[exDemMom]

‘The other piece of medical testimony [during hearings on the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937] came from a man named Dr. William C. Woodward. Dr. Woodward was both a lawyer and a doctor and he was Chief Counsel to the American Medical Association. Dr. Woodward came to testify at the behest of the American Medical Association saying, and I quote, “The American Medical Association knows of no evidence that marihuana is a dangerous drug.”

So--let me get this right--a doctor testifying in 1937 that the AMA had not, at that time, conducted any controlled studies into the effects of marijuana use is all the evidence we need that marijuana is perfectly safe?

Just because a doctor testified in 1937 that the AMA had no data about deleterious effects of marijuana use does NOT mean that the effects weren't happening and that people were not noticing them. If you notice that someone who is a long-time drug abuser is incapable of functioning in a productive manner and behaves erratically, do you need to consult the medical literature to verify your suspicion that the person's behavior is because of the addiction?

[NobleFree]

Just because a doctor testified in 1937 that the AMA had no data about deleterious effects of marijuana use does NOT mean that the effects weren't happening and that people were not noticing them.

The AMA Chief Counsel's testimony is evidence - as opposed to what you've posted, which is purely hot air.

And as for the reasons for the ban, at least as interesting as the testimony itself were the Congressmen's responses: our minds are made up so don't confuse us with facts.