Actually, I do remember the 60s and 70s, having grown up in the Bay Area of California, where there was a lot of cultural support for drug legalization of all kinds. Yep, I grew up right in the middle of that whole hippie culture and yes, it did shape me more than I would like to admit. I understand the pro-drug legalization narrative extremely well, because I was immersed in it during my childhood.
The laws against drug abuse were one thing. The cultural attitudes were another. The pro legalization narrative/propaganda has been very active since at least the 1970s--when was NORML founded?
If those who were hysterically desperate to suppress pot could have found one single medical or psychological fact to hang their hats on, we wouldn’t be where we are today.
There are two reasons that until recently, there was very little evidence on the effects of marijuana use. The first is that without any known medical use for marijuana (other than anecdotal stories), few researchers had any interest in studying it, when there were other pressing public health issues that needed attention. The second is that it is extremely difficult to get the DEA permits to study marijuana--it requires background checks, careful documentation of all uses of the substance from the time it arrives in the lab until it is used or destroyed, and high security storage in locked, theft-proof containers with access only to limited people.
Now, with the push to legalize marijuana, more researchers are willing to go through the arduous process of getting the permits and background checks to conduct research with cannabinols. So, in the last few years, the experimental documentation of deleterious effects of marijuana has begun to grow. It will become increasingly difficult to promote the narrative that marijuana is perfectly safe.
“Actually, I do remember the 60s and 70s”
But not the 50s, and you remember the 60s and 70s in the wackadoodle capital of the world.
“it did shape me more than I would like to admit.”
Well, get the F over it. The rest of the country was nothing like that.
“The pro legalization narrative/propaganda has been very active since at least the 1970s—when was NORML founded?
A few wackadoodles being “active” is not a national trend. Besides, the key decades were the 50s and 60s, not the 70s.
“There are two reasons that until recently, there was very little evidence on the effects of marijuana use.”
No, you’re wrong about that, too.
“The first is that without any known medical use for marijuana (other than anecdotal stories)”
The earliest evidence of pot use goes back more than 30,000 years. It was a staple of Chinese herbal medicine for thousands of years. The medical uses are known.
“The second is that it is extremely difficult to get the DEA permits to study marijuana”
If there were the kind of deleterious effects that you have claimed, it would be obvious all around us. The Chinese certainly knew of any. The same sorts of stories would be told as are told about opium dens.
“Now, with the push to legalize marijuana, more researchers are willing to go through the arduous process”
With global warming out of fashion, dishonest “scientists” have to go somewhere.
“So, in the last few years, the experimental documentation of deleterious effects of marijuana has begun to grow.”
Well, dish it up. I also want to know who funded the research, and who performed it.
BTW, did you not read the congressional testimony posted above to the effect that the AMA knew of no harmful effects?