This is news? On Jan 13, 2012, at 3:55 PM, <[email protected]> <[email protected]> wrote:
> It's been a good week for those who favour certain recreational drugs > which the law forbids. > > First it turns out that smoklng marijuana may be good for you. Or at > least not harmful to your lungs, unlike that legal drug, tobacco. > Pletcher et al (2012) reported that light users of marijuana had > above-average scores on lung function tests, those with somewhat > higher use had average scores, while only those who used it at high > dose over many years had slightly reduced lung capacity. According > to a news report on the study (Seppa, 2012), these results suggest > that smoking pot does not increase the risk of lung diseases, such as > emphysema. Which that legal drug, tobacco, does. > > See: > > Pletcher, M. et al (2012). Association between marijuana exposure and > pulmonary function over 20 years. JAMA, 307, p. 173- > [Abstract at http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/307/2/173.abstract ] > > Seppa, N. (2012). Light pot smoking easy on lungs. Science News, Jan > 10. At http://tinyurl.com/6r5v53n > > Next, it turns out that meth may not make you stupid, as is widely > believed, and perhaps may even make you smarter. In the current > issue of Neuropsychopharmacology, Hart et al (2012) review the > question of cognitive impairment in meth users. > > They find that the short-term effect, in both non-users and abusers, > is _improvement_ in various aspects of cognition, including > "visuospatial perception, attention, inhibition, working memory, > long-term memory, and learning". > > Their critical review of the long-term and brain-imaging literature > is instructive. They point out that effects have only been found on a > "minority" of measures. Hart et al also note that meth researchers > persistently interpret _differences_ as dysfunction. The meth > researchers call findings of small but statistically significant > decreases in performance in users compared with controls "impairment" > without reference to clinical relevance. They then discuss this > "impairment" as though it indicated significant clinical dysfunction, > when the difference in performance actually is within normal limits. > > In Hart et al's words, "The clinical significance of these findings > may be limited because cognitive functioning overwhelmingly falls > within the normal range when compared agaiunst normative data. In > spite of these observations, there seems to be a propensity to > interpret any cognitive and/or brain differen(s) as a clinically > significant abnormality". > > I wonder why the meth researchers do that. > > The article is long and detailed; for those who want to cut to the > chase, I recommend the final sections labeled "Conclusions" and > "Implications". It's a thoughtful analysis, but unlikely to be > welcomed by those in the war on drugs business. > > Hart, C. et al (2012). Is cognitive functioning impaired in > methamphetamine users? A critical review. Neuropsychopharmacology, > 37, 586-608. Free full text at > http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v37/n3/pdf/npp2011276a.pdf > > Stephen Paul Brandon Emeritus Professor of Psychology Minnesota State University, Mankato [email protected] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=15295 or send a blank email to leave-15295-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
