OK. A link to the full paper I read is in my sig. I don't understand, after reading it over a couple times, how this is related to the method of ingestion.

They conclude that aspirin and vitamin E short-circuit the pseudo- or maybe for-real-apoptosis that is kicked off by THC snuggling up to the CB1 receptors, but I don't see where they discuss in any way the method of introduction.

In fact, they tended to inject THC right into the hippocampus, which is about as pure a way as exists to avoid side-chemistry that occurs on ingestion, and concluded that left on its own, THC is in fact neurotoxic.

Mind you, the aspirin bit is quite good to know.

Was I supposed to find a more directly relevant study in the (extremely long) list of references?

Quote from the Discussion part of the paper:

On the basis of the data presented in this study, we conclude that binding of THC to cannabinoid CB1 receptors in hippocampal neurons leads to neuronal death. THC is neurotoxic at concentrations as low as 0.5-1.0 µM, which are comparable to THC levels measured in human plasma after consumption of marijuana cigarettes. Although THC neurotoxicity was unaffected by Ca2+ chelators and activators of adenylyl cyclase, it was abated by inhibitors of PLA2 and completely blocked by aspirin and indomethacin, inhibitors of COX. This suggests that activation of PLA2 by THC may contribute to increases in arachidonic acid. Because protection by quinacrine was only partial, other mechanisms may contribute to the arachidonic acid release. For example, THC may also increase intracellular arachidonic acid by inhibition of arachidonic acid acylation (Reichman et al., 1991). We hypothesize that THC-induced neuron death is triggered by a signal transduction cascade that increases arachidonic acid and activates COX with the formation of ROS (Fig. 9). THC enhancement of arachidonic acid release from cultured neurons and protection of neurons from THC by vitamin E supports this hypothesis.

..another quote that establishes the boundary of their investigation, a few paragraphs further..

Although there is no direct evidence that marijuana is neurotoxic for human brain, some of the memory deficits associated with its use may be caused by neuronal death in the hippocampus.

Thanks!

Happily it's available in html form, so I don't have to screw with pdfs. *furiously reading away*

I am *for* legalization, as you would know if you had basic reading comprehension skills. Thank you for outing yourself as a troll.

The best argument I'm able to think of regarding legalization of drugs is simply that people ought to be able to do whatever the hell they want so long as it hurts no one else. When someone who's used a given drug (alcohol included, of course) harms another, their harmful act should be prosecuted under the laws the criminalize that act. There's really nothing more to say. That applies to drunk drivers as well.. if they killed someone with their car through negligence, that's a perfectly acceptable reason to send them to prison. We don't need specific laws regarding drunkenness when driving. The existing body of law was already sufficient.

It's this "we have to prevent XYZ from ever ever happening again" mindset that pervades our politics that engenders a need to criminalize personal choices. We should simply oppose the criminalization of personal choices as a matter of principle, and avoid all these specious arguments designed to convince people who've already got their minds made up that their drug of choice is actually good for them. Or vice versa.

Can you point me to a reference discussing the link between memory loss and smoking the stuff? That's pretty much the thing keeping me away from it at this point. If it's that easy to hack around, well. Heh.

Your anecdotes demonstrate that smoking pot doesn't necessarily dictate your life outcome, which most people I know will agree with. Further, your second anecdote demonstrates that some people can expect an increase in patience and focus during the period of their high, which is also not something unknown to smokers. Neither anecdote has anything at all to do with intelligence.

I think your anecdotes *are* useful, because they expand the possibility space: they let us know things that might happen. Maybe. Just like people I grew up with becoming slower and less ambitious before my very eyes led me to conclude other outcomes might occur if I kept smoking pot. It really isn't necessary to have a three ring binder filled with facts and figures to draw some wisdom from anecdotes. Likewise, the scientific method is a powerful tool-- when it can actually be applied.

The hyperbole present in your post makes my point for me. By continuing to use flawed thinking to advance your agenda, you encourage people to dismiss your words.

You made me lol.