Recreational drug primer
OK, killas. Since we here at the Head are neuroscientists we feel it's time to give something back to the blog community. What would you be interested in? Population coding? Evolution of sensory systems? Growth factors?
Let's be real. The only thing you care about related to neuro is drugs. Some of them are awful for you and some of them are relatively benign. we've taken it upon ourselves to try and educate you little fiends. Not that we endorse any of this lifestyle but...
So without further ado, The Head's Primer of Recreational Drugs.
(Other neuro types please feel free to weigh in)
(Also, just because I say something is relatively benign doesn't mean it's not damaging. It's a sliding scale. Plus some people have weird sensitivities to some of these)
Um, don't do drugs.
First the legal ones.
Alcohol - not exactly good for your body, but brain-wise it doesn't so as much damage as many would have you believe. No, every time you drink you don't kill 10,000 brain cells. I guess it can be addictive but for most more psychological that physical, but in some cases you can be physically addicted. Long-term, super-chronic use can result in brain damage (we're talking about serious, Leaving Las Vegas-style drinking here, for decades). Within moderation or even somewhat over moderation you should be fine.
Cigarettes - Not good for you of course. See a spike in lung cancer incidence after about 30 pack years (pack year = pack a day for a year, so if you smoke 2 packs a day after 15 years you're at 30 pack years and rolling the dice w/ lung cancer). Good news is that if you stop before then (say at 10 pack years) within a relatively short period of time you can halt and even reverse the damage.
But we're concerned with the brain. Highly addictive of course, right up there with cocaine. There's evidence supporting that cigarettes can retard the onset of parkinson's disease. Also there's a few studies with nicotine and mental acuity but those are still sparse.
Caffeine - fine, no really, you're fine. Drink up!
The Illegal Drugs.
Marijuana - basically harmless. There's been some indication that heavy use may be linked to amotivational disorder but, let's be honest, with a lot of us there's a floor effect there. In all seriousness, this is most likely due to the long 1/2 life of the drug. Basically, you don't want to do shit the next day because some THC is still in your system, even though you don't feel high. The main thing I can think of (That Burroughs says so well in Junky) is that you're basically completely unfit to drive a car.
Weed aslo has the funniest anti-drug commercials evah! Goes back decades - smoke reefer, kill your mom. Today it's - smoke weed, get pregnant. Hilarious!
Hallucinogenics - LSD, psylocibin, peyote, etc. These are the classic "If you can get through the effects without hurting yourself then you're fine" drugs. It's almost impossible to overdose on them (The LSD dose that is 50% lethal in a population is a few hundred tabs. At once.). And you don't get brain damage or go crazy the 5th (or 10th, 20th, etc. - it varies depending on who is telling you this story) time you trip. I think that a lot of people who were heavy into these and are weird can basically attribute a lot of it to the people they hung around.
Cocaine - can be nasty of course, but, unless you have a previous heart condition it's unlikely you'll die due to overdose (but don't take that as an excuse to spell out your whole name in coke and snort it - it's still more possible to die of this than a lot of other things). Will definitely damage your bank account and typically you'll be around a whole lot of assholes most of the time. Short-term low dose use will allow you to recover fine. High dose chronic use can be a real problem. Chronic use can cause a constellation of fun problems: affective disorders, schizophrenia-like symptoms, personality disorders, etc. Usually these can be recovered from within a couple days to months after stopping use.
Crack - it's fucking crack people. Why the fuck are you asking me about it? Don't do it.
Opiates - biggest problem here is death by overdose. Typically by respiratory failure. And withdrawal. Also, a strong habit may result in you forgoing a lot of things that you're supposed to do: eat well, bathe (you stinky motherfucker), etc. If you're gonna do these stick to painkillers (vicodin, percocet, etc. and for Christ's sake, swallow the pill, don't crush it up and snort it. Once you're off it for good recovery should be normal (read: no severe long-term mental effects).
Ecstasy and Methamphetamine - the worst out of all of these, brain-wise, and it's ironic because so many people think they are so safe. They're together because rolls are just ring-substituted meth. A lot of my friends seem to think that MDMA is safe while meth is not. They're idiots. The HUGE difference between these and the other drugs are that they are directly neurotoxic. Cocaine will kill shit up in the ol' noodle after chronic, high-dose use but these little guys kill shit every time you use them. So, what's a little long-term cognitive deficit you say? It's just not in those areas, Jimmy. It primarily kills shit in serotonergic and dopaminergic pathways. Guess what these pathways are responsible for? Reward. As in, if you fuck them up, you'll never have the ability to feel pleasure. In fact, like I said, there's evidence that every time you roll you destroy some more of your ability to be happy. Imagine the mid-week blues, forever. Nothing will make you happy, fucking, eating, drugs, winning the big game - NOTHING. A lot of these effects are irreversible (no new neurons, remember?). Ever see a long term meth user at the VA? Now, reformed drunks, cokeheads, etc. still can function normally, usually. Other than the annoying stories and proselytizing. Former meth users? Completely fucked. I'm talking shells.
OK, hope you've learned something.
posted by The Head @ 10:48 AM
12 comments
12 Comments:
Nice job, HotRod. I said the same thing to the Head, (i didnt know it was the cholinesterase levels), but i told him to add that cocaine is fine except for the small fraction of the population that it kills outright the first time they did it. He scoffed at me and only said it was a minor population of people that it affected. Heartless bastard.
Nice work, Head.
i'm also wondering, if i just eat tons of tuna fish and salmon will i become a happier person? what does regular exercise actually do that makes me happier? is it increasing dopamine, serotonin-and if so, do other neurotransmitters decline? or is it all just better regulated? tell me about exercise & neurotransmitters.
is there, as the Hun suggests, any link between repetitive OCD thought loops and marijuana usage? does marijuana trigger such loops in some people? is that a chemical thing?
do you think this office job is killing my brains?
Why a fish diet? Probably make me unhappy. Needs the meat!
Exercise does increase some happy-chemicals in the brain during and for a short time afterwards. I think that the long-term mood elevation there is due to higher self-esteem and having everything running well. One of the psych people should comment on this.
Neurotransmitter levels are not a zero-sum game. One increasing does not necessarily mean decrease of others (although it can if one inhibits the neurons producing others, etc.).
There's not much I've seen on OCD and weed. I imagine that it could exacerbate some of the symptoms (or reduce them, considering how lazy I get). But in a study of random 18 year olds who were self-confessed OCD sufferers (ah, human psychology - self-reported subjects, nice rigor there) there was a 20% incidence of regular weed usage suggesting that, unless all %20 were masochists and enjoyed being fucked up, that in these cases it may have reduced the symptoms. Kind of like self-medicating I guess. Would be useful if we knew what the incidence of regular weed use was in the entire population of 18yo's.
Yes, the office job is most likely killing your brains, but you're so much better in that you weren't raised there, as it would be much worse when you were younger.
mm. i need more info. i thought the omega 3s in tuna and salmon were supposed to help my brain do something good.
the exercise-- Head, are you sure? i know that three sessions of exercise per week has been shown as effective in treating depression as prozac -- there has got to be some greater long-term chemical benefit-- i know one gets the endorphins in the immediate aftermath but doesn't regular exercise do something else to alter the chemical levels of one's noggin' throughout the week or month?
Depends on who you ask about the fish. Several good studies suggested no correlation with mood. It does seem to help after brain trauma. Mainly, the hubbub about Omega 3 is for heart disease.
Most neurotransmitter levels are fairly independent of diet (barring malnutrition of course) with the possible exception of acetylcholine (be sure to eat your egg yolks, kids.).
Exercise and mood is that funny area between neuro and psychology. It's been suggested that the primary benefits are due to stress relief/ better stress manangement, but others say that it increases levels of certain hormones that have an effect on neurotransmitters.
Again, Omega 3 may help you not ge,t or is therapeutic for, MS and the like but normal people won't get much of a brain benefit from gorging on it.
what does acetylcholine do?
i like ash-hole's work on the omega 3's. i'm satisfied with that answer.
Psychology is just mythical neuroscience. I mean, there may be a lot of truth and explanation in it which helps us get by for now (like myths) but its making things up to describe situations no one completely comprehends yet. this is what i say.
Acetylcholine (Ach) does a lot of things. Mainly people think of it as the muscle neurotransmitter. A lot of the jungle, ocean, and pesticides work on blocking Ach (it blocks the communication between nerve and muscle so your diaphragm doesn't work). Brain-wise it's often implicated in intelligence, or at least attention and mental acuity. Most of the new "make you smarter" drugs being attempted now by drug companies are ones that affect Ach.
Supposedly (via Big Dave), unlike almost all the other neurotransmitters, Ach is limited by the amount of choline you take in - eating more choline may actually have an effect on brain levels of Ach. More choline = more Ach.
As to the fish, if it makes you feel better go ahead.
I like to think of psychology as the science of stating the obvious. Maybe not all of yours Ash-hole.
First off Ash-hole (you black box bastard), DON'T confuse brain imaging with real neuroscience. I hate imaging. "Hey! We've just reiterated what they've known since the 20's but we did it using this here big magnet. Let's submit it to Nature!"
As to psychology, I think we all can agree that social and community psych is really a load of shit and that's definitely the science of stating the obvious.
I think that quote is a combination of things you and I both said. Me arguing with a biochemist but I got Windows part from you arguing with a biologist. I can't take full credit there. The Windows part makes it work.
I wasn't thinking choline and mood. More choline and smarts. Ever since Big Dave told me about the choline thing I make sure to eat eggs all the time. That's why I'm so friggin' smart.
Alright, let me begin by saying that when i said "psychology is mythical neuroscience", i was totally talking out of my ass-- in the sense that i have formally studied neither. So i fully accept any sort of criticism or regulation the ash-hole or any other in the field want to offer that statement. However, having admitted my ignorance, i also think there is some truth in the comparison. It wasn't meant to be an insult. So i don't know what i'm talking about and please forgive me if i offend but let me offer the following argument for further critique:
If one thinks of mythology (and i include all mythology here-- native american, christian, greek, norse, etc.) as an attempt to sort and understand basic philosophical and even physical truths with parables, possible explanations or models of interaction, then its not such a worthless endeavor.
There is much truth in mythology and i consider it the a product of the efforts of great minds and/or communities to make sense of their universe on macro scales before they had the capacity to carefully observe details on smaller scales. Science has gradually replaced much mythology as careful observations, a few grand epiphanies, and an ever enhanced capacity to observe the behavior of our univerese, have made it possible to explain the exact or likely behavior of our environment in literal terms. Does that completely negate the value or truth in mythology, and religious parable?
So what i meant to say, and again, i am not current with the field of psychology or trained in it (although, both my parents are psychologist, heavan heal them) is that psychology has seemed to me to have much truth in it, to be composed of the best formulated explanations with the information available but i thought psychology relied heavily on observations of human behavior whereas neuroscience concentrated on observations of the cells and tissues of the nervous system and how their apparent health, chemical structure, abundance, concentration, electrical output effected the skills, competency and mental state of the larger organism. To me, a psychology that attempts to describe the brain without careful and focused observation of the actual brain, is something like mythology. Not without truth or value, but an attempt to describe patterns, cause & effect sequences on a large scale before things have been figured out on a small scale.
To me, the union of these two disciplines is most exciting and i envy all of you who have had the discipline to pursue these fields. To make hypotheses about how physical, chemical and electrical activity in the brain effect the psychology of a subject and, what i think might be supercool, vice versa, sounds like one of the most engaging and worthwhile studies one could undertake.
I would guess that this is more of what modern psychology is-- so i take back calling it mythology but certainly the psychology of Freud, of all the worshipped daytime tv hosts, is a sort of mythology and even in saying that i do not mean to imply that it is worthless, but that it is not as literal, objective or accurate as we now have the capacity to be.
I've heard Psychiatrists claim that human beings are simply chemical cocktails-- that our behaviors, attitudes and even, to some extent, our beliefs, and consequently are experiences are governed by the chemical in our brains. If those chemical levels are, in turn, determined by genetics that presents a pretty determinist view point. I cannot help but wonder if one can alter the way in which one's own brain behaves physically and chemically with behavioral changes. I guess its kind of a chicken egg dilemma. When i smile, isn't some sort of happy chemical released just because i've made the decision to smile?
When one behaves in ways that contradicts one's own best instinct anxiety is often produced, which i know must mean a corresponding change in brain activity. Is it possible that we can control our brain activity, chemical levels, to some extent with behavior?
Ahh. Ok, i hope all you scientists aren't completely annoyed and disdainful now. I could totally understand why the babbling of someone outside of your field would produce fantra, but i could also argue that intolerance of laymen's opinions and curiousity will only impede the progress of our larger body.
Billy was quite the psychologist.
ah yes, of course. now i see how silly all that was.
Post a Comment
<< Home