
Marijuana might cause new cell growth in the brain - fogus
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8155
======
CytokineStorm
The title of this post is clearly misleading, even with the word 'might' in
it. Neurogenesis in mice was detected when the mice were given Prozac or
HU210, a cannabinoid different from the active ingredient in marijuana.

The article then goes on to describe another experiment in which mice dosed
with D9-tetrahydrocannabinol (the cannabinoid in weed) did not show any signs
of neurogenesis, no matter what dose was used.

------
kidko
I'm glad this article actually presents both sides. The latter paragraphs talk
about another study in which THC did nothing to cell growth, and makes it
pretty clear that the entire affair's still really uncertain. I don't think
this shows up in many of the pro-marijuana (pseudo-)scientific articles on the
web.

~~~
thaumaturgy
It would be _great_ if I could read something like this without running into a
comment in which someone describes it in terms of "sides".

This is not a debate. There are no sides.

There are just studies: one that found that particular chemicals assisted new
cell growth in some parts of rat brains, and another that found that a
different set of chemicals did not assist new cell growth in the brains of
different rats.

It's interesting stuff. Trying to frame it in the limited context of a social
debate really diminishes its value.

------
jsz0
This is great news for the pharmaceutical industry. The successful testing was
done with a synthetic chemical very much like THC while real THC failed to get
results. Sounds like a good way to monetize to me.

~~~
ojbyrne
From wikipedia:

"Monazite is a reddish-brown phosphate mineral containing rare earth metals
and is an important source of thorium, lanthanum, and cerium. It occurs
usually in small isolated crystals."

I'm guessing that's not what you meant.

~~~
jsz0
Not quite but it's an interesting term to know.

------
ghshephard
Please note the December 2005 date (would be nice to have "2005" in the title)

------
patrickmclaren
I wonder how many of these 'researchers' actually smoke marijuana on a regular
basis. I definitely found that a prolonged use had the complete opposite
effect of "reducing anxiety and depression".

I understand that many professionals use marijuana, but how many marijuana
users are able to maintain a professional career?

~~~
RevRal
We flat out do not have a good understanding of how a brain is effected by
drugs. And, it is amazing that the drugs that are least harmful, or not
harmful at all, are the most illegal. There are, of course, devious reasons
for that.

Whether we are aware it or not, _everything_ that we perceive and consume
effects us. One person will react differently to the sight of a bowl of cereal
than another.

It is the same with drugs, but just more blatantly obvious. Even though there
is no _physical_ damage done, there is still a change occurring. Whether this
change amounts to a damaged psyche or enlightenment is really hard to measure
since the only precedent to hold our experiences against is anecdote.

Is there a reliable method to harness the positive effects of drugs? Probably,
but it is a long way out there.

A person is indulging in a risk by taking drugs; but, there is an inherent
perception of risk in most new experiences. Ever meet someone who is afraid of
a new kind of food? Actually, I don't know if that's related, but whatever.

So, to answer your question. It is not always the case that drugs will effect
a person negatively, or positively. There's a lot involved, but the laws
simply do not allow us to understand the specifics of what's involved.

~~~
MartinCron
"And, it is amazing that the drugs that are least harmful, or not harmful at
all, are the most illegal"

That's just wrong, a drug like coffee is a good example of "least harmful" and
isn't anywhere near "most illegal"

~~~
RevRal
Coffee has an LD50, whereas they haven't found one for marijuana.

I was speaking with that scope in mind.

The specific drugs I had in mind were psychedelics.

~~~
lg
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_lethal_dose#Examples>

~~~
RevRal
This what what my fact checker had turned up:
<http://www.druglibrary.org/SCHAFFER/LIBRARY/mj_overdose.htm>

And I was careful not to say THC.

------
notphilatall
I would love to see a study that adjusts for the effects of inhaling carbon
monoxide and other byproducts of plant combustion. Much cannabinoid research
concerns THC-similar compounds that are directly applied to the research
subject; conventional recreational use is at best tangential to the method at
hand.

~~~
markpneyer
There are methods of marijuana ingestion that do not introduce carbon monoxide
or other harmful byproducts of combustion into the body.

------
philelly
welcome to reddit

~~~
evandavid
my immediate thought was 'welcome to digg'

------
yters
Tumors!

------
domnit
Psh, people have known for ages that marijuana can expand the mind.

(Sorry, that one was just too easy.)

------
joubert
Wouldn't the consumption of marijuana increase the tendency to consume food,
resulting in faster metabolism, and hence in faster decay of cells in the
longer term?

