Cannabis' Effects on the Brain

[MinnBobber]

Massive respect to Sadhguru! lol

............................................................................
His message seems like "hogwash" imo
He states that north pole magnetic field is pulling all continents to the north. That does not seem to jive with the
real movements away from the supercontinent.
Another element was him saying that an extra drop of blood going to your head (caused by sleeping with head to north) leads to a stroke. I guess I should burst, when doing a headstand then.....

He also states that blood vessels going to head are way smaller than going downward this seems incorrect as I believe your brain gets a big supply of blood, at least of you are a big thinker and need to fuel all that brain activity

For those that don't view his videos, spoiler alert ........ he says head to the east is best

 

[biohacker]

His message seems like "hogwash" imo

That's cool, but everything is hogwash anyways... just like "globe earth, nasa, the governments, health care, food pyramid etc" LOL We just have to think and observe for ourselves, because everything that is claimed to be science is mainly pseudoscience anyways.

It all really comes down to Who Do You Believe? There is PLENTY that I don't agree with Sadhguru either, but plenty makes great sense too. He's helped me through much in my journey... just like being high on life, and not substances. He claims he's stoned constantly, and I believe it... BLISS is our natural state IMO.

Wim Hof is another Stoner on Life!

 

[MinnBobber]

There is PLENTY that I don't agree with Sadhguru either, but plenty makes great sense too

I was just saying the sleeping direction reasoning seemed flawed.
That does not mean he is totally hogwash.

His other messages may certainly ring true. No offense intended, peace.

 

[biohacker]

I was just saying the sleeping direction reasoning seemed flawed.
That does not mean he is totally hogwash.

I honestly haven't researched it much, but my mom used to always tell me to never sleep facing North, and she has some pretty awesome wisdom from several things in life from the "old country" haha

His other messages may certainly ring true. No offense intended, peace.

Never took any offence my bro!! But appreciate the convo! I love Ayurveda! (And TCM)

And Wim Hof! Speaking of disproving "science" haha

 

[biohacker]

Evidence that THC without CBD can, non-permanently, reduce the size of the hippocampus. Also mention of CBD preventing anxiety and hallucinations from THC

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5068875/

"We believe this is the first multimodal MRI investigation of prolonged THC and CBD exposure or abstinence on hippocampal integrity in current and former cannabis users, respectively. We confirmed that hippocampal volume is reduced in long-term cannabis users, and found that this atrophy can be restored following prolonged abstinence. Moreover, we show for the first time that both hippocampal volume and neurochemistry are reduced to the greatest extent in users exposed to THC without CBD. In contrast, current users of cannabis containing CBD, as well as former users, show no structural or neurochemical hippocampal differences compared with controls. These findings are consistent with suggestions that CBD may be neuroprotective, perhaps through its role in synaptic plasticity and/or neurogenesis "

"In former users, hippocampal integrity was comparable to controls. This contrasts results from other studies of abstinent former users that have found persistent effects of heavy use on brain function and cognition.34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 In a prospective study of 1037 people from birth to age 38,41 persistent cannabis exposure (assessed at ages 18, 21, 26, 32 and 38 years) was associated with significant decline in neuropsychological performance. Of note, these cognitive impairments did not show significant improvement following reduction of use or complete abstinence (>1 year cessation in some cases). In the context of our data, these findings suggest that functional deficits may persist in abstinent former users, despite apparent recovery of hippocampal integrity."

Science!

 

[Tranquility]

A study "suggests that excessive neural activity in the brain is linked to a shorter lifespan, and that suppressing that extra activity could prolong it."
https://time.com/5700721/neural-activity-longevity-study/

I wonder if there are any safe drugs out there that can lower excessive neural activity and extend life?

I wonder if sativa lovers have a shorter lifespan than indicia?

 

[Planck]

A study "suggests that excessive neural activity in the brain is linked to a shorter lifespan, and that suppressing that extra activity could prolong it."
https://time.com/5700721/neural-activity-longevity-study/

I wonder if there are any safe drugs out there that can lower excessive neural activity and extend life?

I wonder if sativa lovers have a shorter lifespan than indicia?

All these questions, stop it you're gonna die!
You may be causing "excessive neural activity in the brain".

Was it necessary to specify neural activity in the brain.
Can ear hair have excessive neural activity too
What is excessive neural activity.
OMG I can't stop, I'm going to die!
H
E
L
P
.
.
.

 

[biohacker]

I wonder if there are any safe drugs out there that can lower excessive neural activity and extend life?

I think your answer is right in the article. Meditation, yoga, acupuncture, massage, activating the ECS via Wim Hof Method Breathing, etc. Safest drugs in the world.

Of course, they take effort and not as easy as the instant gratification of a drug. But zero side effects.

@Planck

 

[C No Ego]

A study "suggests that excessive neural activity in the brain is linked to a shorter lifespan, and that suppressing that extra activity could prolong it."
https://time.com/5700721/neural-activity-longevity-study/

I wonder if there are any safe drugs out there that can lower excessive neural activity and extend life?

I wonder if sativa lovers have a shorter lifespan than indicia?

it is predicted that each neuronal cell signals 15,000 cannabinoids a second! 40 trillion cells = 15k cannabinoids a second per cell... that math that expression... there is a whole damn lot of neuronal activity going on to maintain cells with those lipophilic compounds.
of course duing times of stress or worry or activity ( bodily movement) there would be more homeostasis required ( more signals()

 

[Tranquility]

The Lancet has come up with a meta-analysis that shows no improvement on many mental health issues when cannabis is used medically.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191028213912.htm

Meta-analysis finds inadequate evidence that cannabinoids relieve depression, anxiety disorders, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, Tourette syndrome, post-traumatic stress disorder, or psychosis.

The most comprehensive analysis of medicinal cannabinoids and their impact on six mental health disorders -- combining 83 studies including 3,000 people -- suggests that the use of cannabinoids for mental health conditions cannot be justified based on the current evidence. This is due to a lack of evidence for their effectiveness, and because of the known risks of cannabinoids.

The new findings, published in The Lancet Psychiatry journal, find insufficient evidence medicinal cannabinoids improve disorders overall or their symptoms, although there is a very low quality evidence that pharmaceutical tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) may lead to a small improvement in symptoms of anxiety in individuals with other medical conditions, such as chronic pain or multiple sclerosis....​

 

[muunch]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5908414/

"Our findings suggest a restorative effect of CBD on the subicular and CA1 subfields in current cannabis users, especially those with greater lifetime exposure to cannabis. While replication is required in a larger, placebo-controlled trial, these findings support a protective role of CBD against brain structural harms conferred by chronic cannabis use. Furthermore, these outcomes suggest that CBD may be a useful adjunct in treatments for cannabis dependence and may be therapeutic for a range of clinical disorders characterized by hippocampal pathology (e.g., schizophrenia, Alzheimer's disease, and major depressive disorder)."

 

[chris 71]

The Lancet has come up with a meta-analysis that shows no improvement on many mental health issues when cannabis is used medically.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191028213912.htm

Meta-analysis finds inadequate evidence that cannabinoids relieve depression, anxiety disorders, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, Tourette syndrome, post-traumatic stress disorder, or psychosis.

The most comprehensive analysis of medicinal cannabinoids and their impact on six mental health disorders -- combining 83 studies including 3,000 people -- suggests that the use of cannabinoids for mental health conditions cannot be justified based on the current evidence. This is due to a lack of evidence for their effectiveness, and because of the known risks of cannabinoids.

The new findings, published in The Lancet Psychiatry journal, find insufficient evidence medicinal cannabinoids improve disorders overall or their symptoms, although there is a very low quality evidence that pharmaceutical tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) may lead to a small improvement in symptoms of anxiety in individuals with other medical conditions, such as chronic pain or multiple sclerosis....​

Havnt they done analysis on studies looking at some of the most popular SSRI's and found them to be no more effect then placebo.

But of coarse they dont make money off the weed so they have to try there best to knock it down .

Interesting though and of coarse they mention that because of "known risks of cannabis " it cant be recomended .

I think the SSRI's that they do recomend have risks to do they not ?

If even the effect is in the placebo for both drugs i know the one i would chose considering the risks

 

[Tranquility]

Havnt they done analysis on studies looking at some of the most popular SSRI's and found them to be no more effect then placebo.

But of coarse they dont make money off the weed so they have to try there best to knock it down .

Interesting though and of coarse they mention that because of "known risks of cannabis " it cant be recomended .

I think the SSRI's that they do recomend have risks to do they not ?

If even the effect is in the placebo for both drugs i know the one i would chose considering the risks

I don't think there is a "they" here. (Unless you have some grand conspiracy within the ranks of medical researchers of multiple countries and disciplines.)

 

[chris 71]

Replace the they with what ever word you chose , but no im not thinking conspiracy. More like monetary

And possiblly an somehow indoctrinated educatuon system to the fact that cannabis has been seen as a "bad " drug for the last 80 years .

Education system dosnt have to mean only schools either it can be religion and comunity culture and eveything inbetween .

 

[C No Ego]

Replace the they with what ever word you chose , but no im not thinking conspiracy. More like monetary

And possiblly an somehow indoctrinated educatuon system to the fact that cannabis has been seen as a "bad " drug for the last 80 years .

Education system dosnt have to mean only schools either it can be religion and comunity culture and eveything inbetween .

the plant is out to get every living being walking! those phytocannabinoids are there to express upon anything they can stick their grubby little lipids adherents to . humans keep ingesting them over and over and ....... no stop in sight yet all the criminal enforcement elements all say No to lipids... no active lipids here move on

 

[Tranquility]

Replace the they with what ever word you chose , but no im not thinking conspiracy. More like monetary

And possiblly an somehow indoctrinated educatuon system to the fact that cannabis has been seen as a "bad " drug for the last 80 years .

Education system dosnt have to mean only schools either it can be religion and comunity culture and eveything inbetween .

Since it is a meta study, the data is available to anyone. (As are the calculations.) I accept bias in science studies as well as social studies for many reasons, including who pays the bills. One good way to test how an author writes is to view his/her other publications. Go to:

https://www.pubfacts.com/author/

to find the other peer-reviewed studies they participated in. (After the author/ in the above, put in the search string on the Https: line. Otherwise you might have to get past a paywall. [For instance, https://www.pubfacts.com/author/nicola+black ])

I haven't looked at all of them yet, but there does not seem to be an obvious tilt to the other studies they have participated in.

 

[Tranquility]

More daily users does not mean more users with a problem.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191031100512.htm

..."Contrary to expectations, the frequency of cannabis use disorder among people reporting daily/almost daily use decreased significantly between 2002-2016, said Silvia Martins, MD, PhD, associate professor of Epidemiology at Columbia Mailman School. "The findings contradict the predominating hypothesis that the prevalence of DSM-IV CUD would be stable, or increase, among those using with this regularity."...​

 

[chris 71]

More daily users does not mean more users with a problem.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191031100512.htm

..."Contrary to expectations, the frequency of cannabis use disorder among people reporting daily/almost daily use decreased significantly between 2002-2016, said Silvia Martins, MD, PhD, associate professor of Epidemiology at Columbia Mailman School. "The findings contradict the predominating hypothesis that the prevalence of DSM-IV CUD would be stable, or increase, among those using with this regularity."...​

This kinda fits nicely with what i was trying to point out in my other post above .

The " they " in this case i guess are the flolks in posistions of authority.

See soo cannabis was bad cuz "they" said soo , doctors and such . but "they " were only appling what " they" had been taught . Aka canabis is baaad lol

Sernieros would probably include people going to there doctors because of certain issues . Telling doctor about there cannabis use .

Doctor refers to psychiatrist. ... Psychiatrist .... oh you use cannabis regularly from what " they " taught me in school , cannabis is bad and people who use it regularly can be labled to have cannabis use disorder = your problem is the cannabis i think you have that disease we learned about called cannabis use disorder ....
Which is causing your problem .

Fast forward and there is a huge shift in the general public's perception about cannabis . And legalization even the doctors are starting to catch on , even though with there indoctrination into a system were cannabis is bad they are even starting to wonder maybe its not .

Now patient goes to doc about a problem but this time the doc maybe dosnt refer to psychiatrist. Because minds are shifting or doesnt jump to concluision that its the cannabis . like they may have a decade or so ago .

So.....the rate of cannabis use disoder declines .

Imagine if doctors were taught that caffine was the devils brew lol

The world would be soo full of people diagnosed with caffine use disorder .

And they would have drugs far worse then caffeine to cure your caffeine use disorder .

 

[Tranquility]

This kinda fits nicely with what i was trying to point out in my other post above .

The " they " in this case i guess are the flolks in posistions of authority.

See soo cannabis was bad cuz "they" said soo , doctors and such . but "they " were only appling what " they" had been taught . Aka canabis is baaad lol

The difference between someone who uses regularly and someone who uses regularly and has a problem, has to do with the problem. If the use of cannabis (as defined) is "accompanied by significant impairment of functioning and distress" then it is considered a use disorder. There are criteria for examples of items that indicate that impairment or distress.

In my mind if the use of cannabis is causing problems in one's life, it is a problem. No matter how a doctor is trained.

 

[chris 71]

I know oldNewbie and agree "sometimes " .
i supposse someone could have a caffiene use disorder to .

Just trying to make a point that these classification and studies and everything are always .....maybe always is to strong of a word . I should say can be swayed by somebody who says so and is supossed to know so .

Sometimes the guys making the rules make rules because of there own feelings on the issue .

As feeling and time changes so do the rules

The difference between someone who uses eveyday and has aproblem . And someone who uses everyday and dosnt have a problem . Is up to him or her.

If its up to someone eles then it might depend on who the person sees on that particular day and the rules and feeling on the subject at hand at that particular time.

Which is why we are seeing the change in cannabis use disorder in the study you linked IMO

Edit
Let me try and explain one more time

2 guys go two dif docs because they are having anxity issues .

One doc is old school hardline against cannabis maybe because not only what he was taught at school but also because his ex son inlaw was a pot head and was mean to his daughter . You see were im going with this ?

Next doc is more open minded and actully had a nephew or niece that used cannabis but was a great kid always there to help him if he needed wood cut or stuff moved whatever .

Depending on which one of these docs you see you could get a different diagnosis.

Yes doctors are supossed to not be sawayed by things like this but there also human

Also being told it is the weed by someone in a posistion of athority could phsycolocicaly sway the person to think its the weed thats causing there problem .

Case in point myself i have anxity issues i have had docs tell me its the weed use .
Come to find out its actully Graves disease a major symptom of graves disease is anxity .
NoT the weed imagine that

 

[C No Ego]

I know oldNewbie and agree "sometimes " .
i supposse someone could have a caffiene use disorder to .

Just trying to make a point that these classification and studies and everything are always .....maybe always is to strong of a word . I should say can be swayed by somebody who says so and is supossed to know so .

Sometimes the guys making the rules make rules because of there own feelings on the issue .

As feeling and time changes so do the rules

The difference between someone who uses eveyday and has aproblem . And someone who uses everyday and dosnt have a problem . Is up to him or her.

If its up to someone eles then it might depend on who the person sees on that particular day and the rules and feeling on the subject at hand at that particular time.

Which is why we are seeing the change in cannabis use disorder in the study you linked IMO

Edit
Let me try and explain one more time

2 guys go two dif docs because they are having anxity issues .

One doc is old school hardline against cannabis maybe because not only what he was taught at school but also because his ex son inlaw was a pot head and was mean to his daughter . You see were im going with this ?

Next doc is more open minded and actully had a nephew or niece that used cannabis but was a great kid always there to help him if he needed wood cut or stuff moved whatever .

Depending on which one of these docs you see you could get a different diagnosis.

Yes doctors are supossed to not be sawayed by things like this but there also human

Also being told it is the weed by someone in a posistion of athority could phsycolocicaly sway the person to think its the weed thats causing there problem .

Case in point myself i have anxity issues i have had docs tell me its the weed use .
Come to find out its actully Graves disease a major symptom of graves disease is anxity .
NoT the weed imagine that

turning to others to " fix " us always leaves a lot to interpretation...

 

[Tranquility]

https://www.upi.com/Health_News/202...in-some-users-experts-say/8381578925259/?sl=5

The idea of marijuana causing a psychotic breakdown sounds like something out of the camp film classic "Reefer Madness," but many experts argue it's not that far-fetched.

As legalization of recreational marijuana spreads across the United States, more people are showing up in ERs with psychotic symptoms after consuming too much pot, said Dr. Itai Danovitch, chairman of psychiatry and behavioral neurosciences at Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles.

"If somebody gets too high, they use more than intended, they can have psychotic symptoms. That typically resolves as the drug wears off," Danovitch said. "After it's worn off, there's no subsequent psychosis. That's just a direct effect of over-intoxication."...
​

 

[pakalolo]

This thread is now closed. For an explanation why, please read http://fuckcombustion.com/threads/important-announcement.49260/.

Please try its successor at https://newfuckcombustion.com/index.php?threads/cannabis-effects-on-the-brain.57/. Thanks for the contributions and I hope you enjoy the new home.

 

[Tranquility]

How hard did they need to look to find an adolescent who is depressed, neurotic and prone to acting out? I was under the impression such was nearly definitional.
Heritable traits that appear in teen years raise risk for adult cannabis use

Study finds that a small portion of the risk for repeated cannabis use into adulthood can be attributed to the genetic effects of neuroticism, risk tolerance and depression that can appear during adolescence.

 

[chris 71]

If you look up the definition of neurotic some aspects of it sound pretty good lol artist and such , hmmmm flip that right around cannabis use disorder lol

Look it wasn't the cannabis after all these guys were neurotic nut jobs from the start its genetic lmao