Harvard Scientists Studied the Brains of Pot Smokers, and the Results Don't Look

[bonnie]

Bonnie,

You then come out and say that the article and science doesn't matter, and you have the right to teach kids that marijuana is bad. , which again, no one is here seems to oppose you doing that.

[Tom Wetmore]

Maybe that approach was sufficient and effective to keep your sons away from drugs. But many kids that I know, and in my own experience at being young once upon a time, many kids have a finely tuned BS detector. And it is especially foolhardy strategy in this Information age where essential and correct info can be had instantly at your fingertips. When kids BS detector picks up that you are feeding them a bunch of nonsense or incorrect or exaggerated and distorted info, they hit the mute button, and little you have to say from that point onward is going to do one wit of good. It is worse than telling them nothing at all.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

[fccool]

Tom beat me to it. I grew up in a secular family, and the way my dad dealt with underage sex and drinking... he sat me down, and first said that I am an adult now, and that he respects my decisions either way. Then he laid out all of the benefits of underage sex and drinking, and all of the real detriments, which were not overblown to "you'll be homeless, alcoholic, and dead". He even thrown in a story about how during his time in Soviet Sports school he had to say no to a threesome with two French exchange student girls who liked him, because he thought that it would probably left him preoccupied with sex rather than his goals.

Coming from a secular family, I did "better" than most of the Christian kids today. I didn't drink, because I wanted to succeed in sports, and it sort of became a lifestyle that carried over. And I didn't have sex till I got married, because I looked at teen sex and dating as something that could be problematic for my academic success in terms of time I'd have to put into it to just get sex. I attribute it to honesty and candor of my father who didn't make teen fornication and alcohol to be something that's "forbidden", but rather that's something less undesirable in lifestyle that I was aspiring to... which had better of both, and it made sense. His actual words were not forbidding, but saying... "if you postpone these things, and develop yourself... then you'll have better quality women, and expensive alcohol". But it grew into a lifestyle, once you turn it into a discipline.

As Tom said, if my dad lied to me, I would probably have sex much earlier and more frequently prior to marriage, and be drinking without any second thought, because I would have the idea that my parents were trying to hide something from me... something for me to find out and experience simply out of curiosity. I'm not saying that I'm somehow "better" because I don't. I merely point out that it's a personal and positive goal, rather than a negative avoidance. Honesty + personal goals is what worked for me... not my parents drilling me by any means necessary.

So, the question you should ask yourself... why would a person decide to smoke pot, in spite of Christian parents warning not to? I think the answer has more to do with personal goals and decisions, and less with drilling into them that they will upset God and their parents if they don't. Especially if they, as Tom said, would pick up on BS that says that small doses will cause lasting harm... and they'd see no evidence of it interacting with their friends who do partake of these substances, and still manage to do well in school and etc.

[JoeMo]

Quote:

Many that have this prefer marijuana if they can get it.

I'll give you one example why. My sister became a quadriplegic in 1975. To keep her spasms from throwing her out of her wheelchair, she was taking so much valium that she was a zombie. A doctor way back then told her that if she smoked good weed, it would control her spasms without turning her into a vegetable. She tried it and pretty much immediately quit taking the "equally effective" valium.

Here in Colorado, legal weed has made little if any difference in the environment, except that overdoses from illegal opiate use is way down.

Personally, I would rather my kids not drink or smoke pot. But they are all adults; and if they are intent upon getting a buzz, I would be more comfortable with them get stoned than get drunk. Drunk people do way more stupid things and are way more prone to violence than stoned people.

As far as damaging the brain, you can find much more legitimate research on brain damage from chronic alcohol abuse than chronic cannabis abuse. Chronic abuse of anything, even if it's good for you in moderate amounts, will damage your brain and many other organs. The fact that they suspect brain damage in chronic long-term stoners isn't really rocket science.

[bonnie]

Maybe that approach was sufficient and effective to keep your sons away from drugs. But many kids that I know, and in my own experience at being young once upon a time, many kids have a finely tuned BS detector. And it is especially foolhardy strategy in this Information age where essential and correct info can be had instantly at your fingertips. When kids BS detector picks up that you are feeding them a bunch of nonsense or incorrect or exaggerated and distorted info, they hit the mute button, and little you have to say from that point onward is going to do one wit of good. It is worse than telling them nothing at all.

I exactly what BS do you believe we told the boys that was exaggerated or nonsense?

[bonnie]

Tom beat me to it. I grew up in a secular family, and the way my dad dealt with underage sex and drinking... he sat me down, and first said that I am an adult now, and that he respects my decisions either way. Then he laid out all of the benefits of underage sex and drinking, and all of the real detriments, which were not overblown to "you'll be homeless, alcoholic, and dead". He even thrown in a story about how during his time in Soviet Sports school he had to say no to a threesome with two French exchange student girls who liked him, because he thought that it would probably left him preoccupied with sex rather than his goals.

[bonnie]

I'll give you one example why. My sister became a quadriplegic in 1975. To keep her spasms from throwing her out of her wheelchair, she was taking so much valium that she was a zombie. A doctor way back then told her that if she smoked good weed, it would control her spasms without turning her into a vegetable. She tried it and pretty much immediately quit taking the "equally effective" valium.

[bonnie]

That is the issue between Bonnie and I.

Every one of her responses demonstrates that she does not understand what is being done in the clinical field and does not understand my references to it.

It should be noted that the current European research has gone well beyond that which was done on Marinol, a current THC product that is available by prescription.

Actually that is not the main issue of this topic.

Harvard Scientists Studied the Brains of Pot Smokers, and the Results Don't Look Good

hHarvard, scientists, studied, the, brains, of, pot, smokers,, and, the, results, don't, look, good, Harvard Scientists Studied the Brains of Pot Smokers, and the Results Don't Look Good Image Credit: APis the main issue

I am not discounting the use of medical marijuana. Altho I do put more stock in my Dr's experience in the potential for abuse.

I really do hope that the responses here concerning pot use by young people is not the response I could expect from pastors/teachers/pathfinder leaders interacting with my sons at a vulnerable age.

The "I would rather" or "we really don't know if it causes long term damage" "we need more research" would not go over well.

[Tom Wetmore]

Pretty much the sort of stuff you have been posting here, I assume. And your own acknowledgements to the effect that you are satisfied with an "ends justifies the means" approach. In other words, you have made it sound like you warned them of the worst possible consequence, regardless of likelihood or concern for accuracy. You repeatedly seem to go for the sensational and extreme and sketchy sort of stuff here, so it is a fair assumption that would be your approach with your sons. That you often seem to strongly resist anyone correcting your misinformation, and doggedly stick to your version of reality even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, demonstrates that you apparently don't regard truth and accuracy as all that important, as long as it achieves your objectives or matches your POV.

But my post was less about exactly what you told your sons that you claim worked just fine. I acknowledged that it probably was effective in your sons case. But the point is that you and your sons are not necessarily typical. Probably not then, and most certainly not now. My point which you seem to have missed, is that it will be unsuccessful and counterproductive trying to scare kids off smoking pot using the type of BS like the unfortunately grossly misreported study, that itself was seriously flawed and essentially meaningless that you posted at the beginning of this thread and continue to doggedly resisted correction about. If the parental take home to use on their teens and young adults is that smoking pot, even a little, will cause potentially serious brain damage as many media sources misreported it, kids will easily figure that out and not trust anything else you have to say on the matter, no matter how correct it might be. That basically leaves them on their own and to their own peers to figure it out, sometimes the hard way by trial and error.

This all started out long before you and me when the die was caste with the very old "Reefer Madness" book with its boatload of hysteria, misinformation and lunacy intended to scare people away from pot with wildly exaggerated effects and the unending multitude of evils of marijuana. That book and its progeny held sway for many decades, framing the laws and drug classification of marijuana as a Schedule I drug and blunting the possibility of any serious scientific research of any possible beneficial use, or even accurate info on its actual effects. The book was still a primary source when I was a teenager. The BS is evident still in popular regard as being a very dangerous and highly addictive substance and gateway drug to harder drug use. It is only in recent years become recognized as likely no worse than alcohol and far less addictive than nicotine, both legal substances for adult use. I am not advocating the use of any of the above, but let's show some reasonable equivalency in approach and not overblown and deceptive scare tactics.

So if this is the kind of info you gave your sons as you seem to be implying, yes it was BS.

[bonnie]

Pretty much the sort of stuff you have been posting here, I assume. And your own acknowledgements to the effect that you are satisfied with an "ends justifies the means" approach. In other words, you have made it sound like you warned them of the worded possible consequence, regardless of likelihood or concern for accuracy. You repeatedly seem to go for the sensational and extreme and sketchy sort of stuff here, so it is a fair assumption that would be your approach with your sons. That you often seem to strongly resist anyone correcting your misinformation, and doggedly stick to you version of reality even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, demonstrates that you apparently don't regard truth and accuracy as all that important.

[Tom Wetmore]

So there you have it. Your experience is normative... to you. If it works for you and yours, so be it.

But the world is a bit larger and more diverse than your life and experience. Try what you will, but results will vary.

[bonnie]

So there you have it. Your experience is normative... to you. If it works for you and yours, so be it.

But the world is a bit larger and more diverse than your life and experience. Try what you will, but results will vary.

Tom,your comments are always so interesting. I was not called to solve the problems of the world.

I don't know how you see your obligation/role as a parent,that is something I don't have any control over. But for me,

Giving my boys the firmest foundation I knew how was what I was called to do. As they grew older, making their own decisions right or wrong was part of that.

Not all was right, but regardless of the worldview of drugs and the effects harmless or otherwise, part of that foundation was to give them sound reasons for staying away from certain things.From there,it was up to them. Thankfully that,and witnessing first hand effects in those they knew and the fallacy by experts of how harmless some things were they made the right choice.

What my neighbor next door does as a parent or you think as a

parent really doesn't have any effect on my decisions as a parent.

My boys used the same type of education and reasoning (BS)that we did with theirs.While certainly not the world,12 grandchildren out of twelve have escaped the problem of substance use so I guess I will stick with my brand of BS

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

12 grandchildren out of twelve have escaped the problem of substance use so I guess I will stick with my brand of BS

Praise the Lord. And I would suggest since it is by God's grace, it is not BS. Unless of course, it is in spite of the BS.

Have a .

God is Love! Jesus saves!

[bonnie]

Praise the Lord. And I would suggest since it is by God's grace, it is not BS. Unless of course, it is in spite of the BS.

Have a .

God is Love! Jesus saves!

By God's grace and some in spite of our mistakes

[minky]

Agree with your brand

[Bravus]

This thread moved on a long way from my one contribution, but I did just want to clarify that what I wanted to defend was good science, not weed. I don't choose to use it, and wouldn't if it was legal, due to its effects on motivation. I might use it if I had a serious disease it could ameliorate. But the study linked in the OP is not great science, and the way it has been reported even less so. Things that are true don't need to resort to shaky evidence for support. And critiquing bad evidence makes it easier to seek and recognise good evidence.

[Tom Wetmore]

Exactly! Also on the order of your oft repeated mantra - Truth matters.

[JoeMo]

Bonnie,

Congratulations and God bless you for the great job you did raising wonderful straight-laced Christian children. If they are as you say, whatever you did worked; whether I/we agree with your methodology or not.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

By God's grace and some in spite of our mistakes

God is Love! Jesus saves!

[LifeHiscost]

Agree with your brand

It's good to get a pat on the back. Makes it easier not to find it necessary to see my money go up in smoke.

God is Love! Jesus saves!

[bonnie]

Bonnie,

Congratulations and God bless you for the great job you did raising wonderful straight-laced Christian children. If they are as you say, whatever you did worked; whether I/we agree with your methodology or not.

Thank you,Trust me,not all their behavior was to my liking.But I am very thankful and grateful for the men they grew into.

But as to drug/alcohol use and other important issues they knew where we stood and why. It wasn't a "Well,all the research isn't in,we don't know if it causes brain damage" or you are going to be homeless,addicted and dead" from casual use. I don't even recall using that as a reason for staying away from it.

It would really have concerned me to have any teacher/pastor/pathfinder leader taking that route in counseling my sons.It would have been the very last time.You are living on a different planet than I inhabit if you(general) think the ruined lives and sometimes death of young people is the isolated extreme.Many times that first "adventure" with drugs or alcohol is the only one they get.

My FIL had a nasty habit of trying to get my very young boys to take a sip of beer behind my back. Our oldest at four took care of it better than we could have by asking "Grandpa,don't you know Jesus doesn't want you to drink that stuff".That was the last time it was an issue. I don't recall using that statement to them,but as they grew older obviously they needed and deserved a much different answer.

Tom seems to think the boys were fed extreme and unreliable examples as reasons to stay away from mind and behavior altering substances. They witnessed many first hand examples around them.They saw the difficulties of school friends that used drugs that "good science hasn't confirmed life changing yet".They didn't die,but the boys knew they didn't want to walk in their shoes.

If that is BS,I can live with it