Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Top 10 Pot Studies Government Wished it Had Never Funded
freetheplant.com ^ | August 31st, 2006 | sonofliberty

Posted on 09/03/2006 12:42:40 PM PDT by 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


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: bongbrigade; cannabis; duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude; fascism; forthechildren; govwatch; haveabrownie; libertarians; marijuana; munchies; nannystate; studies; unconstitutional; warondrugs; wod; wodlist; wowsers
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-279 next last
Kind of a slow Sunday here, lets stir things up.
1 posted on 09/03/2006 12:42:42 PM PDT by atomic_dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: atomic_dog
I love Libertarians. They want pot while Rome burns.

APf
2 posted on 09/03/2006 12:45:03 PM PDT by APFel (Individualism. The alpha and the omega.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: atomic_dog
"huh???"Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
3 posted on 09/03/2006 12:46:57 PM PDT by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: atomic_dog

duuuude...


4 posted on 09/03/2006 12:49:18 PM PDT by Crazieman (The Democratic Party: Culture of Treason)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: atomic_dog
freetheplant.com?

It's not that slow.

5 posted on 09/03/2006 12:49:24 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: APFel

The sacrament of pot and the other habit of protest voting or throwing their vote down a third party hole.


6 posted on 09/03/2006 12:49:47 PM PDT by A CA Guy (God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: atomic_dog
The "Gateway Effect" is real. Not necessarily because the "users" are seeking stronger drugs, but because they have already violated the law by using marijuana. In other words, they have already crossed the line that prohibits them from using illegal drugs -- so why not try the rest?
7 posted on 09/03/2006 12:50:58 PM PDT by free_at_jsl.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

To: atomic_dog
Top 10 Pot Studies Government Wished it Had Never Funded

My unfunded study reports that I never saw a pothead who worked long hours to create a business and provide society with the benefits of his sweat.

10 posted on 09/03/2006 12:52:47 PM PDT by LoneRangerMassachusetts (The only good Mullah is a dead Mullah. The only good Mosque is the one that used to be there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #11 Removed by Moderator

To: atomic_dog

And here I thought the DNC was going to be amongst the pot studies funded.


12 posted on 09/03/2006 12:55:45 PM PDT by highlander_UW (I don't know what my future holds, but I know Who holds my future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: free_at_jsl.com
...but because they have already violated the law by using marijuana. In other words, they have already crossed the line that prohibits them from using illegal drugs -- so why not try the rest?...

By this reasoning, why wouldn't a guy that breaks the speed limit just go on to rob a bank? After all, he's already broken the law.

13 posted on 09/03/2006 12:57:15 PM PDT by FReepaholic (This tagline could indicate global warming.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: atomic_dog

This post gives me the munchies.


14 posted on 09/03/2006 12:57:34 PM PDT by Nachum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #15 Removed by Moderator

To: atomic_dog

If it weren't for job related drug tests.....


16 posted on 09/03/2006 12:58:56 PM PDT by humblegunner (If you're gonna die, die with your boots on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: atomic_dog

Trick is Atomic-dog is that MJ simply makes you more obnoxious than you usually are, which tells you what a powerful drug it is.


17 posted on 09/03/2006 1:00:33 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: APFel
For the record: I do not smoke pot. I do not even partake of alcohol. I have raised three children who do not smoke pot. I would strongly encourage people not to use drugs of which I consider alcohol to be one.

I strongly resent my tax dollars taken from by the threat of force by the Federal being used for any purpose not explicitly authorized by the US Constitution as written. The includes enforcing drug laws and the costs of policing, trying and upkeep of persons imprisoned for committing any malum prohibitum offense.

18 posted on 09/03/2006 1:00:56 PM PDT by atomic_dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: atomic_dog

Talk like that makes me want to encourage my Congress-critters to make sure to buy even bigger guns for the DEA.


19 posted on 09/03/2006 1:02:41 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Comment #20 Removed by Moderator

To: atomic_dog
Yeah, but all that aside... we really don't want freedom and liberty. Those are outmoded concepts and the Government needs these unConstitutional powers for our OWN good. Can't have people doing damage to themselves as through the Butterfly effect, it kills polar bears.

Think of the bears. Keep pot illegal.

21 posted on 09/03/2006 1:05:00 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (Quam terribilis est haec hora)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: HDwha
... They continue on to more drugs because pot triggers the pleasures that lower drugs don't. And eventually, the user can go 'wait, I want more!' ...

I think it depends upon the personality of the user. Some people are more prone to addiction than others.

I've known people that used pot that have not continued nor did they go on to use harder drugs.

I've also known people who became addicts.

22 posted on 09/03/2006 1:05:44 PM PDT by FReepaholic (This tagline could indicate global warming.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Good little Nanny Statist. Advocate MORE power for governmnet! Thank you for your support.


23 posted on 09/03/2006 1:05:47 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (Quam terribilis est haec hora)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: atomic_dog; FReepaholic; Nachum

"At DEA, our mission is to fight drug trafficking in order to make drug abuse the most expensive, unpleasant, risky, and disreputable form of recreation a person could have. If drug users aren't worried about their health, or the health and welfare of those who depend on them, they should at least worry about the likelihood of getting caught. Not only do tough drug enforcement policies work, but I might add that having no government policy, as many are suggesting today, is in fact a policy, one that will reap a whirlwind of crime and social decay."
Donnie Marshall - Administrator of the DEA


24 posted on 09/03/2006 1:06:51 PM PDT by Lady Jag (People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #25 Removed by Moderator

Comment #26 Removed by Moderator

To: HDwha

In post 19, the poster advocated BIGGER guns for the DEA. All the better to kill pot users sitting in their basements getting stoned before they do something really horrible... like order pizza...


27 posted on 09/03/2006 1:09:17 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (Quam terribilis est haec hora)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

Comment #28 Removed by Moderator

Comment #29 Removed by Moderator

To: HDwha
Sure. Why not. Darwin is long over due for a good housecleaning and meth kills pretty quickly. Especially if said meth-head comes around trying to jack my car. 12ga retirement.

But this isn't about that... we are here to cheer on the Drug Warriors! Bigger guns. More guns. More no-knock raids and warrentless searches.

We weren't using our Rights anyways... but if it keeps one college student from toking up, it's worth the trillions spent.

30 posted on 09/03/2006 1:11:26 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (Quam terribilis est haec hora)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: atomic_dog
Okay.

But I'd give five dollars to find out what prompted you to react so strongly to what I wrote.

APf
31 posted on 09/03/2006 1:11:28 PM PDT by APFel (Individualism. The alpha and the omega.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Comment #32 Removed by Moderator

To: HDwha
Actually, I tried pot a couple times as a kid... but 25 years later the strongest drug I imbibe in is Glenfiddiche scotch on occassion.

This has a lot less to do with individual drug use and more to do with an unConstitutional expansion of government power.

But, since you nanny state types are immune to logic, back to sarcasm...

Yea Drug War! Let's go kill some more dopers...

33 posted on 09/03/2006 1:13:30 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (Quam terribilis est haec hora)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

Comment #34 Removed by Moderator

To: Dead Corpse
Giving DEA guys bigger guns does not give more power to the government.

It simply makes it a more attractive place to work.

35 posted on 09/03/2006 1:14:26 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: HDwha
No. Idiot. Serial killers do DIRECT harm to another individual. There is no such direct harm to others with individual drug use.

Nice try though. Too bad thousands of others have used the same lame argument before.

36 posted on 09/03/2006 1:14:38 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (Quam terribilis est haec hora)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

Comment #37 Removed by Moderator

To: HDwha; FReepaholic

The Feds know as do many other countries.

38 posted on 09/03/2006 1:15:07 PM PDT by Lady Jag (People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: atomic_dog

How many guys have been high on pot and then beat their wives/girlfriends versus how many guys who have been drunk and beat their wives/girlfriends? I'm not a drug or alcohol user, but I've known people who have and pot seems to either make them 'happy' or 'peaceful' but never violent. Alcohol, on the otehr hand, can bring out one's worst demons. I do agree that pot is a great demotivator. But for medical purposes, it can keep people on chemo eating. I have family members and know people with MS and pot does offer relief from the constant pain, amongst other relieved symptoms, this disease inflicts, pain which doesn't respond to most other pain killers.


39 posted on 09/03/2006 1:15:43 PM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #40 Removed by Moderator

To: muawiyah
Mini-guns and S&W .500's then. That'll clear out the rabble pretty quick. Anyone with any ammount of THC in their bloodstream, including those who like other vegatables with trace amounts of THC in them, should be summarily rounded up and shot.

That'll teach 'em...

41 posted on 09/03/2006 1:15:59 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (Quam terribilis est haec hora)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

Comment #42 Removed by Moderator

To: HDwha
To the user only. Any other actions are incidental and should be punished under those statutes, including by said victim at the point of offense and preferrably terminal to the perpetrator.

Or don't you like gun rights either?

And next you will try and claim increased medical and socialist services costs do harm to others. Using socialism to excuse fascism...

You really are a wonder aren't you...

43 posted on 09/03/2006 1:18:37 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (Quam terribilis est haec hora)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: free_at_jsl.com
The "Gateway Effect" is real. Not necessarily because the "users" are seeking stronger drugs, but because they have already violated the law by using marijuana. In other words, they have already crossed the line that prohibits them from using illegal drugs -- so why not try the rest?

This is a much stronger argument for legalization than it is for continued prohibition. I assume you are not making the circular argument that pot should stay illegal because it is illegal? I've certainly heard that one a time or two from the Drug War true believers.

-ccm

44 posted on 09/03/2006 1:19:06 PM PDT by ccmay (Too much Law; not enough Order)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: LoneRangerMassachusetts
My unfunded study reports that I never saw a pothead who worked long hours to create a business and provide society with the benefits of his sweat.

You need a larger sample size. There are plenty of them out there.

And even if it were true, that's not a strong enough argument for keeping the stuff illegal in my book.

-ccm

45 posted on 09/03/2006 1:20:55 PM PDT by ccmay (Too much Law; not enough Order)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: HDwha
LOL... You know me so well. That is why I'm on dozens of RKBA threads here on FR arguing against other conservatives that aren't pro-2A ENOUGH.

Can't argue the pro-drug war line so attack on another front. You've read the book on obfuscating a threat topic I see. Ad homenim. Insinuation. False pretense. Logic inconsistancies...

Sheesh... this is why I gave up on arguing on these threads... Make a good argument, get trolled by pro-drug war nanny staters anyway...

46 posted on 09/03/2006 1:20:58 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (Quam terribilis est haec hora)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

Comment #47 Removed by Moderator

Comment #48 Removed by Moderator

To: Lady Jag

What crap. It's really about jobs for the boys.


49 posted on 09/03/2006 1:22:50 PM PDT by ccmay (Too much Law; not enough Order)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: HDwha
I say no person is an island, and there's no reason to allow easier access to pot and above destruction to individuals.

So, you are one of those that WANTS to be your Borhter's keeper. Or is it that you feel insecure in your own identity and must be "kept" by another. Else you could do incalcuable warm to yourself or others...

Sounds like a personal problem. Stop projecting this on others though.

And yet, Signapore still has a drug culture. HHhhmm... maybe we should just execute anyone we THINK may be a drug user. Just to be safe...

50 posted on 09/03/2006 1:23:27 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (Quam terribilis est haec hora)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-279 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson