Top 10 Pot Studies Government Wished it Had Never Funded

freetheplant.com ^ | August 31st, 2006 | sonofliberty

[atomic_dog]

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(1) 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

[Dead Corpse]

It's cruel. But note that not one damn drug law saved this child.

What is even more cruel is treating the other 300 million of us, who are not drug users, as criminals. We do anything suspicious... No knock raid. We have a "similar" address, our spouse gets shot, our dogs die, and possibly even our kids in an unConstitutional case of mistaken identity. Our every purchase is subject to flagging and tracking. Our electrical bills are tagged and monitored. Gods forbid you try and do something like set up a hydropoinic garden...

All so some of you can feel better about advocating MORE government power to stop "those people" from doing "icky things".

After all, if innocent people have to die for you to make your play for your unobtainable utopia... so be it.

[dirtboy]

Your problem is that your preconceived biases will not allow your mind to absorb the fact that there are many people who don't use pot who are against the War on Some Drugs.

I used pot some when I was younger. I learned two things:

Some pot users can smoke the stuff and still function well in their jobs or their educations, and

I was not one of them.

However, since I did observe that a lot of folks I knew could deal with weed, I didn't blame pot for the fact I couldn't - different people have different receptors, different brains and different reactions. So one instead must look at the cost/benefit relationships of banning a substance versus having it legal.

Meth, no way. Heroin and coke, dittoes.

But weed is actually not as bad as alcohol in the problems it causes society, both to the individuals who use it and their impact on others who do not. It is royally stupid to criminalize it. Colorado decriminalized it years ago and that is a smart approach to it. It frees up jail space and law enforcement resources to go after other problems that have a far more pronounced societal impact.

[dirtboy]

The problem with talking with potheads are that they are potheads.

Yep, it's better just to declare your opponents potheads. It sure beats having a comprehensive and defensible position of your own.

[Perisylph]

Well, why make that line if there is no reason for it?

Additionally, I guarantee you that 99.9% of people in jail have already broken the law by speeding on a highway.

[Perisylph]

Very much in agreement. Pot (after about a year) was not enjoyable for me. But I (and everybody else I know) did not go through any "pot withdrawal" - nor did I ever hear of somebody breaking a (real) law, killing themselves, or somebody else while they were high. And yet I personally know 10 people that caused either their own death or somebody else's while they were drunk.

[Perisylph]

Very much in agreement. Pot (after about a year) was not enjoyable for me. But I (and everybody else I know) did not go through any "pot withdrawal" - nor did I ever hear of somebody breaking a (real) law, killing themselves, or somebody else while they were high. And yet I personally know 10 people that caused either their own death or somebody else's while they were drunk.

[Mojave]

But note that not one damn drug law saved this child.

So let's expand the availability of dope so more children can be sacrificed for the sake of anarchy and drugs?

No thanks.

[APFel]

Yep, it's better just to declare your opponents potheads. It sure beats having a comprehensive and defensible position of your own.

Look, if you want a comprehensive and defensible position out of me, go look through my post history. I have already been 'round and 'round with the hemp constituency here on FR. It's like asking water not to be wet.

So whatever. They want their weed and they want the g'mnt to not arrest them for it. They drone on and on about "rights" but don't say boo about ACTUAL lost liberties such as eminent domain and leftist speech codes. It's all about the pot.

APf

[Dead Corpse]

No. Let's decriminalize it so that people stop getting poison instead of the drug they think they are taking. Let's completely destroy the underground culture of drug lords and pushers who would sell to kids. Let's get rid of the unConstitutional abuse of power. Let's keep real criminals in prison instead of packing them with one time drug users on mandatory sentences.

Personally, I think anyone who is stupid enough to use drugs like this are dooming themselves. But then again, it's their life. They should be able to end it when they want to, as long as they don't try and take anyone else with them.

[Mojave]

Let's decriminalize it so that people stop getting poison instead of the drug they think they are taking.

Let's decriminalize it so that people getting poison instead of the drug they think they are taking will buy more of such poisons.

[Dead Corpse]

You just don't understand the illogic of putting a gun to someones head to keep them from taking poison do you...

Let them kill themselves.

I know you get a woody everytime you think of some cop kicking in a door at 2AM, but come on. This is pretty dense every for you drug war fans.

[dirtboy]

So whatever. They want their weed and they want the g'mnt to not arrest them for it. They drone on and on about "rights" but don't say boo about ACTUAL lost liberties such as eminent domain and leftist speech codes.

Like heck. A lot of the groups opposed to federal pot laws and in favor of decriminalization also work long and hard for other Constitutional rights. You, however, are the typical cafeteria conservative, who believes in limited government as long as it doesn't limit what you want government to do.

[Mojave]

You just don't understand the illogic of putting a gun to someones head to keep them from taking poison do you...

Putting "a gun" to the pushers' heads upsets you.

[Mojave]

A lot of the groups opposed to federal pot laws and in favor of decriminalization also work long and hard for other Constitutional rights.

Like sodomy, gay marriage and welfare?

[Dead Corpse]

Putting a gun to anyones head while they are going about the business of killing themselves seems a bit, stupid.

It's the collateral damage to our Rights, the rest of us who DON'T use drugs, that upsets me.

[Dead Corpse]

Sodomy. None of your business. What are you going to do next? Cameras in bedrooms for approved procreational missionary style sex only?

Gay Marriage. Religion. Get the State out of it all together. Don't like gay marriage? Don't have one.

Welfare. End it.

Actually, I think the other poster may have been referring to free speech, private property Rights, 2A Rights, ect...

Not that a troll like you cares one wit as long as you Agent Provocateur status is intact.

[dirtboy]

Like sodomy, gay marriage and welfare?

No, such as gun rights, 4th amendment rights, and First Amendment rights.

[Mojave]

Putting a gun to anyones head while they are going about the business of killing themselves

Pushers are enriching themselves, peddling the poisons you advocate.

[Mojave]

No, such as gun rights, 4th amendment rights, and First Amendment rights.

Doesn't sound very Berkeley, San Francisco and NORML.

[Dead Corpse]

So are drug companies. I don't see you advocating killing the executives of Merck or Pfizer.

Nice try at a smear there Roscoe. I think people using drugs like these are idiots and I do not advocate that anyone use them habitually. However, I do not feel it is my place to tell them not to either. Further, I KNOW that this job description isn't in the Constitution ANYWHERE for the FedGov to be running a "Drug War".