Sorry, but I do not buy that at all. I have yet to see a regular user of any drug that is not addicted... if it weren't for the addiction, why are they even using? Especially when there are so many non-drug related activities to engage in?
The term "violence" occurs nowhere on that page. Adding that term to the search string narrows the result list to four - two of which don't actually mention violence, one of which is about treating aggression, and one of which makes no mention of changes to the physical structure of the brain.
Still sounds like urban legend.
One imaging study: they found physical changes in the structure of the brain.
Another imaging study: memory is impaired in "medical" marijuana users with MS.
Not an imaging study, but a meta analysis of several studies that show that marijuana use in young people is associated with onset of psychotic disorders. FYI, psychotic people are more likely to be violent than the general population, and are over-represented in prison populations.
Anyway, I can reference study after study, but this should be sufficient. The fact is that marijuana use has been observed to cause brain structure changes. One recent study showed behavioral changes persisting for at least 2 years after last use. Another study showed permanent effects on fetuses when their mothers used marijuana. I'm certain that with the recent legalization of marijuana in many jurisdictions, and the resulting ease of doing studies on marijuana use, more deleterious effects will be documented in great detail.
I will point out that searching PubMed is not quite like searching Google. Google is very flexible about search terms, while PubMed requires fairly specific keywords. But if you know how to search PubMed, you can usually find things... but if you fail to find something, that does not mean that there is not at least one publication that discusses what you are looking for.
It's the rationalization for many liberal big-government programs - one that is flatly contradicted by the father of the Constitution, James Madison, in Federalist 41.
Do we agree?
There are such persons as nonaddicted users and non-harming addicts - and it's immoral to punish them for the harms some addicts do.
Sorry, but I do not buy that at all. I have yet to see a regular user of any drug that is not addicted...
There are such persons as non-"regular" users (a true statement whatever exDemMom's personal definition of "regular") - and it remains true and unchallenged that there are such persons as non-harming addicts. It's immoral to punish those persons for the harms some addicts do.
if it weren't for the addiction, why are they even using? Especially when there are so many non-drug related activities to engage in?
Different strokes for different folks - some people like to knit, while others consider it a paralyzing bore.
The term "violence" occurs nowhere on that page. Adding that term to the search string narrows the result list to four - two of which don't actually mention violence, one of which is about treating aggression, and one of which makes no mention of changes to the physical structure of the brain.
Still sounds like urban legend.
One imaging study: they found physical changes in the structure of the brain.
No mention of violence - or indeed any mental/behavioral effects other than reward/aversion.
Another imaging study: memory is impaired in "medical" marijuana users with MS.
No mention of violence - just memory, information processing speed, and attention.
"The uncertainty about whether cannabis causes psychosis is unlikely to be resolved by further longitudinal studies such as those reviewed here."
FYI, psychotic people are more likely to be violent than the general population, and are over-represented in prison populations.
Ah, but the trick is that correlations between X and Y and between Y and Z do not establish a correlation between X and Z: http://www.academia.edu/281987/Vos_P._2009_._Pearsons_correlation_between_three_variables_using_students_basic_knowledge_of_geometry_for_a_statistical_exercise.
Anyway, I can reference study after study, but this should be sufficient. The fact is that marijuana use has been observed to cause brain structure changes. One recent study showed behavioral changes persisting for at least 2 years after last use. Another study showed permanent effects on fetuses when their mothers used marijuana. I'm certain that with the recent legalization of marijuana in many jurisdictions, and the resulting ease of doing studies on marijuana use, more deleterious effects will be documented in great detail.
Yes, marijuana can have negative health effects - as can alcohol and tobacco. It's a well settled principle that harming one's own health is not a crime. One's unborn child is another story - but if we're going to ban for all adults, including men and infertile women, all things that harm the unborn, we've got quite a list to work on.
I will point out that searching PubMed is not quite like searching Google. Google is very flexible about search terms, while PubMed requires fairly specific keywords. But if you know how to search PubMed, you can usually find things... but if you fail to find something, that does not mean that there is not at least one publication that discusses what you are looking for.
If I make any claims of medical fact, I'll have to confront that issue - but so far you're the only one who's made such claims.