The nature of cannabis is that it's not a single compound. Each strain has different ratios of actives.
In vaporizers a single strain can produce different effects depending on the temperature of the vaporization.
So when people talk about marijuana doing this or that, it's simplistic.
They might be surprised by how differently they'd be affected by a different strain.
Kids who started smoking early will need to readapt, and it will take a while. It's very
hard to tell what was due to environment, pre-existing conditions and any drugs used.
It would be most helpful to not get all paranoid about it worrying about "brain damage".
The brain is a very resilient machine, and things will settle down. The press did us all a
big un-favor by publishing ridiculously unscientific work, supported by the National
Institute on Drug Abuse, that claimed to show damage to all sorts of functionality and
structures of the brain from marijuana, especially in adolescents. These "studies" were
flawed and have long been debunked. They proved nothing at all.
And as a pharmacologist I find discussions, on LongeCity and elsewhere, of the alleged
effects of cannabis OR nootropics on specific receptors and brain structures mostly very
misleading, because we currently haven't the slightest idea of how the brain works.
It's a delusional brandishing of terminology to talk about hippocampal GABAnergic
this and Cholinergic that, it only serves to impress those who haven't explored these
subjects enough to laugh it off.
Trying to apply such fantasies to adjusting one's intake of "supplements" is especially scary.
Observation is of great value, as is sharing impressions.
But "sharing" about how this or that psychoactive drug affects a particular neurochemical
action in specific regions of the brain, when honest professionals will tell you how far
we are from comprehending how it all works together to create the human mind, is not helpful.
The avalanche of weak studies in the scientific and medical journals is published with the
understanding that these are hypothetical micro-probings, largely necessitated by the "publish
or perish" rule. Professionals in those fields know enough not to take them too seriously.
The popular press is enamored of these "scientific findings", especially when they claim
to demonstrate the dangers of unsanctioned or illegal drugs.
But reading postings of the nootropic community I'm stunned by the greater yet confidence
with which people, who don't seem to have much understanding of the field, quote to each
other misunderstood snippets of very technical micro-probings that started somewhere in
an article. They leap to conclusions and dispense actual recommendations and advice on
what"stacks" to ingest - with a bravura that would make neuropharmacologists shudder.
Example? How about "out there" in the marketplace?
The discovery of the CB1 and CB2 receptors was an important milestone. But Pharma
marketers went crazy thinking they understood it all. They thought that blocking CB1
receptors should serve as a weight loss tool, since THC works on CB1 receptors and
THC increases appetite. This was a case of irresponsible ignorance. The result was
the suicide of several of the test subjects, as the Rimonabant antagonist turned out
to basically block all natural sensations of joy.
Folks! It isn't anytime soon we're going to really understand our brains, so let's stop
spreading this pseudo-scientific babble. Nubies, beware. Slowly develop your own
experience, don't listen to people who claim to have it all scientifically figured out.
The real scientists will tell you it's not figured out at all, and you need to be careful.
Edited by Peak, 22 July 2016 - 09:54 AM.
