1. Dear Drugs-Forum readers: We are a small non-profit that runs one of the most read drug information & addiction help websites in the world. We serve over 4 million readers per month, and have costs like all popular websites: servers, hosting, licenses and software. To protect our independence we do not run ads. We take no government funds. We run on donations which average $25. If everyone reading this would donate $5 then this fund raiser would be done in an hour. If Drugs-Forum is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online another year by donating whatever you can today. Donations are currently not sufficient to pay our bills and keep the site up. Your help is most welcome. Thank you.
    PLEASE HELP
  1. Docta
    AUSTRALIAN doctors and health researchers have called for an anti-tobacco smoking-style campaign on the dangers of cannabis after a study found a link between long-term use of the drug and a significant, and possibly irreversible, drop in intelligence.

    The landmark study, the first to compare the IQ of users before they began smoking the drug and after prolonged intake, found cognitive decline was most pronounced in people who started using as teenagers.

    A senior lecturer at the University of NSW's psychiatry department, Matthew Large, said the findings were particularly relevant to Australia, which had one of the highest rates of cannabis use in the world.
    ''Can we, as a country, afford to have a significant proportion of people becoming less intelligent?'' said Dr Large, who was not involved in the study.

    The British research was based on data from a longitudinal New Zealand study, which has tracked the health of more than 1000 individuals born in the 1970s in Dunedin.
    Participants had their IQ tested four times before age 14, and again at 38 in 2010-11, and were asked detailed questions about their cannabis use throughout adolescence and young adulthood.

    The researchers found participants who smoked cannabis regularly, four days per week or more, for a year before at least three testing phases had the greatest decline in intelligence, a drop of six points on the IQ scale.
    Those people who had never used the drug during the 20-year study had a slight increase in intelligence when tested as adults.

    The neurological effect of cannabis, which could not be explained by recent cannabis use, addiction to tobacco, alcohol or other hard drugs and schizophrenia, were most noticeable in users who began smoking as teens. Many of these participants who began smoking as teens failed to regain their lost brain functions up to a year after they stopped taking the drug.

    The authors, whose findings were published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal, said: ''One hypothesis is that cannabis use in adolescence causes brain changes that result in neuropsychological impairment.''

    In all drug users, an intelligence drop could not be attributed to dropping out of school, as the effects were found in users who completed high school.
    The director of the National Cannabis Prevention and Information Centre, Jan Copeland, said the study findings were as ''close as you can get'' to showing cannabis use caused deficits in intelligence.
    ''[The researchers] knew exactly what [the subjects'] cognitive functioning was before they used cannabis, they knew everything about their social, cultural and personal circumstances, then mapped the cognitive decline against their cannabis use over time,'' she said.

    The deputy director of policy at the University of Queensland Centre for Clinical Research, Wayne Hall, said the findings added to the case for preventive public health education to reduce adolescent initiation and use.
    Dr Large, whose research has found a link between cannabis use and early onset schizophrenia, said the dangers of cannabis use needed to be communicated to young teens. ''Most people when they first start smoking cannabis are handed their first joint by their best friend's older brother when they are 13 or 14 with no knowledge of its risks or benefits,'' he said.
    Professor Copeland said the age of first use among the general Australian population was 18.5 years but agreed that continuing public health campaigns were needed.


    http://www.smh.com.au/national/heal...to-drop-in-iq-study-shows-20120827-24wx8.html

Comments

  1. godztear
    Pot-smoking teens experience mental slippage as adults

    As they approach their 40th birthdays, adults who smoked marijuana early and often in life face a higher likelihood of sheering off IQ points and performing more poorly on tests of reasoning, attention and memory than those who smoked pot less often, says a new study.

    The latest research, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academies of Science, underscores what the authors call the "toxic effects of cannabis on the brain" -- especially the developing brain. Against the backdrop of resurgent marijuana use among U.S. high school students, they recommend "increasing efforts" to "delay the onset of cannabis use" among teens.

    "Collectively, these findings are consistent with speculations that cannabis use in adolescence, when the brain is undergoing critical development, may have neurotoxic effects," the authors concluded.

    The study establishes marijuana's mounting neuropsychological effects over time by tracking a group of 1,037 children born in New Zealand for 38 years from the times of their births in 1972 and 1973. The children underwent extensive testing from their earliest days, and were tested for cognitive performance at 13 years of age -- before any had smoked pot -- and then again at 38.

    In between, they were asked at 18, 21, 26 and 32 years of age about their use of illicit drugs, including marijuana. Participants were graded along a continuum according to whether they had a pattern of regular (four times per week or more), ongoing use of cannabis, or were classified as cannabis-dependent. The neuropsychological functioning of individuals along that spectrum was compared with that of subjects who never used cannabis or reported they had used it, but never regularly.

    Those who had used marijuana earliest and those who had used it most persistently through life showed the greatest loss of cognitive function. That collective loss of brainpower among pot smokers held even after the researchers adjusted for differences in the education levels achieved by those who did and those who didn't smoke pot.

    While those who had never used tended to pick up a little less than a single IQ point between 13 and 38 years old, those who had smoked pot most persistently -- or who had been declared marijuana-dependent at three or more time points of the study -- shaved an average of five to six points from their IQ, an "effect size" that the researchers characterized as midway between small and medium.

    In speed of processing and laboratory tests that gauge "executive function," persistent pot smokers and those who had started early also turned in significantly lower scores than those who had not smoked pot at age 38. Consistently, individual participants who were considered to have shown signs of cannabis dependence before the age of 18 had lower scores and lost IQ points with the transition to adulthood. But those stark effects were not apparent for participants who started smoking pot regularly after the age of 18.

    The impairment of those who smoked pot early and often was also impairment to those around them, the researchers found. When people who participants said "knew them well" were asked whether the subject had shown memory or attention problems in the past year, their responses lined up neatly with extent of pot use.

    New Zealand has a slightly higher rate of marijuana dependence than has been seen in the U.S. But the deleterious effects of pot smoking can't be put down to more potent weed, the study authors said: marijuana busts in both countries have turned up marijuana of roughly equal potency.

    This is bad news for American kids (not to mention those who grew up in the 1960s and 70s). Between 2007 and 2011, rates of marijuana use among American middle and high school students has increased steadily and significantly: in 2011, 25% of eighth-, 10th- and 12th-graders say they have smoked marijuana at some point in the past year, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Among 10-graders, 3.6% report they smoke pot almost daily, and 6.6% of 12th-graders do.


    Melissa Healy | August 28, 2012
    http://www.latimes.com/health/boost...king-mental-slippage-20120827,0,4293182.story
  2. imyourlittlebare
    These findings are interesting. Taking into account the variance of race, gender, socioeconomic status, and other factors that confound other research, I think its an interesting find. My mind wandered to this article below after reading it. Besides the evidence put together in regards to brain effects on non-human animals with pot, I did cringe when I read the part about how today's cannabis contains a higher proportion of THC.... Grilly (2006) and personal communication in class with handouts made a compelling argument that THC content has NOT risen and in fact has gone down/remained stable. Other than that, the article does provide some provocative evidence that supports the hypothesis of the above article.

    Inhale or Don't?: Marijuana Hurts Some, Helps Others
    Cannabis can kill or rescue neurons--children are at risk, whereas adults may benefit

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=marijuana-hurts-some-helps-others

    Edit: I cannot get access to the second page. I thought I had initially posted the entire story. Overall, the article talks about the health benefits in adults for different pathologies while evidence from non-human animals shows that cannabis can cause cognitive deficits that are lasting in those animals which are adolescent aged. Damn it was a good one too with good citations. I will see what I can do. The first page is available for viewing on scientific american mind, the second is not. Anyone with scientific american mind unlimited access, it would be much appreciated to add to my point since the above evidence contributes to the overall theory of the above paper.
  3. Alfa
    So this means that individuals who have an extremely high IQ, and suffer from psychological disorders as a result could self medicate effectively with cannabis?

    That would actually make a lot of sense.
  4. imyourlittlebare
    Perhaps if used after adolescence based on these theories. But if it does lower IQ before a certain age, that is a big risk when perhaps there are alternatives to be explored. I would hate to see potential individuals with high IQs lose their abilities. I would be interested to see if the findings were limited to a certain domain assessed in the IQ test and which IQ test was used.

    I personally do not believe cannabis in its entirety is useful in the treatment of mental disorders (cannabidial more so). My theory is that while drugs with reinforcing properties may relieve symptoms temporarily, I believe the use of those drugs may impair recovery due to their reinforcing effects in a number of different ways. But I do not think there is conclusive evidence one way or another so it is only a theory.
  5. Mick Mouse
    This is a very interesting article so far! I have read differing versions in several locations, such as Health.com, CNN, and the Denver Post, and while they are all substantially similar in scope, each one has a detail or two that the others don't.

    I started smoking marijuana around the middle of my 16th year, and did not start smoking "heavily"-defined as smoking on a daily basis or on several occasions during the same 24 hour period-for another 10 or 12 months, when my financial situation improved enough to allow it. I have continued to be a daily smoker until today, barring breaks in which I was confined in prison and not permitted to indulge.

    My first IQ test was done when I was 17 and was entered the military. My second one was done when I was entering college roughly 2 years later. I also did another one when I received my second Bachelors degree several years after that, just for giggles. I had to do one when I initially entered the prison system of this country, and I have had two subsequent ones done via the same method. What I observed was a steady rise of between two and four points at each testing, up until the point in which I entered the prison system of this country. The first of those two I deliberately performed at a less than optimal level, while the last one (which was done about 2 1/2 -3 years ago) I tried hard on.

    Traditionally, I struggled with the conceptualization areas of the tests, but years in prison had brought a breath of new life to my visualization skills, and I achieved a 5 point increase because of improved performance in these and related areas.

    In total, I would say that my IQ has "increased" over the last 30 years by 22 to 24 points or more, despite heavy marijuana use. Personally, I feel that this is not unusual and should even be expected. After all, we (ideally) continue to increase not only our knowledge, but we also (again, ideally) continually improve the way in which we apply that knowledge to real-world problems as well as paper-based, i.e. "IQ tests" ones. And this does not even begin to factor in such things as learning how to take tests, which is something that almost every person who has engaged in higher education has learned. Simply knowing how to take a test can often add several points to the final score, and the so-called "intelligence' tests are no different in this respect.

    Kudos on an excellent report, Docta!
  6. enquirewithin
    This seems like more highly funded 'reefer madness' research, which suits the media very well. Of course cannabis affects short term memory. Interesting read, however.
  7. imyourlittlebare
    Intelligence tests should not be administered to an individual within at least a year of the last testing session due to test-retest effects. These effects are minimal on certain portions of the test but on others can be more prominent in certain portions of the test.

    While overall gains made have been made in overall IQ, it could be that the deficits were observable in other domains. Were you given the information that your visualization skills were superior? Each of the 10 tests on the WISC and WAIS, the most common IQ test use, assesses four general domains thought to represent intelligence. However, there are differences between the individual tests despite being related to an overall aspect of intelligence.

    IQ may have increased for you, but it depends on several other factors explored in this study. The first is the range of expected scores based on testing. That means if someone scores a 90 on the WAIS or WISC, it can be predicted with 95% certainty that this individual will score between 80-102 (making up the numbers). The range is fairly wide though.

    The second factor that affects test scores and was investigated in this study (as I understand it) was the phenomenon of regression towards the mean. If a person scores a 90 on the first test, despite the mean score being 100, they are more likely to regress (or achieve a score closer to) the mean. Suppose you give a group of students a test, called pretest and select the group that lies at the bottom 5% of the total test takers. Regression to the mean implies that in the next test, the posttest, the same group will often have a higher score than the pretest values. (Pretest-Posttest-Design). This means that collectively, the score of this group that initially were in the bottom 5% will no longer be in the bottom 5% and will increase in performance, regressing towards the mean.

    My more specific comments to you toxinreleased are what test was used to assess your IQ in the military and subsequent testing? Was it online tests or did you pay for a professional test.

    One issue I come across on this site is that often people worry that they are getting "dumber" because their IQ scores are lower than they were a year ago based on an online IQ test that is highly recommended. Despite the popularity of these tests, they have not been validated, large normative samples have not been used to determine what average performance looks like, whether the test is reliable, and so forth while the WAIS-IV has (the WAIS-III had the largest sample however).

    Using the performance of these individuals and performance over time, those that developed and patented the WAIS-IV were able to validate the test, show it was reliable (it would stay consistent across life-span as long as the rules were strictly adhered to and there was no administrator bias whether direct or indirect) and that it was a measure of general intelligence and not achievement (achievement test measure developed skill or knowledge, IQ tests do not). While you may have had gains on your IQ tests, if they were not made in the context of the WAIS-III or IV, WISC-III or IV, shortened forms of these tests, or the Stanford-Binet then they do not represent the general concept of IQ as was studied in this paper. They more likely represent achievement or even more likely based on what I have seen, a score that has not been validated, compared across age groups, no percentile to compare whether 1000 is a good or bad score, and/or only uses tests that are geared towards assessing one cognitive domain thought to contribute to IQ. However, even if the items are comparable at face value, without validation in a large study, one cannot even say that the test is measuring intelligence in any capacity.

    The online test do not conduct large amounts of research to evaluate the reliability and validity of their tests. Normal scores may be developed but reliability is not and is based on a very limited sample affected by demographic variable influence more so than the true tests of IQ. They are not a true measure of general intelligence and some that I have seen mislead people entirely by measuring developed skill or knowledge which WOULD grow over time. The general cognitive processes in IQ testing would not grow over time as the cognitive domains being assessed stay relatively constant and raw scores are converted to standardized scores based on age (which again, the methods utilized in real IQ testing are not employed in online IQ testing or other forms that have not been validated). One would not rapidly grow in IQ as they got older and a gain of 22 points on the WAIS is 25% of the spectrum. So that would represent a monumental change in IQ that would be next to impossible.

    Just to reiterate, the tests do have good test-retest reliability as long as the testing is done after a year. While some tests could theoretically be given earlier and have better test-retest reliability, its the whole sum of all 10 tests scaled scores that creates the WAIS' IQ quotient and then the percentile at which a person is at (which is not given online so the number means nothing) is given for the 4 general domains measured including working memory, verbal comprehension, perceptual reasoning, and processing speed). Generally, the "better" tests I see online measure only perceptual reasoning and not very well. Normally, performance on 3-5 tests is needed to get the score for that domain/given a percentile with 50th being average. Then it is combined with the other scores.

    While online testing is fun, it does not represent true IQ as assessed by the tests I mentioned. While I am less familiar with the Stanford-Binet, I know it has been validated, shown to be reliable, and is also a reliable and valid measure of general intelligence that has been researched extensively.

    Edit: enquirewithin

    Even though short-term memory (actually it would be called working memory) contributes to overall IQ, perceptual reasoning has been shown to be affected by pot smoking. A specific test within perceptual reasoning to be exact.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15697050

    Can someone post the url for the scholarly article that was published? I want to check it out in regards to study design, the mean performances of each group for each test, and whether or not some of those tested may have been screened for withdrawal. While the non-human animal studies do show that cannabis use in adult hood may be helpful while use in adolescence is associated with long-term cognitive impairments and possible adverse reactions in the brain, based on the research I cannot get access to at this moment from scientific american mind, I want to make sure this study was looking at all variables that may be involved. Deficits are often shown in adults who are currently stoned AND those who are undergoing withdrawal from heavy use (possibly due to state-dependent learning rather than any changes in the brain).

    http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/2001/10.11/marijuana.html
  8. Lodewijkp
    first of all... i want to know how the researcher and australian author scored on their IQ tests, how they think in general as a person, if they ever smoked weed themselfs etc.. so many retarded people in high positions can execute studies nowadays - it doesn't mean shit.

    funny how they point to cannabis lowering IQ...

    i think the glucose fructose , crappy supermarket processed foods , alcohol and mcdonalds causes way bigger ÏQ drops. i have read dozens of books about nutrition and biochemistry and believe me sugar and insulin is way more harmfull to your brain than cannabis. what did the participants ate daily ?? do they have hidden food intolerances, how is their personal situation ? and above all.. which retard made up that IQ is consistent ? it's not.. if you made 6 test on 6 days every day you would likely to have a different score each day you made one.

    just look how many things that there are that make you stupid and ignorant.. media, television , foods, jobs, people, stupid ideas, systems, air pollution.

    actually i found that cannabis made me smarter and more aware, on the other hand it made me more slow and made me react less fast. all the people in my college who smoke alot of weed always get the best grades of the class.... i also think that drinking shitloads of alcohol on early ages which is accepted from a cultural standpoint does way more damage than cannabis.

    everyone knows cannabis makes you react less fast.. when you get some test that you have to perform under time and you score bad because you have to think too much or you react too slow in general does not mean you are dumb or stupid... or that you have a lower overall IQ... it means you have a slow reaction time. when im stoned and you give me a such test with maths i will probably realize how stupid and useless it is and how retarded it is to learn something like maths which i never use in my life anyway just to work a shitty job which a don't like. it's not called lowering IQ... it called awareness. People realize how retarded scholl system is nowadays - quality is low and everyone gets generalized...when you don't give the right anwer that society expects you get labelled as :

    1. stupid
    2. crazy , ignorant or whatever
    3 autistic or any other psychological disorder.

    second.. to all those scientist.. how the hell can cannabis cause neurological damage when all studies show that it actually has neuroprotectivep roperties ?

    3th.. if i had a shitty youth and shitty life and i get something which expands my awareness like cannabis don't you think im notgoing to take it ? why not take something that makes you feel better when everything arounds you make you feel like shit ?

    what causes a real rate in school droppouts is the system failing...parents failing and whatever other combinations there are out there.

    nobody knows what schizoprhenia actually is.. is it madness or reality ? what is reality anyway ? because you believe in this reality does that mean i must be crazy.. what a pile of horseshit.. they don't even know what causes schizoprhenia in the first place they only have theories which are all unproven.

    they must stop claiming that something lowers IQ without knowing why or what.
    they must stop claiming that something cause schizoprhenia wihtout knowing why or what
    they cannot look into someones brain and count neurotransmitters.. untill the time that's possible everything is guesswork and theory.\

    it's ok to say that something can make you go crazy..harm reduction is always good btw..

    if you do something that is unnatural to a human body like smoking substances you are always doing something that the human body is'nt designed to do in it's natural enviroment... everything that is unnatural to a human body is stress and there are many unnatural things nowadays in society .

    my opinion

    now from a objective standpoint... i never found any study about cannabis from a sociologic standpoint that wasn't flawed and severely restricted in information. this is just another one... i have read dozens like these... they show up every month. this study another flawed one...they are entertaning and a waste of bandwidth but not much more than that.

    i want to see researchers mapping brains.. showing microscopic holes and that kind of stuff..decreases in gray matter etc... i don't want to see some subjective test with too many variables.
  9. imyourlittlebare
    Reread the section on validity and reliability. First off, this is not a subjective test. Just to reiterate, the WAIS is as standardized as it gets. You read standardized instructions to the participant. You administer the test in a standardized fashion. Scoring is standardized and based off of extensive research of large samples of people with varying demographics. In regards to the test-retest reliability. It is well established that if you administer the test after a year of testing, scores will not change significantly (the score may change within the 95% range estimated from initial testing and regression of the mean as I already discussed).

    And in some of the subtests, they could be given the very next day and since answers are not given out, a person would get a very similar score as it measures the concept of natural intelligence and not achievement as I already discuss. The testing was conducted in a longitudinal study design with scores being examined over time, not one day after another.

    Finally, if someone could get access to the article from scientific american mind, it has more to do with when one uses the drug rather than the drug itself. The article that I hope someone finds discusses how there is evidence that helps corroborate the findings of this study. The scientific american mind discusses the work in non-human animals and does not talk about macroscopic damage such as lesions. The damage is much subtler and has more to with impairing/altering the process of the brain maturing from adolescence to young-adulthood and the effects are age-dependent.

    The research from non-human animals would corroborate the findings of the above study. While I wish I had access to both the SAM article and the scholarly article above, the findings of both works found similar conclusions. That the possible long-term effects of cannabis is age-dependent. That would be a significant confound to the existing research as many of the samples from the literature would contain individuals who first started using cannabis OR heavily used cannabis after a certain age leading to other researchers finding non-significant effects when the effects were significant, just had a confounding variable in the mix.

    This seems like a well designed study based on the above article (the fact that it was longitudinal, that IQ generally remains constant throughout one's lifespan, and other confounding variables such as demographics were explored). While I still am eagerly awaiting reading the publication to see their methods, it sounds like one of the better research articles to come out on the subject. I may retract that statement after reading the methods but as far as IQ goes, it is not subjective.

    A lot of what your saying just does not make sense. While you may feel passionately about this subject, I would check the literature to substantiate your claims. My final statement is this. Reaction time does not seem to be a focus of this study as the article clearly states "Many of these participants who began smoking as teens failed to regain their lost brain functions up to a year after they stopped taking the drug."

    That is, some were abstinent then and still were impaired in the IQ test. Only 2 out of the 10 subtests of the WAIS-IV DIRECTLY assess processing speed. While I am interested to see if group separations were made based on abstinence and non-users, abstinent users, current users, and non-users, or whether multiple correlations were used. I am banking on group differences between abstinent former users, current users, and non-users that were demographically and psychologically similar.

    ....and I ask that you refrain from flaming in your posts. There is no reason to get emotional over a debate and call individuals names because they do not share the same opinions as you
  10. nigh
    Not that I think IQ is a good measure of gauging actual intelligence, but come on Lodewijkp.

    A fact is a fact, regardless of who is observing it.

    You should probably read them again. Fructose and glucose are both found extensively in many kinds of fruits and vegetables that you would probably regard as healthy to eat, and insulin is pretty much 100% necessary for human life. I doubt either is responsible for the drop in someone's IQ.

    Correlation does not imply causation. That seems like a massive generalization regardless.

    That's likely a valid statement, but it's not very relevant here.

    I'm pretty sure that a lot of the people advancing the human race are using higher mathematics, so yeah, they kinda do serve a purpose to society. Just because you don't want to be a physicist or engineer doesn't mean that others don't.

    Some cannabinoids are neuroprotective agents against excitotoxicity; that does not mean that they can't cause or exacerbate disorders unrelated to it. Simply because a substance elicits positive effects does not mean that it cannot elicit negative effects as well.


    Really? You don't think it's a disorder? Really? Are psychologists and researchers just out to brainwash the public through the use of "evidence" like those fancy MRI masheens and their evil synthetical medicines? Not to be a dick (I'm being one, I know), but a statement like that is just...dumb. Simply because scientists don't understand why something happens does not mean that it does not happen. Would you agree that gravity happens? Did you know that there isn't a concrete conclusion as to how it does? There's the graviton model, but that fails to explain it at very tiny distances.

    Also, you do realize that a theory has extensive evidence behind it? It's distinct from a hypothesis, which you seem to be mistaking it for.

    Wouldn't they be answering the "what" question by stating what is proposed to lower IQ? Anyway, refer to my response to the "why" part above.

    The second part of that just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of modern neuroscience. That's the equivalent of saying that because we can't watch electrons bonding in every chemical reaction ever that we have no idea about what's going on at the atomic and subatomic level. Unnecessary reductionism gets you nowhere, especially in complex fields like neurology.


    Why...why would there be microscopic holes in everyone's brains? I can't imagine researchers would get much funding for a study that basically boils down to trying to find random brain-holes for the sake of finding holes.
  11. IlovePainKillers
    LISTEN, if all you do is smoke pot and hang out, guess what, YOU WILL LOSE YOUR SHARPNESS.

    It's because kids who smoke weed get so wrapped up in the drug culture that they STOP reading and LEARNING. So DUH your intelligence is going to drop!!

    But if you smoke and still make an effort to educate yourself, there is no WAY you will lose intelligence.
  12. Lodewijkp
    thanks for whacking me... i really needed that ;)

    don't agree

    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/03/13/richard-johnson-interview.aspx
  13. Docta
    Not singling you out directly IlovePainKillers, I'm just highlighting some quotes for my post.

    Interesting choice of words "lose your sharpness" because that is exactly the way I would categorize nine out of ten pot smokers that I know, now I'm talking the addicts here the one that have smoked every day for ten years plus. When I try to broach the subject of them acting inappropriately for a given social situation or not being able to assess a social situation in the manner that they once did I am met with the kind of resistance we see in some of these posts. Your interpreting is wrong, your mistaken, I keep my mind active, my intelligence is high as ever and on and on. Talking about it can make for some very uncomfortable situations it can be so hard to get someone to entertain or except a train of thought that is inconceivable to there perception of the world.

    The one about "make an effort to educate yourself, there is no way you will lose intelligence" this is one of the self convincing statements that many of my pot smoker workmates has used to defend there ongoing degeneration, especially when it comes to informing them of there diminishing problem solving ability's and how is affecting productivity. I'm not going to write them up as drug users cos lets face it that's the pot calling the kettle black but it doesn't change the reality of there impairment, all be it a subtle impairment.

    The overall diminished capacity is so progressive I expect is like the lose of hearing from a noisy environment, only the ones that can hear all the music will notice the individual with the lose, when you ask if they hear the high note they say there's no high note you must be mistaken. My hearing is just fine.

    A very interesting subject and no doubt one that will remain with a high degree of contention.
  14. Alicia
    I tend to stay away from these conversations due how quickly biased they can become not to mention the dubious intentions of the people behind these so called "real" studies. Bells on!

    Speaking from my experience I've not noticed any real decline in my I.Q or my partners behaviour.
    As with regard to being focused im still doing well with my studies and martial arts and still remain being a daily smoker going over ten years. Suppose it depends on the mindset Some are content to smoke themselves retarded and not do anything with there lives. Not all of us smoker meet that group of individuals.
  15. Alien Sex Fiend
    IQ tests are correct, but seriously IQ test don't show much. having id of Einstein doesn't make Einstein. it won't help you study faster or better miraculously. it doesn't mean your going to be a chemical genius. everyone understands that. IQ test is a mix of logic, common sense, low lvl mathematics and must be completed in a short time ie 20min. See what i mean, a person with ADHD will show lower id, same person on adderal will show higher iq. a person who cannot count fast will show lower iq. swim is IQ is 90 and swim failed all math questions. my dad too the same test and his s 125 and he did all math questions correct. A person who listens to bob marley only all the time, only eats junk food, finds anything funny without thinking why is in haze. im stereotyping but u know what i mean, a person who constantly is trying not to discover something new, who only talks about very limited topics, and who lives by a very limited short schedule may seem dull, shallow, silly or obssesed
  16. una_cavaletta
    I think some people are missing the fact that the results are stressing the lowering of IQ in young adults/teenagers, not adults. And no, that's not an excuse for an adult to cane it all day. I think the results would be similar if they studied other drugs. Really curious to know what large doses of DXM taken on a regular basis does to teen brains...

    I do think that cannabis's reputation as a benign and nonaddictive drug is being questioned more and more.
  17. SpatialReason
    Debate it all you want, but the fact is this: cannabis will hurt your short-term memory, and depending on where you are in your life (college, high-school, etc), this can really affect your overall intelligence.

    Besides, most people get stoned, watch TV, and eat junk food. This is in no way helping the brain. I think it is the conditions and environment drug use produces. Most of the time, you don't see someone with a bong and book. Am I right?
  18. usually0
    This is curious, I think the study could hold true in many respects. Can one not deny that they know of at least one stoner who has since given up on schooling? Not like they cared before, but frankly they don't even try anymore. I'd say there's a significant amount of stoner like that. But there's a few like myself who've gone on to secondary education and still value learning and schooling. I think studies like this can be skewed because of that fact though. I wonder how smokers in the study found their IQ increased? I wonder how many non-smokers found their IQ decreased?
  19. SpatialReason
    As I have gotten further in my education, I have changed in terms of drug use. I went from just smoking weed starting college to doing harder drugs more prolifically. I should have lost brain cells, right? No, not really.

    I used weed as a measure to make my brain shut up and leave itself alone from a long day of learning. It is all about how a person applies themselves outside of their "smoke time." Most of the time, stoners are self-fulfilling lazy brats that either work a dead end job or have no job, say they are "writing a book" or "self-teaching" or some excuse for not having a job or going to college, or they are actually a very smart individual that works their butt off to the point of losing it mentally... and their only escape is weed before they go to bed...

    It all depends on the stoner. Typically though, the person in the latter is the one that does many other kinds of drugs. Usually the people that only smoke weed are what I would call "a burden on the drug community." It is a bunch of young kids that have mediocre lives and life goals, and they are duked out of doing much more with their life... so they smoke... and it makes it far more tolerable to have a broken car, a pizza delivery job, and a nasty apartment.

    Be honest here. The types of people I am talking about. We all know each one of them! I have met a girl that smoked meth so that she could study for hours due to her doing a double degree in law and business. Meth is FAR from capable of helping a person's IQ, but she got smarter through usage... so this is an example of "what does one do with their brain after they sober up..."
  20. Alicia
    Not all of us eat junk food or sit around and watch TV. For your information ive been known to listen to my classical music while reading a book after a bong. I am more drawn to watch star trek and i love swimming when i smoke. Not everyone fits the classic bubble of the idea of the stoner! :p
To make a comment simply sign up and become a member!