cancer, skin cancer, pancreatic cancer, biliary tract cancers, lymphoma, and breast cancer.

The dual effects of delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol on cholangiocarcinoma (biliary tract cancer) cells: anti-invasion activity at low concentration and apoptosis induction at high concentration.

The anticancer effect of Delta (9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the principal active component of cannabinoids has been demonstrated in various kinds of cancers.

Http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19916793

Cannabinoids inhibit cellular respiration of human oral cancer cells.

Http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20516734

Anti-proliferative and apoptotic effects of anandamide in human prostatic cancer cell lines: implication of epidermal growth factor receptor down-regulation and ceramide production.

RESULTS: ANA induced a decrease of EGFR levels on LNCaP, DU145, and PC3 prostatic cancer cells by acting through cannabinoid CB(1) receptor subtype and this leaded to an inhibition of the EGF-stimulated growth of these cells.

Http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12746841?dopt=Abstract

Cannabinoids reduce ErbB2-driven breast cancer progression through Akt inhibition

Results

Our results show that both Δ⁹-tetrahydrocannabinol, the most abundant and potent cannabinoid in marijuana, and JWH-133, a non-psychotropic CB₂ receptor-selective agonist, reduce tumor growth, tumor number, and the amount/severity of lung metastases in MMTV-neu mice. Histological analyses of the tumors revealed that cannabinoids inhibit cancer cell proliferation, induce cancer cell apoptosis, and impair tumor angiogenesis. Cannabinoid antitumoral action relies, at least partially, on the inhibition of the pro-tumorigenic Akt pathway. We also found that 91% of ErbB2-positive tumors express the non-psychotropic cannabinoid receptor CB₂.

Http://www.molecular-cancer.com/content/9/1/196

Inhibition of skin tumor growth and angiogenesis in vivo by activation of cannabinoid receptors

Http://www.jci.org/articles/view/16116/version/1

Δ⁹-Tetrahydrocannabinol inhibits epithelial growth factor-induced lung cancer cell migration in vitro as well as its growth and metastasis in vivo

Http://www.nature.com/onc/journal/v27/n3/abs/1210641a.html

Cannabinoid Receptor-Mediated Apoptosis Induced by R(+)-Methanandamide and Win55,212-2 Is Associated with Ceramide Accumulation and p38 Activation in Mantle Cell Lymphoma

We have recently shown that cannabinoids induce growth inhibition and apoptosis in mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), a malignant B-cell lymphoma that expresses high levels of cannabinoid receptor types 1 and 2 (CB₁ and CB₂).

Http://molpharm.aspetjournals.org/content/70/5/1612.abstract

Cannabinoids as potential new therapy for the treatment of gliomas (brain cancer)

Http://www.expert-reviews.com/doi/abs/10.1586/14737175.8.1.37

Cannabinoids Induce Apoptosis of Pancreatic Tumor Cells via Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress–Related Genes

Http:// cancerres.aacrjournals.org /content/66/13/6748.abstract

Pot Compound Protects Against Alcohol-Induced Brain Damage

Researchers hypothesized that CBD is neuroprotective because it possesses anti-oxidant properties. Anti-oxidants, such as vitamin C and vitamin E, are believed to help the body protect against the deleterious effects of free radicals (unstable atoms that can damage cells and may accelerate the progression of cancer and age-related diseases).

Http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/314/2/780.abstract?sid=4498b396-f35c-49c8-9709-900ffa17e299

Government experts now admit that pot doesn't kill brain cells.1 This myth came from a handful of animal experiments in which structural changes (not actual cell death, as is often alleged) were observed in brain cells of animals exposed to high doses of pot. Many critics still cite the notorious monkey studies of Dr. Robert G. Heath, which purported to find brain damage in three monkeys that had been heavily dosed with cannabis.2 This work was never replicated and has since been discredited by a pair of better controlled, much larger monkey studies, one by Dr. William Slikker of the National Center for Toxicological Research3 and the other by Charles Rebert and Gordon Pryor of SRI International.4 Neither found any evidence of physical alteration in the brains of monkeys exposed to daily doses of pot for up to a year. Human studies of heavy users in Jamaica and Costa Rica found no evidence of abnormalities in brain physiology.4 Even though there is no evidence that pot causes permanent brain damage, users should be aware that persistent deficits in short-term memory have been noted in chronic, heavy marijuana smokers after 6 to 12 weeks of abstinence.5 It is worth noting that other drugs, including alcohol, are known to cause brain damage.

Footnotes

1. Dr. Christine Hartel, Acting Director of Research, National Institute of Drug Abuse, cited by the State of Hawaii Dept of Health, Alcohol and Drug Abuse Division in memo of Feb. 4, 1994.

2. For an overview, see NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Report, op. cit., pp. 81-2. R.G. Heath et al, "Cannabis sativa: effects on brain function and ultrastructure in Rhesus monkeys," Biol. Psychiatry 15: 657-90 (1980).

3. William Slikker et al., "Chronic Marijuana Smoke Exposure in the Rhesus Monkey," Fundamental and Applied Toxicology 17: 321-32 (1991).

4. Charles Rebert & Gordon Pryor - "Chronic Inhalation of Marijuana Smoke and Brain Electrophysiology of Rhesus Monkeys," International Journal of Psychophysiology V 14, p.144, 1993.

5. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Report, pp. 82-7.

6. "Cannabis and Memory Loss," (editorial) British Journal of Addiction 86: 249-52 (1991)

Marijuana’s Impact On Brain Function “Minimal,” New Study Says

Authors wrote, “We reviewed literature reporting neuroimaging studies of chronic or acute cannabis use published up until January 2009. … Sixty-six studies were identified, of which 41 met the inclusion criteria. Thirty-three were functional (SPECT/PET/fMRI) and eight structural (volumetric/DTI) imaging studies. … Only three of the structural imaging studies found differences between users and controls.”

Investigators concluded, “Minimal evidence of major effects of cannabis on brain structure has been reported,” noting that marijuana users and controls perform similarly on cognitive tasks.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19627647

Agreed, and well said! My stepdaughter is 18; she is an avid pot smoker. I won't have it in the house with my 5-year-old, so she had to find somewhere else to live because she insists she can't not have it. She also knows that she's on her own if she gets caught with it and charged. However, she also knows we love and care about her. She's a willful kiddo who learns best through experience (read: mistakes), but she counts on us to be honest with her and have a bottom line. We have a surprisingly good relationship in spite of the "tough love."

so you want to push her onto harder drugs? that's what you're doing...the more you push her away, the more she'll experiment...she's well on her way...tough love, huh? you just can't wait to say "i told you so!" as she ruins her life...

Alcohol - you've heard of it right? It causes a lot more deaths than pot. Pot smokers are too lazy to get off the couch. Drinkers, on the other hand, tend to think they're invincible. There are already laws on the books to cover driving while intoxicated, no matter the substance. Since the "war on drugs" seems to have had little, if any, affect, seems to me that we should try another approach.

And you suggest the opening the flood gates is the reasonable approach?

The "floodgates" have been opened for decades.

How will things change?

Let's continue our miserably failed policies to make you goody-two-shoes types feel good.

I understand your point. Kids should wait til they are adults before making the decision to try/use drugs. People who do drugs should use them in a responsible way, much like alcohol should be used in a responsible way. Of course I would never recommend anyone using hard drugs like heroin or meth. Education is key to keeping our youth off of hard drugs that are dangerous and could possibly ruin their lives. And if they are having problems with any addiction, including an eating disorder, then they should seek professional help.

But with that said, I strongly believe that marijuana should be legalized and treated as alcohol. People should not be treated as criminals if they smoke weed. People with drug addictions that TRULY pose a threat to their well being and health should be treated as medical patients.

But you have no problem with all the alcoholics, right? The ratio is most likely 10,000,000 to 1.

Wow, that is a really sad story. I guess there isn't any hope for some people regardless of any laws, huh?

More reason to spend another trillion dollars for the next 40 years, huh?

@KKRAW: "Pot laced with hash" -- I hope you realize that hash is just a strong form of pot. Hash is basically the condensed oil from pot.

Is this story true? In 4 years he went from smoking pot to being a heroine addict jailbird with 3 kids??? If that's true, I still don't blame pot. He must have had a lot of crazy problems that had nothing to do with trying pot. Pot has nothing to do with heroine, or irresponsible sex...

To MisterFrankBlack-That's 28 years old. Not in 4 years, he said 16 years later....the guy has 3 kids, and is a habitual offender. Personally, I was involved with most smokable forms of drugs and never heard of pot laced with hash...it's one or the other. The other being more potent. And I suspect the lung expansion may have been the cause of throwing up. Stupid parents though to excuse this behavior from a 12 year old. Thankfully I've never experienced this. I would be ashamed as a parent.

Yes, I took care of my two children, one is fine and the other died of a drug overdose last year. Both made A's in school, attended college and were involved in sports. Explain this one.

Steve Lono: Great post. I have some questions.

Here is a look at my population...

You saw 14% of the student population. You said "most" and "many" when referring to students who had problems. Do you have hard numbers? How many students just smoked weed? How many students were addicted to hard drugs like meth and heroin? How many students had a real addiction as apposed to just using drugs for the first time or experimenting? What is the percentage of students who used drugs once and never used them again? I wonder what the percentages are like compared to 30 or 40 years ago?

Many of the reasons teens use (again their words) due to stress at school and home, get away from abusive family members (parents, siblings, other members), they cannot concentrate and school is boring, and because my friends do it.

Hasn't this always been the case for a certain population of the student population? I'm sure the number has grown over the years.

I don't know about you all, but when I was in high school in the 70's- we did not have alcohol/drug counselors, or probation officers, or police officers. There were no school shootings or gang violence. I am not saying these things never happen, they were just rare ocurrences. I felt safe at school.

I totally agree. It's crazy the things we see going on these days. The war on drugs has been escalating in violence since the day it began. And it looks like things are only going to get worse unless we change our course. Education is the key to keeping our youth and future citizens from using dangerous and addictive drugs like meth and heroin. Maybe if drugs were regulated in the U.S., beyond prohibition, adolescents would have a harder time acquiring drugs. The level of difficulty in obtaining drugs would be the same as alcohol. Granted its not a perfect system and some will still obtain these things as evidenced in your post. But I blame the war on drugs for the craziness that we see now. It didn't used to be this way. But that doesn't mean things can't change BACK to what you and I used to remember...

It is because MANY parents are not involved in their kids lives.

That statement is of the utmost importance. Many blame drugs. Drugs exacerbate the problems of many people. But the first line of defense for our youth are there parents/guardians. In combination with education, parenting is the best thing to keep our youth from becoming victims of the dangers of drug addiction.

Shawn:

That is a very sad. I very sorry for your loss.

Hopefully one day drugs will not be so easily obtained by our youth. Maybe with drugs being regulated and controlled like alcohol it would be harder for them to acquire them. Maybe this tragedy could have been avoided.

Lono great post. By far the most intelligent here. All behavior begins in the home. The words "no" and "yes" create the boundaries in our kids lives. When there is not enough no's there is no boundaries. Also sounds like you work in a rough area.

Great post, Lono. @ Shawn, so sorry for your loss.

SteveSolo-good post. I think what is being missed here is the number and the cummulation of facts. There's no way to say it's any different where ever or when ever your raised. Drug addiction of every sort is rampant and the ratio of 1 in 3 is a very HIGH number that should cause concern-not argumentation about where they got the facts. If any of you parents have not been exposed to this trend, your isolated in your own world. The truth is yours to bare. Take control of your kids environment and exposure. Meet other parents get to know their friends and where they go, what they do. Get involved or kids will suffer. And apparently-they are!