All Episodes
Previous Next
March 9, 2015 - Louder with Crowder
37:26
MARIJUANA! Is It Actually Good For You? || Louder With Crowder
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
We are back, Louder with Crowder.
I'm very excited about our next guest because we've had her on the show before, but only on YouTube, on the web show, I guess you can say.
She caught a lot of flack, a neuropsychiatrist, specialty, it's very specialized, very brilliant lady, Dr.
Phyllis Boniface.
Thank you so much for coming on the show.
It's my pleasure, Stephen.
Okay.
So you kind of felt a little bit of the backlash of YouTube at that point.
We did a video on marijuana, right, when it was legalized in Colorado and sort of examined where you are in Ann Arbor, the decriminalization and what happens legally, what are the ramifications.
But I want to clarify something.
In the video – I didn't say the government should be able to outlaw pot in every state.
As a matter of fact, I take the libertarian stance.
If pots want to legalize it, fine.
The problem I had is all the people who say legalize all drugs, legalize pot, in order to get that passed, they generally aren't as forthcoming about the harms of marijuana.
And I think if you're an adult and you want to harm your body, fine.
But the people who are wanting to legalize it aren't taking on the responsibility of assisting in education.
So that's what we had you on to do, which seems benign enough, right, for you to just say, hey, here are the ways pot might be bad for you.
And people were furious.
Did that surprise you?
Not really.
I've spoken at some forums before and I know that there's a lot of pro-marijuana people out there and I always find it instructive to read the comments and how people actually make their arguments and People who are very pro-marijuana and obviously heavy users, their arguments kind of illustrate the points that we're trying to make, that it can cause problems and deficits in people's thinking.
So it's exhibit A. Yes, exactly.
Well, it's funny.
If you Google right now, you know, marijuana bad.
The first searches that come up are, people try and tell you marijuana's bad, but it's right-wing propaganda.
So first off, you yourself are a libertarian, right?
That's correct, except in the area of drugs.
Okay, except in the area of drugs.
And that's obviously because you would probably be more qualified than SweetCherry84 at Yahoo.com commenting on YouTube.
So I will tell you this, being raised as a millennial really in my generation, We're raised to think it's benign.
It's less harmful than alcohol, right?
That it's one of those things people used to think was bad, and it's not anymore.
Have you noticed that being a trend right now with young people where they're growing up just thinking, ah, it's like smoking a cigarette?
Absolutely.
I think there's a greater perception that it's kind of a harmless pleasure.
And a lot of the young people that I treat in my practice, they're high school students or college students, and they feel it's like having a beer or two.
And they actually don't drink as much as they smoke pot now.
That's what they do.
When they go to a party on weekends, they smoke marijuana.
And so I think there's a decreased perception of risk and an increasing embracing that that's part of their culture.
Yeah.
Yeah, it makes a lot of sense.
I was raised in Montreal where it's basically less than a speeding ticket.
And this is entirely anecdotal.
I cannot point you to one of my friends.
It was very common, but a huge portion of, I wouldn't say close friends, people I hung out with smoked pot.
every single one of them had some kind of a change in their personality or their psychological behavior by the end of high school.
And I don't know if that's just me as a dummy looking at my friend going, you're pretty smart in middle school and now you're an idiot.
Is there some actual neurology there that would back that up?
Well, absolutely.
I would say in the scientific world, they always say, you know, the plural of anecdote is not data.
But we really do have data to support your observations that a lot of your friends who maybe started out with promise didn't end up with their full potential.
And that's the real concern here.
Because we're talking about millions of young people who are using regularly, and I define regular use as just once a week.
And chillingly, the Monitoring the Future study here at U of M It shows that 6.5% or more of high school students are using it daily, not just weekly.
So, you know, we're looking at huge swaths of the population, not just a few friends.
It's becoming the accepted norm.
Right.
Now, okay, so you're talking about people who are teenagers, right, in high school.
To be fair, if you're a healthy adult, let's say, with no history of psychosis or mental disorder, if a healthy adult were to smoke every now and then, let's say, in their own house, I'm not endorsing this, I don't do it, so please hold your letters, it would be relatively harmless in comparison to the developing brain, right?
Right.
Well, I would say that youth, and again, we have to define youth.
A lot of the studies that have been done prospectively have been 18 and under, but it's clear that the brain doesn't finish wiring itself until about 24 or 25.
So, a lot of the studies now are continuing that observational study up until those age groups.
So, I mean, it's speculation to say that people over the age of, you know, brain maturation have no deficits.
The patients that I see, of course, they have psychiatric illnesses, they have anxiety or mood disorders, and a little bit of marijuana completely, you know, throws them into a relapse.
typical population.
You know, I do have friends, unfortunately, professionals, even physicians, who smoke marijuana.
And all I can say is, you know, I can see subtle changes in their behavior when they're using versus when they're not, but they clearly function at a high level.
We have to define also, you know, when we look at IQ problems, and we'll talk a little bit more specifically about that, you know, if you start off with an IQ of 137 and you lose seven or eight IQ points, you're still, you know, highly functional, you know, versus the bell curve of the population, you know, when they lose seven or eight IQ points, they go from average to low average, and that's enormously consequential.
So again, it depends on the user.
I guess I didn't even really think about that when you look at the bell curve.
I took those online IQ tests because I wanted to become a member of Mensa only to do a hidden camera video with Mensa where I would go in and just be like, hey, what if everyone's right?
What if we're all really just jackasses who are self-important?
And I think I was shy by like a couple points.
So maybe it'll have the reverse effect.
If I just smoke a doobie, I can join Mensa.
Thank you.
You've convinced me, Dr.
Boniface.
I don't think anybody can afford a few IQ points off their top.
All right.
Well, let's get more into that after the break here, if you can stay with us and talk about specifically how it might affect IQ and brain development.
This is fascinating stuff.
Dr.
Boniface, louder with Crowder.
We'll be right back.
We are back talking weed with Dr.
Phyllis Boniface.
Thank you so much for staying with us, and I apologize for my hackishness.
I can't be mature when it comes to these serious subjects.
I'm wildly uncomfortable with them.
So you were talking about how marijuana, So, Dr.
Boniface, Tell us a little bit more so about IQ and brain development and specifically what can be observed scientifically, measurably, with marijuana.
Well, there are a number of studies.
Some of them date back fairly far to studies done in New Zealand and in Sweden and in the UK that show a decrease in IQ of up to eight points.
There was recently a study released in 2012 of 1,200 or 1,300 prospective observational studies on youth who followed users of marijuana versus non-users, and they found a decrease of about six or seven points and they found a decrease of about six or seven points of And this was across the board, even with people who did not have any kind of genetic vulnerabilities towards other mental issues.
So there was a higher incidence of IQ decrease the younger the person started using.
So if someone starts using at 12 or 14, the cognitive deficits are much more profound as someone who starts using later in adolescence.
So again, earlier on in the neurodevelopment, the more damaging it is.
Have you been paid by Big Pharma to come on this show and spew this?
Well, let's just say there's a huge pot lobby.
If I really wanted to make money, I could work for them.
Well, you know, it's so funny that you said it because, of course, I get accused.
Anytime you disagree with someone, right, it's, well, you know, I'm a little bit skeptical of climate change.
It's big oil.
It's like, well, you know what?
Ah, Big Pharma, right?
And I just wrote a piece on The Blaze where a lot of people don't realize it.
The biggest supplement companies, which is a huge scam, by the way, many of them are owned by the big pharmaceutical companies.
So it's like, I'm going to go holistic and buy these vitamins.
And it's being sold by the same person who gives you your painkillers.
This is my uneducated, mildly unintelligent brain working.
The idea is Big Pharma has suppressed any and all positive research on marijuana.
If people go to the previous video, they can click the link right here.
If they're listening terrestrially, go to ladderwithcrader.com.
They say marijuana is actually – it cures cancer.
It's very beneficial and it's all suppressed by Big Pharma because they can't patent it because it's a plant.
So here's me looking at it saying, okay, what's more likely – All big pharmaceutical companies since the beginning of time have gotten together and said, hey, marijuana is this incredible wonder drug.
It'll put us all out of business.
Let's make sure to taint all research.
When really one of the most popular prescriptions is my wife takes.
It's retinol.
It's a vitamin A lotion.
So if they can patent vitamin A, it seems to me they could patent some kind of a compound of marijuana.
And if it were an incredibly effective drug, they would find a way to patent it and just make money off of it.
Is that my stupid pea brain working?
Or could...
Is that a reasonable premise?
Well, that's basic economics, Stephen, and I'm sure you understand.
If there's a useful molecule in there, they're going to find it.
They would love to patent one of the molecules in Kapot, but the problem is marijuana is not a drug.
I mean, people who make this argument can't even give me a definition of what is a drug.
You know, a drug is something that's given to a person that produces a measurable effect in a measurable way.
In this day and age, drugs are actually engineered.
They're a single molecule, very elaborately constructed, that binds to specific receptors in the body, whether it's something for your hypertension or it's something for your depression, whatever.
But it's very, very specific.
And even with that binding in a certain area of the brain, a single molecule, it has enormous effects.
Pot is not a drug.
It's 400 chemicals.
60 of them have actually been identified to be active pharmacologically in the body.
And some of them very psychoactive.
And it also is highly variable.
You know, there are different compounds in THC and CBD, which is, you know, there's one of them that can induce psychosis more, it gives the high, and the other one has more of a calming effect.
So, I mean, we're not talking about a drug.
We're talking about, you know, instead of a targeted shot, you know, at the brain, it's actually like buckshot.
It hits everything.
The cannabinoid system links with every system in the brain.
So you're basically talking about a laser-guided missile versus a dirty bomb.
I guess that would be an analogy.
Yeah.
Okay, well, again, this is my moderately intelligent analogy who's trying to understand the science of it.
And the thing that really bothers me, and this has got to frustrate you as a libertarian, right?
I have never once seen, and I am more of a libertarian, too.
I mean, I think I'm more libertarian on the idea of the drug war than you are, but I don't work in it.
The idea that these people who go out who want to legalize drugs and they completely absolve themselves of the response – they say, well, it's bad for you, but you know what?
People should be able to put what they want in their body.
I agree.
But if you're the one who's pushing for it to be legalized and in order for it to be legalized, you have to present some logical fallacies like it's recognized medicine or it's relatively harmless.
I've never once seen a pro-legalization publication, libertarian publication – Also publish a piece saying, hey, here are the harms that come with marijuana.
Don't you think it's their personal responsibility to do that if they're going to be telling people to light up?
Well, I find it deeply ironic.
I think libertarianism is based on self-reliance and taking responsibility for one's actions.
And I don't see anything more irresponsible than leashing something into society that will actually cause damage and impair people's ability to be responsible for themselves.
You know, we have a vast social net in this country, and I can tell you from experience, I've seen many people in the last 28 years who are smoking marijuana.
Their parents are on disability because they have drug abuse.
They're both smoking marijuana.
Now the children, we have three generations of people on disability living in the same home who are incapable of taking care of themselves.
Now that may be the extreme, but we have to look at the fact that if people don't function well, society is going to end up having to take responsibility for them.
And that's antithetical to most libertarians.
Wow, I see how you tied that back there intellectually.
Very well done, Doc.
What about the people who just say everything you're saying right now is nothing new.
It's just reefer madness and you're just trying to scare people.
Well, reefer madness is propaganda.
I'm trying to tell people about something scientific.
I find it interesting that most of my leftist friends, they're big on evolution.
And I always present the argument, well, our brains developed evolutionarily very, very specifically to do certain tasks over thousands and thousands of years.
And now we're going to basically take a monkey wrench to our evolutionary advantage in terms of our Ability to function as human beings.
Okay.
Quick question there, because this is something I saw a lot of on the last video.
The pro-pot people, who are, by the way, vastly outnumber the anti-pot doctors like yourself on YouTube.
Who would have thought?
They say, well, actually, the human body, you know, these cannabinoid receptors, cannabinoid, I don't know how to pronounce it, receptors, they were designed for things like marijuana, and our bodies were designed to process it, and it's a natural substance that our body expects.
Is there any truth to that, honestly?
Well, it's actually opposite of that.
I mean, we have these receptors or else the marijuana would have no effect.
If we didn't have a receptor, you wouldn't get a high off of it.
But that system is there for a reason, and I always say don't mess with Mother Nature like that, because that system is, like I said, interlinked with everything.
Mood regulation, cognitive function, impulsivity, judgment, all of these things that are higher functions that are required for our behavior in the world.
And we're doing something that will alter all of those systems in an unknown, uncontrolled way.
So there's the danger.
Okay.
But they would say, well, why do we have those receptors if we weren't designed to ingest cannabis?
Well, the cannabinoid system is interesting.
It actually is part of the stress response system of the brain.
So the cannabinoid system, when it's elevated, can suppress the stress response.
However, you can't do that willy-nilly.
If you do that, you're going to actually change how the brain processes information and behavior.
So if you were to...
Want to tap into that system, you certainly wouldn't do it in this way.
You would do it again in a targeted way.
The stress response is critical for our behaviors.
Right.
Well, okay.
That's fascinating.
So I'm trying to get my head around that because we do have that system, right, that processes it.
Would it sort of be like saying, okay, you know, you have dopamine receptors.
It doesn't mean that you should go out and smoke crack, even though that actively, you know, reacts with dopamine receptors.
It's not the right way to use them.
Exactly.
I call it a hijacking of the system.
You know, you're taking a biological system that's there and has a homeostasis, and you're tapping into it and altering it in what we call a non-physiologic way, which means it is causing that system to, you know, change the complete balance, put out too much of something or too little of something, and change the regulation.
So that's the problem.
So you don't smoke crack, do you, Doc?
No, I don't.
And unfortunately, anyone who smokes crack is usually going back to it at some point.
So that's definitely a cul-de-sac evolutionarily.
Well, I'm just saying, because the people on YouTube, the qualified medical professionals on YouTube, do believe that you smoke crack.
That's the only way you could possibly be critical of marijuana.
So I just wanted to clarify that for our listeners.
Thank you.
I wasn't sure.
It's funny that we talk about this and we'll bring you on after the break because I want to get into comparing maybe marijuana versus some other drugs specifically.
Actually, I guess we can get into that now and then we'll come back to sort of the social ramifications.
So people would say you're a psychiatrist, right?
And psychiatrists prescribe some what they would argue are much more harmful drugs, certainly drugs that can result in death more easily like Adderall Yeah.
Well, first of all, the goal of psychiatric drugs is not to get a high.
It's actually wrong.
I mean, people don't want people to get a high.
That's where you see the area of pain management is so difficult because the therapy is actually related to feeling a high and that's quite problematic.
But in psychiatry, I mean, all drugs are subjected to double-blind, placebo-controlled studies, which means they have to be studied, you know, the drug versus no drug.
They have to be And they also have to define reduction or lack of harm.
It's very difficult to do that.
There are a lot of bars you have to jump over before the FDA will approve any drug.
And now it takes about a billion dollars of research and development to develop a new drug to bring to market.
So it's not an easy feat and it requires sometimes dozens of years of development to find something that's effective and safe.
So, you know, it's a very advanced science.
And, you know, in my practice, I do prescribe drugs, but I always start with, you know, do what's in the best interest of the patient, which means do no harm.
We try to get people to manage stress in their life, you know, get rid of drugs and alcohol, exercise, take care of themselves.
I mean, that's always the starting point.
We don't always prescribe drugs.
Right.
It sounds far too reasonable for the land of the internet right now, but we'll bring you back after the break and talk a little bit more about pot.
Dr.
Boniface, Ladder with Crotter.
Stay tuned.
Back with Paid Off by Big Oil.
Of course, Dr.
Boniface specializes in neuropsychiatry.
Talking about pot, your brain on pot.
And fascinating stuff.
So Dr.
Boniface, before we left, we were talking about drugs and psychiatry and how psychiatrists or at least – listen, let's be honest.
A lot of psychiatrists do push drugs as a first line and it's not right and it's a rare case.
It's an exception to the rule.
But let's also talk about – while we're discussing exceptions to the rule, this idea right now that marijuana is non-addictive And it's certainly less addictive than something like alcohol, which is legal.
How do you argue against that?
Well, I mean as far as non-addictivity, I mean studies have shown one in ten people who smoke pot become addicted to it.
And if you started earlier in life, meaning in your teens, it's about one in six.
You know, 30% of people who use pot go on to use other drugs, and that's not a small number.
You know, 50% of all addictions to rehab, and I do work in the drug addiction area too, people started with pot use.
And interestingly, 90% of those people started it in their teen years.
So again, earlier exposure increases the risk of addiction vastly.
So 30%, you said 30% of pot users go on to use another drug?
That's correct.
Now, what about people who would argue that has nothing to do with the drug.
It has to do with the type of personality who might gravitate toward pot.
Generally, the personality who's arguing that point in the first place.
Yeah.
Well, we know there are genetic predispositions to addiction.
We think it has something to do with the dopamine system and the genetics that are inherited from your parents.
So many people have a genetic vulnerability, but for example, there's also a genetic vulnerability to mental illness with use of marijuana.
And again, we've been working out the genetics of that, but the issue is that a large swath of the population, 25 or 30 percent, are highly vulnerable.
And they actually know there's a specific gene, the C-O-M-T gene it's called.
It has to do with dopamine regulation in the brain.
25 to 30 percent of the population has the variation that makes them intensely vulnerable to addiction or mental illness.
Now is that a risk we're willing to run as a population in terms of public health?
Well, let me ask you this, because you say 30%, and then your numbers were about 25% to 30% of people have a vulnerability toward addiction.
Do we have any numbers as far as what the percentages of people who drink alcohol, who either become addicted or go on to harder drugs?
Yeah, it's less than that.
And also, I want to define the difference between alcohol.
This always comes up.
You are at the ready with these answers.
I'm trying to stump you here.
It's because these are questions people ask me in my office every day.
A lot of people are struggling with substance abuse.
Alcohol is actually metabolized by the body.
Your liver has enzymes that break down alcohol.
It's been developed through, again, thousands of years of evolution.
This enzyme varies in different genetic groups.
Europeans break down alcohol much more quickly than Asians and American Indians.
They don't have as much of the enzyme and the alcohol levels are higher in these people.
So there's a vast difference, but we do metabolize alcohol.
It's metabolized and excreted about an ounce an hour of alcohol in general in a European population.
Marijuana is not excreted in that way.
It's not excreted, period.
It's not metabolized.
It has to be taken out of the body like a toxin.
Because it's lipid soluble, it gets into the central nervous system and it sticks there.
You know, it takes five to seven days to eliminate the marijuana that's in a single cigarette.
And so you smoke once a week, basically THC is in your brain exerting a pharmacologic effect all week, even though you're not high.
And this is the problem.
It's what we call a depot drug.
If you smoke every day, it takes 90 days to eliminate all the metabolites of THC. And that is an amazing amount of time.
It's a very, very long half-life drug.
Right.
So you mentioned, I'm trying to go back to some of these numbers about people who have a proclivity toward addiction.
Well, one thing that interested me was, remember the big bath salt scare?
Yes.
Remember that?
People were eating everyone's faces off and stuff.
It was after the chimpanzee on red wine and Xanax scare, which was the funniest of the scares.
So the bath salt scare, I remember when I actually read up on it, you didn't hear about this in the news a lot.
The only drug they tested positive for was marijuana.
And actually, a lot of the mass crime spree people were heavy marijuana users in their youth and did test positive.
Now, correlation doesn't equal causation.
That's the buzz phrase people throw around online, and sometimes it's correct, sometimes it's not.
So not everyone who smokes marijuana, obviously, is going to go on a crime spree.
Is there any kind of data there that would suggest some kind of a correlation maybe with someone who – I mean how could marijuana trigger someone to bite someone's face off?
Let's put it that way.
Okay.
Well, I don't know the details of that case, but let's just put it in the context of what we know about the effect of cannabis on psychosis, for example.
We can argue that all of these people who commit these horrible crimes, they're psychotic.
I mean they're not in touch with reality.
There are many studies that have taken place over the last 30 years that show an increased incidence of psychotic illnesses in people who start using marijuana early in life.
You know, it increases the incidence of psychosis by about two to three times over a lifetime.
Really?
It also reduces the amount of time to the first psychotic episode in someone who has schizophrenia, and that's not a small thing.
Schizophrenia usually presents between the ages of 17 and 25 when the brain's fully matured.
I thought it usually presented itself in a raincoat in an alleyway, but continue.
Anyway, when you reduce the age of onset, meaning instead of at age 20, someone will start showing Symptoms at age 17 instead.
So again, these are people who have the genetic predisposition.
They follow them, you know, through their lifetime and they find the age of onset is much, much younger.
And the first episodes of psychosis, people are extremely vulnerable to doing violent things.
The incidence of suicide and homicide and things like that is much, much higher in those initial episodes of psychosis.
So here we are, you know, introducing a drug that may Change the age of psychosis, reduce the age, and increase the vulnerability to that.
So that's not something to take lightly.
No, it's not something to take lightly.
But I do think there are a lot of people out there You know, and I will say, listen, I'm just honest.
This is the only issue I would say.
You know, I'm pro-life.
I'm pro-limited government.
I'm not a big tax guy.
People know that.
This is the one issue where I go back and forth.
I think it really does come down to states' rights.
But I do think you'll have a large contingency of people who say all of those things are true.
But they also acknowledge heroin is bad and it should be legal anyway.
And a big example they point to, of course, is Portugal because they want to end the drug war.
And I agree.
The drug war has been relatively inefficient.
But they say, you know, look at Portugal.
They saved all this money in the drug war.
But what I think a lot of people and a lot of libertarians, which you are, again, by the way, don't point to is that Portugal has an immense public rehabilitation program.
I mean, it's entirely socialized.
usage and addiction problems.
So when people make the argument economically, right, that everything you've just said is true, but it's still not the government's role to go in and tell someone that they can't do that to their body.
Where do you line up on that as a libertarian, but also a doctor?
And again, I think it comes back to personal responsibility.
Are you going to expose people?
And again, you know, libertarians assume that people can make rational decisions.
They rely on reason to guide their behavior.
And yet they're going to introduce something into society that we know will be used by young people.
You know, by example, even if we say they shouldn't be used by people under the age of 21, it will be if their parents are using it.
People learn by example that it will actually damage the brains of the generations coming up.
Now, what kind of free society can we have?
Let me just be devil's advocate here.
We're going to reduce the IQ 7 to 8 points of maybe 30% of the population and we're going to be able to have a functional republic.
Do you really think it would reduce the general IQ of the public or only those with a proclivity toward problems with marijuana?
Well, actually the cognitive deficits are not just in the people who have a predisposition.
They've actually looked at this.
They've taken out people who have any kind of Genetic predisposition to mental illness or addiction.
They've eliminated them from the studies.
And even those people who should not have the vulnerability are having persistent cognitive deficits.
These young people who start before the age of 18, even after they're not smoking for four to six months, these deficits don't go away.
Now, they haven't followed them beyond that period.
But these deficits are evident on neuropsych testing, which is really detailed mental tests of tasks like memory and processing.
Not to be confused with thetan testing, which if you're interested in Scientology, listeners and viewers, I will send you the kit.
Continue, Dr.
Boniface.
So in neuropsych testing, and also it's visible on functional MRI. So we can actually see a picture of the parts of the brain that are involved in the cognitive function that are compromised.
They've shrunken in size.
Their volume is reduced.
The pathways between parts of the brain are reduced.
And this applies to anyone in the general population?
Anyone.
Not just the vulnerable to mental illness.
That's correct.
Now, why...
Okay, let me ask you this, Doc.
Why...
Is there such a pushback on this?
Why do so few people believe what you're saying?
I mean, if you could actually send me these studies, we'll get them up at ladderworthcrowder.com, so I'll hyperlink them.
But why is it that so many people are pushing back and saying that that's just untrue, that there is no evidence, I guess that there is no data right now, that you could draw those conclusions, that that happens, that it's all propaganda?
Why is there such a pushback, and why do most people believe that right now?
Well, I don't know about most people.
You wouldn't find that in the mental health community.
I don't know any mental health people that really believe that marijuana should be available to people.
You know, in the general population, I don't know.
Some libertarians are more like libertine, in my opinion.
They think anybody should be able to do anything they want anytime.
I mean, you know, come on.
I mean, we have to have some kind of definitions in society.
The other issue here that I find very interesting, and I've seen this in my patients over the few decades I've been in practice, marijuana damages the prefrontal cortex.
That's the self-observing part of the brain.
That's where we have insight and judgment and we can see ourselves and how we function in our behavior.
People who can't see themselves aren't aware of their deficits, if you know what I'm saying.
I mean, it sounds kind of circular.
You know, I work a lot with brain injury patients as well, auto accidents.
And when you survey the families, 95% of the families who define that that person has serious problems with their memory and their functioning and they can't cope, 0% of the patients saw it.
So the inside part of the brain is compromised.
They can't see it in themselves, which is horribly frightening.
That is probably the most fascinating thing I've ever heard on this show.
Basically, you're talking about...
So it removes the self-awareness that would allow one to critically observe changes in themselves from marijuana.
Precisely.
You know, I have some friends who are neurobiologists And you know, they call the prefrontal cortex the seat of the soul.
It's what makes you you.
If you've ever seen someone with a brain injury with damage to that part of the brain, and there are some famous studies, you know, neurology studies that prove this.
You change your frontal lobe, you change who you are.
So we're actually seeing damage in that part of the brain.
Again, it's evident on neuropsych testing.
It's evident on fMRI, which is functional MRI. It's evident on, you know, brain sections actually post-mortem.
So, you know, I don't know what more evidence we can use to show that THC is neurotoxic.
And it's neurotoxic in doses that are comparable to using once a week.
Right.
You change the frontal lobe, you change your heart.
You change my ear lobes, you change your heart.
I can get AM radio on these things.
I've got giant ears.
But not to be, again, immature, but I have to be because I'm terribly uncomfortable with serious subjects.
That really is fascinating to me, and I didn't really know that about the frontal lobe.
And I will tell you this.
I will have to go and do my own research because I know that I don't know a lot about the frontal lobe, and what you're saying sounds reasonable.
But I'm sure someone who was a pro-pot person could tell me something that sounded reasonable with the frontal lobe because I wouldn't be able to call them on it.
So again, we'll get these links up at louderwithcrowder.com and you can make your own informed decision.
Now, final sort of thought.
Here's the thing.
You have to understand.
This is broadcast on AM radio, right?
This show.
People are hearing it in Michigan and Alaska and a few other stations who are picking it up.
But it's really – it's big audiences online.
That's where we get this is online.
If you look at the top podcasts right now.
Let's just say out of the top 20 comedy or news and politics podcasts, people on there are all saying marijuana is benign.
It's fine.
You can smoke it and you'll be fine.
So those same people will say, well, listen, I'm not telling kids to light up.
I think cars are great.
I don't think a 14-year-old should drive.
So they create this...
This atmosphere where there's a lack of responsibility, right?
Where they say, I'm saying that an adult should be able to do what they want with their own body.
I'm not saying kids should use it.
But the ramifications with society reflect that that is the case.
I mean, Ann Arbor is a great example, right?
That's where you are.
I don't know if you've studied this, but I have.
Have you studied the numbers as far as once it was decriminalized in Ann Arbor, how usage increased among young people?
Well, I know it went up tremendously.
I don't know the numbers.
Do you?
Well, we actually included them in our last video, and I can get them up at light.
I don't have the exact numbers in front of me, but one thing, again, anecdotally, we actually interviewed someone who we didn't include on camera, but who basically sold pot, right?
And he said, yeah, and then once it was decriminalized, I said, well, you'd be out of a job.
Because of the drug war, right?
If we legalized all drugs, all drug cartels would straighten up and fly right and there would be no more drug cartels.
They'd be working at Denny's.
That's the idea.
And he said, no, I just changed my business model, right?
It's more profitable for me to buy from the medical dispensaries and I sell it to the high school.
By the way, a high school that is right around the corner from you.
Oh, I know that.
I had patients who fell out of rehab who were out selling, and they were making $1,000 a week.
You know, it was their career.
I noticed when it became medically available in Michigan, there was a whole generation of kids who were starting high school right at that year who had increased impairments.
And a degree of mental illness that you wouldn't expect, given their family history, etc.
And a lot of these kids just fell off the grid.
I mean, they dropped out of high school.
And I don't know what the stats are from the high school, but I'm sure in the educational establishment, they may track this to see dropout rates and maybe not going on to college, that sort of thing.
So, the data will come.
Unfortunately, you know, it's gonna be too late for a lot of people.
It might be your kids, it might be your siblings, you know.
And, you know, I mean, if you look back even at tobacco, you know, we look back now about how big tobacco pushed it and, you know, it was not, you know, all of the dangers were hidden because there was so much money behind it.
And now we look back and think how evil that force was.
Well, look what they unleashed into society, this horribly addictive substance.
And it was, you know, a lot of things were not being brought to the foreground that were probably well known at the time.
Great comparison.
People don't ever think of the big marijuana lobby when it is absolutely humongous.
A lot of people don't understand that.
There are a lot of people with financial interests, just like big tobacco or just like big alcohol, who want to see it legalized.
And to do that, they have to In a soft way, present it as benign and harmless.
But we must go.
Dr.
Boniface, thank you so much for coming on.
We will get these links up at ladderwithcrader.com so people can make informed decisions.
And please come back.
Maybe next time we can talk about the possible dangers of heroin.
We'll speculate.
Okay.
Take care, Stephen.
Thank you, Doc.
Hey, if you liked video, check out our previous interview with Gary Wilson.
Is porn actually good for you?
Or check out this older video that we did on marijuana.
▲
Export Selection