Could Failure to use Marijuana Responsibly for 5-6 Years as an Adult Pose the Same Mental and General Health Risks as Childhood Use or Even Failure to Exercise?

  Recent research has confirmed findings from the early 2000s which showed an increase in IQ among responsible adult users of marijuana in comparison to those who never used cannabis. While childhood use has been shown to be indicative of negative health consequences concurrent with reduced prolactin levels, looking into the effects of marijuana as a predictor or causal agent in positive health effects outside of the realm of cancer prevention has been relatively untilled ground. That builds on previous research which explored the possibility of using cannabis to reduce levels of dependence on other products with responsible adult use, even as childhood use has been proven to negatively impact the odds of responsible adult use. This paper will review some of the basic facts which longitudinal studies have demonstrated as an effect of responsible adult marijuana use, and how those effects can play out on a society while evaluating some very glaring inconsistencies or limiting factors which have presented.

  The impact of IQ on income and social class has been long established and is well publicized in today's highly technological global community. Less known are its predictive values for life expectancy and more severe mental health complications. Childhood IQ can predict mortality between groups with great discrepancies (Whalley). Lower childhood IQ has been associated with many mental health issues, though it has been shown to predict a lower rate of adult mania, an interesting anomaly which may merit some attention but does not disturb the nature of this trend (Koenen). While the impact of changes in IQ from adult or childhood use of marijuana, whether positive or negative, on life expectancy are minimal, paling in comparison to regular physical activity, which can add as much as a decade, or somewhat akin to tobacco use, shown to remove 1-2 years (Ferrucci), among a population these changes can demonstrate a viable advantage which should not be overlooked. 

  A horizontal shift in IQ can double the highly gifted and geniuses among a society with an average IQ of 98, such as the USA, and will continue to produce significant gains as IQ increases. Massive gains have been seen in the past (Flynn), with many factors that can be held responsible from removing environmental toxins such as lead to increased availability of educational factors which can play roles. The gains which are being described have yielded greater total and proportional numbers of college and high school graduates, which is yielding advantages to all spectrums of society (Moretti). There is no reason this trend should not remain the case.

  Responsible adult use of marijuana has been shown to increase IQ in a causal fashion (Fried) in a manner equivalent to the decline in IQ associated with childhood use. Heavy use is here substituted with childhood use because of later research which showed that the probability of becoming dependent on marijuana are around half of that of alcohol at age 18 and virtually zero by age 21 (Chen). Recent research has shown that the increase in IQ is a causal consequence of cannabis exposure, and not one of a predictive nature, a conclusion largely apparent from research (Filbey). That was research which also helped to investigate some of the mechanisms behind higher brain functioning. This would appear to now be a manner of basic deductive reasoning to see that this increase in IQ also will give a concrete benefit to society with responsible adult use encouraged by the spreading legalization of recreational marijuana.

  Some problems have presented, however, and many of the same issues which have negatively impacted attempts to prohibit cannabis now impede an honest recommendation of use for the purpose of mental health at least, though the anti-cancer properties appear to be solid in nature. Many mental health disorders are accompanied by self-inflicted harm, hard drug use, and other certain outcomes which leads to a negative stigma and a serious approach towards treatment. Early childhood use has been shown, commiserate with a declining IQ and mental functioning, to increase such negative outcomes along with other negative physical and mental effects including decreased mortality (Manrique). Interestingly, however, responsible adult use has "only" been found to result in equivalent outcomes among responsible adult users as those who had never used in all methods of evaluation including hard drug use and mortality from all causes (Andreasson). 

  The research outlined previously does not indicate any limiting factors which should be present in regards to mental health or life expectancy concerns: all countries involved in such research do have room for improvement which far outweighs any contribution from cannabis use of virtually any nature. It is unlikely that there is an organization responsible for the wholesale massacre of 1-2% of the marijuana using community, or slightly early termination of individual marijuana users that could explain the lost additional productivity, life expectancy, and mental health gains which are to be expected in any country, much less the developed countries where this research has taken place, so this particular confounding situation will have to stand as an anomaly or unexplained phenomenon. That statement may appear provocative and the latter precludes the former. Should the former be the case, the mental health gains would still be evident without a targeted shock among the mentally ill. There could also be an issue with multiple research studies, notably the work of Whalley, which would alter this conclusion should heightened IQ not causally impact greater life expectancies, or perhaps most likely, that the Swedish researchers led by Andreasson vastly overestimated the use of marijuana by the conscripts in their study, with heavy use occurring in childhood users but without the vast numbers of extraneous responsible adult users in excess of the childhood users which present in the USA, and naturally with a substance of the type. That is deemed as most likely due to the tendency of European cultures to expose younger children to age-restricted substances than in America, at least. The nature of a bell curve does indicate that the lower tail of IQ performance will demonstrate a limited effect on outliers with further horizontal shocks, so the failure to materialize significant declines in hard drug use or self-inflicted harm and other indicators of lower intellect are not outside of expectations and does not indicate confounding material or discrepancies in research.

  Finally, some issues have been noted with application of the positive and negative health benefits of cannabis to adults from a financial perspective, in terms of productivity gained. While there is no question that the general economy has fared more effectively in a large part due to intellectual progress and increasing regulations which have made American children and adults healthier, application of this theory has fallen apart when applied to responsible adult users of marijuana (Cerdá). As a group, according to research, the increase in IQ should be easily described as an economic shock, giving a great advantage in terms of productivity and social class. Both of these are frustratingly missing after economic research. Unlike the discrepancy in life expectancy, and perhaps exacerbating that conundrum, there are pieces of information which present to address this situation. Because childhood and responsible adult use are not distinctions made previously in research on health care costs, it must be assumed that the costs of childhood marijuana users tend to be much higher as a result of marijuana dependence and psychological or physical manifestations of this. Therefore, research showing that cannabis users as a population have the same per capita health care utilization as those who have never used could be interpreted to show significant gains among the responsible adult users (Fuster). As health care can make up hundreds of thousands of dollars over a life time, and is among the dominant expenses both for an individual and for the government, this may be communication of the gained productivity from cannabis use to healthier lifestyles or investments, if not more financially frugal decisions.

  The research is fascinating and demanding in nature. Seeing the demographic dispersion among groups of people after laboratory or controlled experiments which add a political or social aspect to the work is relatively rare. It can be concluded that responsible adult use of marijuana does indeed result in productivity gains associated with the increased IQ, and equal to the detrimental effects from childhood use. These gains in the current population of marijuana users, as a significant minority, are invested heavily into healthcare, though there is a low likelihood that this would continue with a regulated industry, while the trend may remain to some extent. In terms of life expectancy, the results are anything but clear, and this deserves further attention, investigation, or experimentation. While childhood users face increased mortality risks as expected, the responsible adult users live exactly the same lifespan as those who have never used. The 1-2% gap between expected and actual life expectancies is not explained by limits on health care returns: countries have greater life expectancies than the USA. It does not detract from the massive predicted and realized gains of responsible adult users of marijuana in terms of productivity and health care, or tarnish in anyway the great impact legalized recreational marijuana will have on the United States of America and the world in coming years.

References: 

Andreasson, S., and P. Allebeck. "Cannabis and mortality among young men A longitudinal study of Swedish conscripts." Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 18.1 (1990): 9-15.

Cerdá, Magdalena, et al. "Persistent Cannabis Dependence and Alcohol Dependence Represent Risks for Midlife Economic and Social Problems A Longitudinal Cohort Study." Clinical Psychological Science (2016): 2167702616630958.

Chen, Chuan-Yu, Megan S. O’Brien, and James C. Anthony. "Who becomes cannabis dependent soon after onset of use? Epidemiological evidence from the United States: 2000–2001." Drug and alcohol dependence 79.1 (2005): 11-22.

Ferrucci, Luigi, et al. "Smoking, physical activity, and active life expectancy." American journal of epidemiology 149.7 (1999): 645-653.

Filbey, Francesca M., et al. "Preliminary findings demonstrating latent effects of early adolescent marijuana use onset on cortical architecture." Developmental cognitive neuroscience 16 (2015): 16-22.

Flynn, James R. "The mean IQ of Americans: Massive gains 1932 to 1978." Psychological bulletin 95.1 (1984): 29.
Fried, Peter, et al. "Current and former marijuana use: preliminary findings of a longitudinal study of effects on IQ in young adults." Canadian Medical Association Journal 166.7 (2002): 887-891.

Fuster, Daniel, et al. "No detectable association between frequency of marijuana use and health or healthcare utilization among primary care patients who screen positive for drug use." Journal of general internal medicine 29.1 (2014): 133-139.

Koenen, Karestan C., et al. "Childhood IQ and adult mental disorders: a test of the cognitive reserve hypothesis." American Journal of Psychiatry (2009).

Manrique-Garcia, Edison, et al. "Cannabis use and depression: a longitudinal study of a national cohort of Swedish conscripts." BMC psychiatry 12.1 (2012): 1.

Moretti, Enrico. "Estimating the social return to higher education: evidence from longitudinal and repeated cross-sectional data." Journal of econometrics121.1 (2004): 175-212.

Scallet, Andrew C. "Neurotoxicology of cannabis and THC: a review of chronic exposure studies in animals." Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior 40.3 (1991): 671-676.
Whalley, Lawrence J., and Ian J. Deary. "Longitudinal cohort study of childhood IQ and survival up to age 76." Bmj 322.7290 (2001): 819.

Letter from the White House on marijuana legalization:

While, "A considerable body of evidence shows that marijuana use, especially chronic use that begins at a young age, is associated with serious health and social problems," which is not anything to disagree with, "We will also closely monitor implementation of marijuana legalization in individual States" which indicates support for marijuana legalization in states, including our own! In addition support was expressed for research into the medical benefits of marijuana, though it was noted that the FDA had not yet found smoked marijuana (does exclusion of edibles indicate a positive here?) to be suitable as recognized for medical use. This is very positive, and we can look forward to legalization in the near future here in Vermont, along with other states.

The Recreational Marijuana Logic Tree:

Graphic obtained with permissions on Googleplus

Even a tiny bush like this has 1024 individual leaves, here is a logic tree which tries to break down some of the most important points on marijuana legalization:

Recreational Marijuana logic tree:

Marijuana and Crime:

   2 million of 4 million parolees have tried marijuana. 200 million of 350 million Americans have tried marijuana. 16% of prisoners are there solely for marijuana charges, which means that marijuana users commit significantly less crimes than those who do not make the life style choice. While data on intoxication from marijuana use and driving is not complete, the Federal Government has found that the likelihood of marijuana users to be involved in traffic fatalities is approximately the same as the non-using and non-drinking populations.

   Legalization of marijuana is estimated in the first year to have cost the South American Cartels nearly 4 billion dollars. Since 1970, when the majority of marijuana users also used other narcotics, the rate of co-dependence has fallen steadily, with the 50-50 point being reached in the 90’s. The vast majority of marijuana users now use marijuana exclusively. The rate of hard drug use in the nation has also dropped in a similar fashion from 10% to as low as .5%.
Marijuana and foreign policy:
   Unlike previous attempts to make marijuana illegal, when supporting foreign fighters in marijuana producing countries offered an incentive for the United States to encourage or foster an illegal trade in marijuana, and rigorously enforce prohibition, today foreign policy goals have changed and these rebels, whether in South American countries that during the cold war may have swung to communism, or in Afghanistan and the Middle East, now do not provide the same incentive to prohibit. In fact, as these organizations have struck against the United States in the past militarily or economically, continued prohibition may be a breach in national security by providing necessary means to acquire funding for enemies of the state. This is especially true in cases in which users are dependent on marijuana, either for medical purposes or as maintenance medication for co-occuring addictions. 

Marijuana and Education:

   Marijuana has been shown to increase IQ by a significant amount in current and former users with responsible adult use. This is exemplified by a lower crime rate, and after adjustment for marijuana-related legal or social sanctions, higher educational performance. This has also been causally proven with brain imaging work that shows marijuana increases functional connectivity.

Marijuana and public health:

   Marijuana has been shown to have a protective effect on the lungs and bronchial system. THC has been proven to attack cancer cells, and reduce both the prevalence and the exacerbation of cancer-related disease. While it is true that marijuana consumed as a child (the age the state of Vermont looks to set with legalization is 21, though further research here is being done) will negatively affect bone density in a manner similar to alcohol use over time, this effect is also matched by an increase in bone density with responsible adult use.

   Marijuana has medical benefits for those with terminal illness, which may extend lives significantly. Social discrimination or segregation may have a significant impact on these populations.

Marijuana and dependence or potential for abuse

   Research has shown that marijuana releases slightly less dopamine than a good meal, about half that of a sexual encounter or alcohol use and between 3 and 20 times less than other illegal or prescription narcotics available in the USA. Release of certain dopamine receptors initiated by marijuana use have been proven in adults to have a positive effect on various hormones, while not negatively affecting sperm count or other fertility measures, though in pregnant women some negative effects can be determined.

   It has also been proven that marijuana use acts as a result of the same receptors of the brain that coffee blocks, the adenosine receptors. While low doses of caffeine will reduce the amount of THC cravings, high doses will allow someone to take larger amounts of THC, and feel the need to do so. This is yet to be proven as effective treatment, but has the potential to provide a unique advantage to marijuana that drugs or alcohol do not.

The marijuana community and illegal or unconstitutional discrimination or attacks:

   Production of synthetic THC or spice, a schedule 1 substance, occurred in the United States legally for around 3 years. In 2010 alone over 11,000 Americans were hospitalized pursuant to consumption of the drug, which was classified by the White House as three times to 800 times more addictive than marijuana when they were added to the Controlled Substances Act with the Safety and Innovation Act of 2012. Dozens were killed. This is a direct result of job application urine screening and marijuana prohibition which resulted in use of the substance; many people did not even know this was not legitimate marijuana. 

   As noted before, marijuana use is not associated with fatal traffic accidents, but there are states such as Vermont, which have significant (a 5X increase from the national average) and consistently deviant marijuana traffic fatalities, suggesting social discrimination or prejudice in these areas. There are not corresponding states with abnormally low marijuana-related traffic fatalities, suggesting this is not the result of random distribution.

   RICO funds intended for legal prosecution of narcotics cases have been diverted to anti-marijuana lobby efforts. Organizations were found to divert money as well from pharmaceutical corporations to anti-marijuana efforts, in a massive breach of scientific ethics. This resulted in some pseudo-science arising in the anti-marijuana field, which was non-reproducible, something extremely rare in the world of academics and indicative of a massive economic investment in preventing the legalization and regulation of marijuana.

Neurogenesis Suppression in Dentate Gyrus Induced by Moderate to Heavy Nicotine Use Finally Shown to Have Negative Impact on Memory Functions?

There is a stereotype that marijuana smokers have hazy or weak memories as a result of their use. Tobacco smoke, on the other hand, is usually discussed in terms of the positive effect on cognition by virtue of the very mild stimulant effects delivered by nicotine. Over a decade ago, however, researchers in Nice, France showed in rats that administration of nicotine, without smoke, induced a suppression of new neuronal births in the dentate gyrus, the part of the brain that handles about 90% of a person or animal's memories. In the last decade as well, researchers from the Chinese Military, Canada, and Maryland have shown that marijuana actually encourages the birth of neurogenesis in the hippocampus (which is responsible for most remaining memories) by 40%, when a pure THC copycat chemical, named for Hebrew University where the compound was made, is administered to rats. Researchers at Princeton University and the Department of Nutrition in Brazil also showed that there was no effect from THC on the dentate gyrus of rats, even at levels producing "gross behavioural intoxication".

This provides a general understanding of the effect of THC on the brain, which should be reproducible in human or population studies which have been conducted. More recent brain scans have also shown this to be true as conducted with human populations, with negligible changes, positive or negative, found in most parts of the brain, though functional connectivity has also been shown to increase in a significant manner with marijuana use this last year.

Most recently, a study from Spain claimed that while virtually every mode of behavioural measurement was equal between marijuana smokers and control groups, a significant (though still within the realm of normal fluctuation) decrease in memory function was noted. This speaks in the face of research that has been conducted about THC or the marijuana that contains it. Even with patients using 10 times the responsible adult use in the sample, and the average number of marijuana cigarettes, or spliffs, smoked in a lifetime being around 42,000 (with one participant smoking over a massive 256,000 times) among those included in the study, the results do not match with rats who were administered high levels of THC; the results should have been positive and not negative.

There is a difference between the human and rat studies, though which is not addressed. In the Spanish study, noting a decrease in memory function, the research explicitly emphasizes that tobacco users were not omitted from the study, and about 75% of the participants were actively smoking tobacco when the study was conducted.

A little background, for the American marijuana user, is necessary. In Europe, people smoke spliffs generally made with hashish and tobacco. The unfiltered smoke doubles the nicotine intake (in some countries there are lower limits on nicotine levels, but in Spain this probably means quite similar to American cigarettes, as there has not been a strict concentration of absorbed nicotine enforced throughout the European Union yet), and this dominates the marijuana culture there. While more efficient, this also means that it is very difficult to smoke marijuana regularly without crossing the threshold of 5-10 mg of nicotine daily at which point positive effects are eclipsed by neurogenesis suppression, assuming the user is smoking on work breaks or at certain timepoints and not regularly throughout the day (the research indicates that doses of more than 3-5 mg of nicotine in the blood at a time is the crossover point from positive to negative effects).

The research in Nice, France, which originally shows the negative impact of moderate to heavy nicotine use on the dentate gyrus, emphasizes that further research is needed to confirm this neuronal difference actually translates to a cognitive change. Research from Riba et al. should be used in conjunction with other research done in this field to confirm this fact, as has been shown above. It is still worth investigating the impacts of age, obviously at certain ages nicotine has a positive effect, while it can be assumed that while a brain is developing such stunting of neurogenesis must induce extreme cognitive defects. For those concerned about absorbing too much nicotine, in the last 70 years absorbed nicotine in cigarettes has increased almost 3-fold in the USA (though in some parts of Europe the composition of a cigarette is much the same as in the early days of the tobacco industry) as companies and governments attempt to limit tar or air pollution intake (read previous research on cancer mortality and smoking for more), one viable option is to use pipe tobacco instead of cigarette tobacco. While the curing process for pipe tobacco means there is more nicotine per gram in the cigarette or bowl, the wide cut of the leaves lowers absorbed nicotine by around 13 times (or 2-4 times in comparison to low nicotine European cigarettes). Normal use of pipe tobacco is also associated with levels of cancer and smoking-related disease more similar to the general population than to the cigarette smokers.

Works Cited:

Abrous, Djoher Nora, et al. "Nicotine self-administration impairs hippocampal plasticity." The Journal of neuroscience 22.9 (2002): 3656-3662.

Filbey, Francesca M., et al. "Long-term effects of marijuana use on the brain."Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111.47 (2014): 16913-16918.

Jiang, Wen, et al. "Cannabinoids promote embryonic and adult hippocampus neurogenesis and produce anxiolytic-and antidepressant-like effects." Journal of Clinical Investigation 115.11 (2005): 3104.

Kochman, Linda J., et al. "Despite strong behavioral disruption, Δ 9-tetrahydrocannabinol does not affect cell proliferation in the adult mouse dentate gyrus." Brain research 1113.1 (2006): 86-93.

Ling, H. W., and CB Wynn Parry. "The amount of nicotine absorbed in smoking." British journal of pharmacology and chemotherapy 4.3 (1949): 313-314.

Riba, J., et al. "Telling true from false: cannabis users show increased susceptibility to false memories." Molecular psychiatry (2015).

Nicotine shown to have half the constrictive properties on veins as alcohol, and marijuana actually will make them bigger (with vasorelaxatory properties identified in THC)!

Nicotine and vein constriction:

"Smoking was associated with significant changes in the aortic pressure-diameter relation that denote deterioration of the elastic properties and were maintained during the whole study period: the slope of the pressure-diameter loop became steeper (baseline, 35.43±1.38; minute 1, 45.26±1.65; peak at minute 10, 46.36±1.69 mm Hg/mm; P<.001) and aortic distensibility decreased (baseline, 2.08±0.12; minute 1, 1.60±0.08; nadir at minute 5, 1.54±0.07×10⁻⁶ cm²·dyne⁻¹; P<.001). In contrast, no changes in aortic elasticity indexes were observed with sham smoking."

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/95/1/31.short

Alcohol and vein constriction:

"Blood ethanol levels achieved at 60, 120, and 180 minutes were 649+-48, 1,285±81, and 2,546+-130jug/ml, respectively. LAD cross-sectional area was reduced significantly from control at the end of each of the three dosing periods (-24± 5%, -40± 3%, and -53±.3%; p<0.004). a-Adrenergic blockade had no effecton LAD cross-sectional area, while nicardipine partially reversed the ethanol-induced vasoconstriction. No significant change in vessel cross-sectional area took place in control dogs."

 http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/78/1/165.full.pdf

Marijuana and vein relaxation:

"The present results provide strong evidence that THC is a PPARγ ligand, stimulation of which causes time-dependent vasorelaxation"
This results in a lower blood pressure and better athletic performance.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006291X05021352

Letter to Patrick Kennedy regarding conversation at Smart Approaches to Marijuana

Hello,
Regarding our conversation at the SAM conference this summer: I was lucky to have qualified my statements with illegal and decriminalized marijuana in relation to my research. I did indicate that further results from fully legalized areas and places of further research were being waited on. Since the conversation, the confounding factor of the toxoplasmosis gondii being extant in many marijuana smokers in places with home grow operations has forced a reconsideration of the numbers and statistics available. This parasite is responsible for the perceived negative impact of marijuana in countries that fail to complete proper legal research in keeping with UN treaties in effect currently. In Canadian and other studies have conclusively shown with virtually no room for error that marijuana use is associated with a 5 point increase in IQ in current smokers and 3.5 points in former smokers. This translates to literally trillions of dollars in lost intellectual property as can be seen in Germany where marijuana use among 18-24 year olds has quadrupled to nearly 28% while the economy has ballooned to nearly the same size as the United States while alcohol use has dropped dramatically. In MRI and SPECT scans the positive effect of marijuana when disambiguated from those infected with the common parasite, along with pesticides or other factors including income, has been concretely shown in Dallas and other university academic studies. There is some research to indicate that a compound from marijuana may mitigate the effects of alcohol, but this research is still in its infancy, at this time in the 45% of America that drinks, it can be associated with a drop in IQ of several points in comparison to a non-user, and many points in comparison with marijuana users. For the time being, this is a national security crisis in which every year 150,000 people are needlessly dying from alcohol related deaths. To put this in perspective, this is more than all military deaths in all American wars since the Korean war combined, every year. Furthermore we are unable to compete on a global scale as other nations, including Germany, with smaller populations are able to perform on a higher level than the United States. An increase of 5 points in IQ translates to 100's of % more geniuses and double the number of highly gifted in the population. We have made significant progress with industrial hemp legalization, which increases CO2 consumption by 4X that of other plants and can potentially offset global warming while increasing our energy independence. It is time to take these gains to other fields as well.
Legally, prosecution of marijuana is unconstitutional and the way it is currently implemented it is in violation of multiple UN treaties. According to our constitution, the supremacy clause in article 6 section ii only takes effect under certain circumstances. The most significant example of this was in the Civil War, when Abraham Lincoln was forced to issue an executive order freeing the slaves before legislation from the federal government could make slavery illegal. Unless it could be argued that marijuana prohibition is more important to national security than 600,000 legal racially defined slaves, this clause should not override pre-existing and later passed state laws in this matter. This has been defended and ratified in multiple state supreme courts in the case of marijuana. Furthermore, in the federal statutes there is a contradiction in the case of marijuana, making prosecution unfeasible and illegal by federal organizations until resolved by a Federal court in an appeal to repeal. The charter of the FDA in the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act of 1938 specifically addresses marijuana and retains classification from the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 which classifies marijuana and alcohol together as dangerous drugs with a high potential for poisoning and to be regulated by the FDA. This process was ironically pressed by conservatives in the implementation of Medicare and Medicaid long ago, and it is probable that with a federal court's review of such an appeal that the older law would be amended with the exception of marijuana, in any case until this happens government agencies would be very amiss to fail to follow medical advise.
Finally, marijuana has been proven to stop cancer. This is the leading cause of death in the United States and research has shown that molecules in marijuana directly harm cancerous human cells while avoiding healthy ones. My own grandfather passed away last summer after living what the AMA has recommended as a healthy lifestyle for most of his life. It is time for the United States to embrace marijuana and tell the alcohol industry to take some time on the back burner until that 200 billion dollar sore on the American economy has been developed into a beneficial product.
Sincerely,
Paul Andreas Fischer

Letter to Sven Andreasson on his longitudinal study of Swedish conscripts and confounding data

Hello,
I have done some research in nuclear medicine on this subject and there are a number of confounding factors that I believe you have left criminally unaccounted for in your research. To begin with, in states with legal marijuana, such as Canada, use of 5 grams and less per day is associated with an increase in IQ of 5 points. My own research in nuclear medicine looking at the blood flow of the brain supports this, after half a pack of marijuana cigarettes over 6 months most of my brain was normal, with one area with increased activity. According to MRI studies there has been little change in the brain observed, though conclusive evidence exists that the size of the amygdala increases and some indication that the part of the brain associated with addictive behaviour becomes less prominent, here a benefit, though this was not substantial enough to say for certain. Ultimately, biologically what is claimed about marijuana in this longitudinal study is in conflict with studies in Canada that had a high level of accuracy that followed users from 12-17 to 25 and later points in life as well as the most recent SPECT and MRI imaging studies.
The most important confounding piece of evidence does not rely on new technology, or different methodology, however, and it is quite sad that this was not accounted for in this expensive research costing the Swedish government severely. According to the CDC the majority (between 65% and 86%) of schizophrenia can be attributed to the parasite toxoplasmosis gondii. To suggest that something without a logical biological explanation is responsible when it is quite simple how the microbe targets brain and muscle tissue to lay its eggs and the body's protective cysts disrupt bloodflow is quite unethical. The explanation for how it goes in uneven amounts in marijuana users is quite simple, a cat defecating into a potted marijuana plant will contaminate the product for up to a year later.
I do not know the statistics in Sweden off the top of my head, but in the United States 22.5% of people are infected in their lifetime with t. gondii. Of these 25% (5-6% of the general population) get flu-like fatigue and fever, other psychotic symptoms for one week to as long as a month or three months. 6% will have latent symptoms, lasting longer than 6 months and will be diagnosed as schizophrenic. This is the majority of the 1.2% diagnosed with schizophrenia in the USA. It is dose dependant, and getting exposed to the parasite later in life or going thru a period of immunosuppression will cause a recurrence of behaviour.
Please provide an addendum to your research as I have done mine (this came up only as I was publishing, at first I thought to say there were some mild changes, nothing significant from marijuana, luckily I had prefaced my research by emphasizing that marijuana was decriminalized or illegal and the results may be different in a legal setting, as they indeed turned out to be) providing for these confounding factors.
Thank you,
Paul Fischer

Marijuana is legal under the 1938 amendments to the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, we do need to regulate it.

Marijuana is legal under the 1938 amendments to the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, which remains the standard for prescription and non-prescription drugs (making in the case of marijuana, the controlled substances act out of line and unconstitutional and infringement of the duties and obligations of the FDA)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Food_and_Drug_Act

"Goods found in violation of the law were subject to seizure and destruction at the expense of the manufacturer. That, combined with a legal requirement that all convictions be published (Notices of Judgment), proved to be important tools in the enforcement of the statute and had a deterrent effect upon would-be violators. "

http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/Transparency/Basics/ucm214416.htm
"The enactment of the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act tightened controls over drugs and food, included new consumer protection against unlawful cosmetics and medical devices, and enhanced the government’s ability to enforce the law. This law, as amended, is still in force today."
And of course, as we all know, the FDA has not made marijuana an FDA approved prescription in any state, mostly because it is available as a "dangerous" but legal drug, in the same wording as surrounds the alcohol industry.
We need better regulation  of these substances. The prohibition is ineffective and morally unjustifiable. 
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/item/18383-house-votes-to-stop-feds-from-interfering-with-state-marijuana-laws
The house has already voted to end Department of Justice funding for marijuana prosecution.

The effect of potent unregulated or decriminalized marijuana and alcohol versus legalized and properly regulated marijuana and alcohol (with proper FDA regulations full brain blood-flow should be possible regardless of which substance is consumed, though it would appear to be quite low, .5% in the case of alcohol, over half a dozen strains of marijuana are already identified that are purported to be safe some that may even contain moderate amounts of THC):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjZgj_eH4x0

In addition, while the Controlled Substances Act of 1976 (the version in 1970 was still diagnostic in effect) gave federal agencies jurisdiction to act in the case of many drugs, including marijuana, this was in spite of a decriminalization law passed in 1973, still legally and enforced in the state of North Carolina. It was not out of error that the legislation in North Carolina passed this bill, they simply were regulating a dangerous industry concluding indemnifying research that showed alcohol and tobacco to be far worse than cannabis, legally according to the FDA regulations on the product and in keeping with importation laws from nations where it was legal to possess or produce (at the time 1/2 ounce in North Carolina, the substance was legal in many parts of the world notably the Netherlands and Morocco, where multiple brutal civil wars have been fought over the legalization of the product and the monarchy's succession). Under the same legal logic that made the emancipation proclamation necessary before the constitution was amended to or acts passed to outlaw slavery, it is a de facto violation of states' rights to pass the Controlled Substances Act, at least as it applies to marijuana. These sorts of mistakes are not unheard of, and happen frequently in the budget, as federal and state governments overlap. The only legal option is to encourage or federally mandate amendment of state laws before changing federal law in this matter. In this case, it is clear that the federal government already has a department, the FDA, responsible for this product and stifling research into this promising if dangerous drug is paramount to extortion, incarceration under false pretenses, embezzlement, and treason on a massive scale. Denying this reality and failing to prosecute organizations responsible for the suppression of research and development of this industry as such, would so fundamentally change the mechanisms of this country that entire peoples could be thrown into chains, dispossessed, or in other ways robbed of their fundamental liberties that the government exists to protect under the veil of enhancing freedom and pursuing happiness.

As for constitutionality:
"The embattled Fourth Amendment[117]is probably the leading exam­ple of a “War on Drugs” casualty.[118] As has been erstwhile noted in an apropos reference to George Orwell’s, 1984, a date that we have passed in more than one sense, the “War on Drugs” has led to “[a] gradual but perceptive rise in Big Brotherism against the public at large in the form of eavesdropping, surveillance, monitor­ing, informing, and other intrusive enforcement methods.”[119] Among the inroads that have been sanctioned are those that have permitted intrusions into our homes by the use of aerial surveil­lance,[120] a practice that has led to the practical abandonment in other drug-related contexts of the privacy test announced in Katz v. United States.[121] These relaxations of the restrictions of the Fourth Amendment have allowed the expansion of police authority to carry out warrantless searches for drugs on individuals and automo­biles under circumstances beyond the original intention of Terry’s rationale,[122] which was based on police officer safety, not as a subterfuge, for a search for criminal evidence without meeting the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. The creation of the so-called “good faith” exception to the Fourth Amendment require­ment of probable cause established in United States v. León,[123] which in practice we see stretched beyond “good faith,” is another example of the courts’ permissive attitude towards the government in drug cases. Equally troubling is the upholding of the validity of a warrant issued on the basis of a partially uncorroborated anony­mous tip,[124] leading to cases in which it was allowed to corroborate the anonymous tip by the post facto discovery of illegal evi­dence.[125]"

http://academiajurisprudenciapr.org/new/rethink-the-war-of-drugs/deja-vu-a-federal-judge-revisits-the-war-on-drugs/

PLEASE NOTE: Marijuana was re-legalized in the spending bill of 2014. This was seen as a national security issue and does activate the superiority clause in the Constitution, regardless of state laws. Marijuana is currently legally available for sale and manufacture across the USA on Native American reservations. It is highly probable that state or federal governments will take more responsible steps in the future towards regulating this substance. Also in September leading anti-marijuana academics were caught accepting money from corporate interests, which has changed the field of research in this field significantly.

In regards to state laws and international treaties: Does legal marijuana violate international treaties? The answer is no.
"Even if treaties could override federalism, the agreements that the INCB cites do not purport to do so. The 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs says compliance is subject to "constitutional limitations" and undertaken with "due regard to [signatories'] constitutional, legal and administrative systems." The 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances and the 1988 Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances contain similar provisions."
Representing these treaties in this manner as the INCB has done is criminal, it makes light of legitimate and extremely important resolutions and work the UN has done and made. Now that we can prove that marijuana provides a benefit to public health, we have the right to use and provide it.

http://www.cmaj.ca/content/166/7/887.full?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=cannabis&searchid=1025853946146_44&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&journalcode=cmaj

"Current marijuana use was significantly correlated (p < 0.05) in a dose- related fashion with a decline in IQ over the ages studied. The comparison of the IQ difference scores showed an average decrease of 4.1 points in current heavy users (p < 0.05) compared to gains in IQ points for light current users (5.8), former users (3.5) and non-users (2.6)."

So use of 5-10 grams (5 joints) of marijuana per week should increase the user's IQ

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1177258/Are-wrecking-brain-Chilling-pictures-reveal-shocking-effects-alcohol-cigarettes-caffeine-mind.html

 Caffeine, recent:

Marijuana can be seen to have in normal doses, less of an effect on the bloodflow of the brain than caffeine.

Cannabis use, long term:

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/02/18/molecular-biologist-explains-how-thc-completely-kills-cancer-cells/

In studies, THC has been found to selectively target cancer cells while leaving healthy ones unharmed.

Most of the problem with marijuana today lies in the fact that it is not regulated. Parasites such as toxoplasmosis gondii end up present in the vast majority of users, and all people with negative side effects from marijuana. A legal industry would clear up the air. Also, unlike alcohol which is associated with a significant drop in national IQ, costing the United States almost 80% of its potential earnings, marijuana and THC is not associated with a decrease in mental functioning for healthy individuals. In Germany, where alcohol consumption dropped by 30% in the last 35 years, marijuana use increased 4 times over from 7% to almost 28% in 18-24 year olds from 1980 to 2015. In the same time period, the economy increased 5 times over from under a trillion dollars GDP to almost the same size as the US economy.

Kraus et al., 2013

Kraus, L., Pabst, A., Piontek, D., and Gomes de Matos, E. Substanzkonsum und substanzbezogene Störungen: Trends in Deutschland 1980–2012 (Substance use and substance use disorders: Trends in Germany 1980–2012) . Substance use and substance use disorders: Trends in Germany 1980–2012Sucht. 2013;59: 333–345

 The IRS is recommending that tax professionals who help state-recognized, legal marijuana businesses "not be considered unethical."

Habit-Forming Substances. The old Act required label disclosure of the quantity or proportion in any drug of twelve listed ingredients or their derivatives.' 99 The list comprised alcohol, several opiates and other narcotic drugs, and acetanilid, a heart depressant used in pain-killers. The Harrison Anti-Narcotic Act in effect supplanted the provision as to most of the listed drugs, but meanwhile public consumption of a number of coal-tar products, more accurately classified as hypnotics than narcotics, had grown to alarming proportions. There is a tendency for the use of these drugs to become habitual, and excessive use produces serious physiological effects. In S. 1944, therefore, the list was broadened, and, to avoid its obsolescence, power was given to the Secretary to add to it.200 Moreover, since the mere statement of the presence of the drug, although of value to the physician, seldom gave warning to the user, a requirement was added that products containing any of the listed ingredients be labeled "Warning-May be Habit-Forming."

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1937&context=lcp

Most of these substances include the possibility of an overdose, and so the FDA’s regulations on poison control apply to these substances. This is not the case with marijuana, however, and there are no mortalities associated with the substance. As such, this is a conflict in Federal Statutes which must be resolved in a Federal Court of Law, before prosecution can occur.

Poisonous or toxic materials shall be:

1.     (A) Used according to: 

1.     (1) Law and this Code,

2.     (2) Manufacturer's use directions included in labeling, and, for a pesticide, manufacturer's label instructions that state that use is allowed in a food establishment, ^P

3.     (3) The conditions of certification, if certification is required, for use of the pest control materials, ^P and

4.     (4) Additional conditions that may be established by the regulatory authority; and

2.     (B) Applied so that: 

1.     (1) A hazard to employees or other persons is not constituted, ^P and

2.     (2) Contamination including toxic residues due to drip, drain, fog, splash or spray on food, equipment,utensils, linens, and single-service and single-use articles is prevented, and for a restricted use pesticide, this is achieved by: ^P 

1.     (a) Removing the items, ^P

2.     (b) Covering the items with impermeable covers, ^P or

3.     (c) Taking other appropriate preventive actions, ^P and

4.     (d) Cleaning and sanitizing equipment and utensils after the application. ^P

3.     (C) A restricted use pesticide shall be applied only by an applicator certified as defined in 7 USC 136 Definitions, (e) Certified Applicator, of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, or a personunder the direct supervision of a certified applicator. ^Pf

http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/RetailFoodProtection/FoodCode/ucm188102.htm

For these materials used according to Law and this code, includes most drugs, however alcohol marijuana and tobacco cannot be prosecuted under later laws until FDA statutes are amended because they are neither poisonous or toxic, as defined by the US Federal Government. Cannabis is SPECIFICALLY mentioned in this law, and this remains on the books.

• “ • 4) Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(D) of this subsection, any person who violates subsection (a) of this section by distributing a small amount of marihuana for no remuneration shall be treated as provided in section 844 of this title and section 3607 of title 18.

• (a) In general

Any individual who knowingly possesses a controlled substance that is listed in section 841(b)(1)(A) of this title in violation of section 844 of this title in an amount that, as specified by regulation of the Attorney General, is a personal use amount shall be liable to the United States for a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $10,000 for each such violation.”

“Part D — Offenses And Penalties

§844. Penalties for simple possession

(a) Unlawful acts; penalties

It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to possess a controlled substance unless such substance was obtained directly, or pursuant to a valid prescription or order, from a practitioner, while acting in the course of his professional practice, or except as otherwise authorized by this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter. It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to possess any list I chemical obtained pursuant to or under authority of a registration issued to that person under section 823 of this title or section 958 of this title if that registration has been revoked or suspended, if that registration has expired, or if the registrant has ceased to do business in the manner contemplated by his registration. It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly or intentionally purchase at retail during a 30 day period more than 9 grams of ephedrine base, pseudoephedrine base, or phenylpropanolamine base in a scheduled listed chemical product, except that, of such 9 grams, not more than 7.5 grams may be imported by means of shipping through any private or commercial carrier or the Postal Service. Any person who violates this subsection may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 1 year, and shall be fined a minimum of $1,000, or both, except that if he commits such offense after a prior conviction under this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter, or a prior conviction for any drug, narcotic, or chemical offense chargeable under the law of any State, has become final, he shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for not less than 15 days but not more than 2 years, and shall be fined a minimum of $2,500, except, further, that if he commits such offense after two or more prior convictions under this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter, or two or more prior convictions for any drug, narcotic, or chemical offense chargeable under the law of any State, or a combination of two or more such offenses have become final, he shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for not less than 90 days but not more than 3 years, and shall be fined a minimum of $5,000. Notwithstanding any penalty provided in this subsection, any person convicted under this subsection for the possession of flunitrazepam shall be imprisoned for not more than 3 years, shall be fined as otherwise provided in this section, or both. The imposition or execution of a minimum sentence required to be imposed under this subsection shall not be suspended or deferred. Further, upon conviction, a person who violates this subsection shall be fined the reasonable costs of the investigation and prosecution of the offense, including the costs of prosecution of an offense as defined in sections 1918 and 1920 of title 28, except that this sentence shall not apply and a fine under this section need not be imposed if the court determines under the provision of title 18 that the defendant lacks the ability to pay.”

SUBCHAPTER I — CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT

Part D — Offenses And Penalties

§844a. Civil penalty for possession of small amounts of certain controlled substances

(a) In general

Any individual who knowingly possesses a controlled substance that is listed in section 841(b)(1)(A) of this title in violation of section 844 of this title in an amount that, as specified by regulation of the Attorney General, is a personal use amount shall be liable to the United States for a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $10,000 for each such violation.

(b) Income and net assets

The income and net assets of an individual shall not be relevant to the determination whether to assess a civil penalty under this section or to prosecute the individual criminally. However, in determining the amount of a penalty under this section, the income and net assets of an individual shall be considered.

(c) Prior conviction

A civil penalty may not be assessed under this section if the individual previously was convicted of a Federal or State offense relating to a controlled substance.

(d) Limitation on number of assessments

A civil penalty may not be assessed on an individual under this section on more than two separate occasions.

(e) Assessment

A civil penalty under this section may be assessed by the Attorney General only by an order made on the record after opportunity for a hearing in accordance with section 554 of title 5. The Attorney General shall provide written notice to the individual who is the subject of the proposed order informing the individual of the opportunity to receive such a hearing with respect to the proposed order. The hearing may be held only if the individual makes a request for the hearing before the expiration of the 30-day period beginning on the date such notice is issued.

(f) Compromise

The Attorney General may compromise, modify, or remit, with or without conditions, any civil penalty imposed under this section.

(g) Judicial review

If the Attorney General issues an order pursuant to subsection (e) of this section after a hearing described in such subsection, the individual who is the subject of the order may, before the expiration of the 30-day period beginning on the date the order is issued, bring a civil action in the appropriate district court of the United States. In such action, the law and the facts of the violation and the assessment of the civil penalty shall be determined de novo, and shall include the right of a trial by jury, the right to counsel, and the right to confront witnesses. The facts of the violation shall be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

(h) Civil action

If an individual does not request a hearing pursuant to subsection (e) of this section and the Attorney General issues an order pursuant to such subsection, or if an individual does not under subsection (g) of this section seek judicial review of such an order, the Attorney General may commence a civil action in any appropriate district court of the United States for the purpose of recovering the amount assessed and an amount representing interest at a rate computed in accordance with section 1961 of title 28. Such interest shall accrue from the expiration of the 30-day period described in subsection (g) of this section. In such an action, the decision of the Attorney General to issue the order, and the amount of the penalty assessed by the Attorney General, shall not be subject to review.

(i) Limitation

The Attorney General may not under this subsection \1\ commence proceeding against an individual after the expiration of the 5-year period beginning on the date on which the individual allegedly violated subsection (a) of this section.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ So in original. Probably should be "section".

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(j) Expungement procedures

The Attorney General shall dismiss the proceedings under this section against an individual upon application of such individual at any time after the expiration of 3 years if—

(1) the individual has not previously been assessed a civil penalty under this section;

(2) the individual has paid the assessment;

(3) the individual has complied with any conditions imposed by the Attorney General;

(4) the individual has not been convicted of a Federal or State offense relating to a controlled substance; and

(5) the individual agrees to submit to a drug test, and such test shows the individual to be drug free.

A nonpublic record of a disposition under this subsection shall be retained by the Department of Justice solely for the purpose of determining in any subsequent proceeding whether the person qualified for a civil penalty or expungement under this section. If a record is expunged under this subsection, an individual concerning whom such an expungement has been made shall not be held thereafter under any provision of law to be guilty of perjury, false swearing, or making a false statement by reason of his failure to recite or acknowledge a proceeding under this section or the results thereof in response to an inquiry made of him for any purpose.

THIS MEANS THE Controlled Substances Act is literally screwing over big corporations and the IRS, a fine of $10,000 on 50 kg of marijuana is LESS than taxes in states where marijuana is "legal"

Except where control is required by United States obligations under an international treaty, convention, or protocol, in effect on October 27, 1970, and except in the case of an immediate precursor, a drug or other substance may not be placed in any schedule unless the findings required for such schedule are made with respect to such drug or other substance. The findings required for each of the schedules are as follows:

^^^^ Marijuana has been legal under UN protocols for research purposes, if a student is working with marijuana or any drug for research purposes, they are exempt according to the Controlled Substances Act, this is something that could perhaps be tightened up with academic procedures which in the case of marijuana are not difficult to acquire (previously necessitating a flight to Morocco or an "Indian" reservation, now only to Colorado or Washington, and a growing number of states), but currently this is status quo.