Top 10 Pot Studies Government Wished it Had Never Funded

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

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...

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...

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

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

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...

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...

If a national debate about pot accomplishes nothing more than robbing congress of the opportunity to do something stupid, then it will be more than worth having.

51 posted on 09/03/2006 1:23:45 PM PDT by Sofa King (A wise man uses compromise as an alternative to defeat. A fool uses it as an alternative to victory.)

You transparent potheads.. Wow. The sarcasm must be really intense when high.

You have as little cause to accuse Dead Corpse of being a pothead, as I do to accuse you of being a drug dealer who supports prohibition to keep competition away and prices high.

How long have you been a drug pusher, HDwha? How many kids have you hooked on drugs?

-ccm

Pro-drug war. It fits. Nanny Stater- advocate that individuals cannot be allowed to make their own decisions about their life and must have said decisions made for them. What foods to eat. What items are ok for recreational ingestion. Don't walk. Don't run. Speak when spoken to. Pay your taxes and be a good little cog in the ever expanding government wheel....

Yeah... it wasn't so much an ad hominem attack as an accrurate description. You did say that "no man is an island" didn't you? What next? It's for the children?

Actually, I'm pro-freedom. Pro-liberty. And real heavy into personal responsibility. You screw your life up, tough. It isn't my problem.

It is only you Nanny Staters MAKING it my problem by forcing me to give up my tax money to fund your idiot and ineffectual drug war.

You feel that individuals should be restrained from doing damage to themselves via some liberal ephemera of some kind of mutual socialistic parasite mechanism.

So yeah.. pro-drug war nanny stater. Government as surrogate parent.

No thanks. Our "liberty" has been trammeled quite enough thank you...

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.