Top 10 Cannabis Studies The US Government wishes they never funded

franklyshocked

Thought this might "spark up" some conversation.


10) MARIJUANA USE HAS NO EFFECT ON MORTALITY:
A massive study of California HMO members funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) found marijuana use caused no significant increase in mortality. Tobacco use was associated with increased risk of death. Sidney, S et al. Marijuana Use and Mortality. American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 87 No. 4, April 1997. p. 585-590. Sept. 2002.


9) HEAVY MARIJUANA USE AS A YOUNG ADULT WON'T RUIN YOUR LIFE:
Veterans Affairs scientists looked at whether heavy marijuana use as a young adult caused long-term problems later, studying identical twins in which one twin had been a heavy marijuana user for a year or longer but had stopped at least one month before the study, while the second twin had used marijuana no more than five times ever. Marijuana use had no significant impact on physical or mental health care utilization, health-related quality of life, or current socio-demographic characteristics. Eisen SE et al. Does Marijuana Use Have Residual Adverse Effects on Self-Reported Health Measures, Socio-Demographics or Quality of Life? A Monozygotic Co-Twin Control Study in Men. Addiction. Vol. 97 No. 9. p.1083-1086. Sept.
1997


8) THE "GATEWAY EFFECT" MAY BE A MIRAGE:
Marijuana is often called a "gateway drug" by supporters of prohibition, who point to statistical "associations" indicating that persons who use marijuana are more likely to eventually try hard drugs than those who never use marijuana - implying that marijuana use somehow causes hard drug use. But a model developed by RAND Corp. researcher Andrew Morral demonstrates that these associations can be explained "without requiring a gateway effect." More likely, this federally funded study suggests, some people simply have an underlying propensity to try drugs, and start with what's most readily available. Morral AR, McCaffrey D and Paddock S. Reassessing the Marijuana Gateway Effect. Addiction. December 2002. p. 1493-1504.


7) PROHIBITION DOESN'T WORK (PART I):
The White House had the National Research Council examine the data being gathered about drug use and the effects of U.S. drug policies. NRC concluded, "the nation possesses little information about the effectiveness of current drug policy, especially of drug law enforcement." And what data exist show "little apparent relationship between severity of sanctions prescribed for drug use and prevalence or frequency of use." In other words, there is no proof that prohibition - the cornerstone of U.S. drug policy for a century - reduces drug use. National Research Council. Informing America's Policy on Illegal Drugs: What We Don't Know Keeps Hurting Us. National Academy Press, 2001. p. 193.


6) PROHIBITION DOESN'T WORK (PART II):
DOES PROHIBITION CAUSE THE "GATEWAY EFFECT"?): U.S. and Dutch researchers, supported in part by NIDA, compared marijuana users in San Francisco, where non-medical use remains illegal, to Amsterdam, where adults may possess and purchase small amounts of marijuana from regulated businesses. Looking at such parameters as frequency and quantity of use and age at onset of use, they found no differences except one: Lifetime use of hard drugs was significantly lower in Amsterdam, with its "tolerant" marijuana policies. For example, lifetime crack cocaine use was 4.5 times higher in San Francisco than Amsterdam. Reinarman, C, Cohen, PDA, and Kaal, HL. The Limited Relevance of Drug Policy: Cannabis in Amsterdam and San Francisco. American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 94, No. 5. May 2004. p. 836-842.


5) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART I):
Federal researchers implanted several types of cancer, including leukemia and lung cancers, in mice, then treated them with cannabinoids (unique, active components found in marijuana). THC and other cannabinoids shrank tumors and increased the mice's lifespans. Munson, AE et al. Antineoplastic Activity of Cannabinoids. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Sept. 1975. p. 597-602.


4) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER, (PART II):
In a 1994 study the government tried to suppress, federal researchers gave mice and rats massive doses of THC, looking for cancers or other signs of toxicity. The rodents given THC lived longer and had fewer cancers, "in a dose-dependent manner" (i.e. the more THC they got, the fewer tumors). NTP Technical Report On The Toxicology And Carcinogenesis Studies Of 1-Trans- Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol, CAS No. 1972-08-3, In F344/N Rats And B6C3F Mice, Gavage Studies. See also, "Medical Marijuana: Unpublished Federal Study Found THC-Treated Rats Lived Longer, Had Less Cancer," AIDS Treatment News no. 263, Jan. 17, 1997.


3) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART III):
Researchers at the Kaiser-Permanente HMO, funded by NIDA, followed 65,000 patients for nearly a decade, comparing cancer rates among non-smokers, tobacco smokers, and marijuana smokers. Tobacco smokers had massively higher rates of lung cancer and other cancers. Marijuana smokers who didn't also use tobacco had no increase in risk of tobacco-related cancers or of cancer risk overall. In fact their rates of lung and most other cancers were slightly lower than non-smokers, though the difference did not reach statistical significance. Sidney, S. et al. Marijuana Use and Cancer Incidence (California, United States). Cancer Causes and Control. Vol. 8. Sept. 1997, p. 722-728.


2) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART IV):
Donald Tashkin, a UCLA researcher whose work is funded by NIDA, did a case-control study comparing 1,200 patients with lung, head and neck cancers to a matched group with no cancer. Even the heaviest marijuana smokers had no increased risk of cancer, and had somewhat lower cancer risk than non-smokers (tobacco smokers had a 20-fold increased lung cancer risk). Tashkin D. Marijuana Use and Lung Cancer: Results of a Case-Control Study. American Thoracic Society International Conference. May 23, 2006.

1) MARIJUANA DOES HAVE MEDICAL VALUE:
In response to passage of California's medical marijuana law, the White House had the Institute of Medicine (IOM) review the data on marijuana's medical benefits and risks. The IOM concluded, "Nausea, appetite loss, pain and anxiety are all afflictions of wasting, and all can be mitigated by marijuana." While noting potential risks of smoking, the report added, "we acknowledge that there is no clear alternative for people suffering from chronic conditions that might be relieved by smoking marijuana, such as pain or AIDS wasting." The government's refusal to acknowledge this finding caused co-author John A. Benson to tell the New York Times that the government "loves to ignore our report … they would rather it never happened." Joy, JE, Watson, SJ, and Benson, JA. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. National Academy Press. 1999. p. 159. See also, Harris, G. FDA Dismisses Medical Benefit From Marijuana. New York Times. Apr.
21, 2006

projectmayhem

Can't say I've ever cared too deeply about the "legalise" campaign but when I was in Amsterdam last year and went into the hash museum and saw the wall detailing about a million Americans in prison just because of minor marijuana offenses I felt a little odd alright.

MaybeLogic

projectmayhem wrote: »

Can't say I've ever cared too deeply about the "legalise" campaign but when I was in Amsterdam last year and went into the hash museum and saw the wall detailing about a million Americans in prison just because of minor marijuana offenses I felt a little odd alright.

When you consider also ,that those incarcerated in the States will have had all of their assets confiscated and are now working ,for a few cents an hour, in Americas ever expanding prison work programs,it gets a litle more sinister.

DublinWriter

Some fine and interesting points, all of which are negated by the "WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?" argument.

antodeco

You guys are totally bumming me out right now

Kold

Weed is completely harmful to your financial situation. 50 euros for 3.5g? Balls to that.

Dr. Baltar

Kold wrote: »

Weed is completely harmful to your financial situation. 50 euros for 3.5g? Balls to that.

If the government were to legalise and seel it for cheaper than the drongadórí (gangland criminals) perhaps it wouldn't be as harmful.

Bonito

Wasn't there a study done showing that the dutch are among the lowest cannabis smoking countries in europe? Looks like legalising it is working IMO.

http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/dutch-among-lowest-cannabis-users-europe

Also I belive California may be legalising the drug too.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-02-24/bay-area/17188012_1_marijuana-policy-project-assemblyman-tom-ammiano-legalize

Not sure if it ever passed or not.

genericguy

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

If the government were to legalise and seel it for cheaper than the drongadórí (gangland criminals) perhaps it wouldn't be as harmful.

our government will not legalise it, because our government is run by the vintners' association. why would anyone bother their hole paying into a club for the privilege of spending e6 for a pint of watered-down piss if they could stay in the house with a spliff, a few tins and a curry for a fraction of the cost? the fcuking dogs in the street know that alcohol is far more damaging to the individual, and on a societal level, but at the end of the day it's the government's publican friends who dictate policy, and they've too much to lose for common sense to prevail.

Kold

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

If the government were to legalise and seel it for cheaper than the drongadórí (gangland criminals) perhaps it wouldn't be as harmful.

Yeah, cheap. Like alcohol.

bonerm

Bonito wrote: »

Wasn't there a study done showing that the dutch are among the lowest cannabis smoking countries in europe? Looks like legalising it is working IMO.

How is something legal that people then don't actually consume 'working' (from the revenue pov that is)?

Never mind a decrease, I'd say the Irish government would legalise it tomorrow if a survey could prove legalising cannabis led to an INCREASE in consumption! Hell they'd probably legalise it if it could be shown that consumption caused indirect spending on alcohol, tobacco, 2010cars and substandard housing.

Anything to keep the peons docile and the tax-euros in coming in.

genericguy

bonerm wrote: »

How is something legal that people then don't actually consume 'working' (from the revenue pov that is)?

Never mind a decrease, I'd say the Irish government would legalise it tomorrow if a survey could prove legalising cannabis led to an INCREASE in consumption! Hell they'd probably legalise it if it could be shown that consumption caused indirect spending on alcohol, tobacco, 2010cars and substandard housing.

Anything to keep the peons docile and the tax-euros in coming in.

yes, but in the case of cannabis it's very harmful to your health. why can't you people just behave and continue to smoke harmless tobacco?

ScumLord

Number nine is probably out of date, it's been found if you smoke before the age of 16 it can have very negative effects on your development, but that's true of all the drugs.

Kold wrote: »

Weed is completely harmful to your financial situation. 50 euros for 3.5g? Balls to that.

It actually encourages you to buy in bulk meaning your a dealer should you get caught.

Kold

Are you considered a dealer if you're caught with 1 plant?

15Pete

Kold wrote: »

Are you considered a dealer if you're caught with 1 plant?

Yes as far as S0crates is aware, possession of anything over 10g is considered to be with intent. The policy is quite obviously hilarious.

S0crates saw in the paper yesterday that the national debt is spiralling out of control, and the Public Sector is haemorrhaging money. Perhaps if marijuana was decriminalised the gardaí wouldn't have to waste so much time and money failing to control it; and huge cutbacks could be made.