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.

Oh, sure, now that I called you out you suddenly become respectful and apropos. Perhaps you are not a troll on other topics. I've been spending a lot of time in this thread because the meta- side of it interests me, but have better things to do than try to figure out your Salon life history, which is manifestly not interesting.

Here's a post of yours in this thread:

So far you have stated that studies, facts, figures are not that useful in advancing a pro-legalization argument. And neither are anecdotes if they include "hyperbole" and if they are not yours and do not follow your already formed opinion. What, exactly, in your opion, does advance an argument that is contrary to yours?

The point of my comment was simply to show that for every anecdote that you can dredge up about a person you know who got stoned and became a drag on society, I can drag up two that show exactly the opposite, and therefore anecdotes are useless when it comes to deciding law on this subject. Better to stick to the studies, facts and figures. But the studies, facts, and figures don't support your already formed opinion so to you they are not "useful." You then descend into condescension. I would say that is not a "useful" way to advance your argument.

Several points:

1. By putting forth anecdotes that don't demonstrate your point, you imply that all anecdotes are by definition not useful, just because yours weren't particularly. That was what you did.

You claimed that a guy who became a successful businessman whilst smoking pot, and a lady who produced valuable insights during a long, boring meeting (when she had not done so beforehand) had somehow demonstrated that the drug made them smarter.

Of course it didn't. You demonstrated on the one hand that pot didn't decisively hold back the first guy, and that the lady acted somewhat differently in the meeting in the second. Was it because she had less inhibitions? Maybe she became more creative, whatever that means. Maybe she even got smarter. I don't know. Neither do you.

But you still claimed your anecdote "proved" things, clearly implying that my anecdote, which was not delivered in detail, but was at least relevant to the subject matter, was as empty of value as yours.

I think I'll call that a strawman, though you could spin it a couple different ways.

2. You presuppose that because I will definitely dismiss some (which I have not named) studies, and because I don't feel that *any* studies are particularly relevant to this issue, that I am somehow intellectually dishonest, rejecting only those facts or demonstrations that contradict "my point of view". As if you actually understood my POV when you wrote that particular bit of keyboard vomit.

There are two reasons I outed you as a troll. I stand by them. I am marginally offended when some impugns my intellectual honesty with remarks that are themselves intellectually dishonest. And that's why I've taken the extra time this afternoon (well, and because some of my work stuff is taking a long time to finish) to write in such volume on this subject. I'll shut up now (about this topic anyway ;]), scout's honor.