Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: fireman15
if the author had used the term damage instead of aging it would have meant the same thing.

So your claim is not about the article but about your opinion. Got it.

When the researches were looking at brain scans... the brains of potheads looked similar to brains of people who were older. This is not a good thing

"Not a good thing" does not equate to "damage". What the article actually says is that if I were a pot smoker my brain would be that of a 57-year-old rather than a 54-year-old ... well, big freaking deal - when I'm 57 I'm not going to consider myself "damaged".

66 posted on 08/23/2018 8:28:31 AM PDT by NobleFree ("law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies ]


To: NobleFree
What the article actually says is that if I were a pot smoker my brain would be that of a 57-year-old rather than a 54-year-old ... well, big freaking deal - when I'm 57 I'm not going to consider myself “damaged”.

That is not what the article is saying. The article is saying that pot decreases the circulation to vital areas of your brain enough that it can be be quantized in an MRI scan. And in fact it has a much larger effect on the brain's blood supply than any other external factor that they could find... nearly five times that of alcohol. Making light of this and ignoring this is irresponsible. Your arguments are juvenile to say the least and with this knowledge pushing for legislation to make marijuana more accessible is irresponsible.

73 posted on 08/23/2018 9:04:33 AM PDT by fireman15
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson