{"id":14084,"date":"2010-11-26T22:17:31","date_gmt":"2010-11-27T04:17:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/oooorgle.com\/BeyondTheCorral\/?p=14084"},"modified":"2014-11-25T18:38:08","modified_gmt":"2014-11-26T01:38:08","slug":"10-cannabis-studies-the-government-wished-it-had-never-funded","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/oooorgle.com\/BeyondTheCorral\/10-cannabis-studies-the-government-wished-it-had-never-funded\/","title":{"rendered":"10 Cannabis Studies the Government Wished It Had Never Funded"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>10) MARIJUANA USE HAS NO EFFECT ON MORTALITY:<\/strong>
\nA 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.<\/a><\/p>\n

9 – HEAVY MARIJUANA USE AS A YOUNG ADULT WON\u2019T RUIN YOUR LIFE:<\/strong>
\nVeterans 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<\/a><\/p>\n

8 – THE \u201cGATEWAY EFFECT\u201d MAY BE A MIRAGE:<\/strong>
\nMarijuana is often called a \u201cgateway drug\u201d by supporters of prohibition, who point to statistical \u201cassociations\u201d indicating that persons who use marijuana are more likely to eventually try hard drugs than those who never use marijuana \u2013 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 \u201cwithout requiring a gateway effect.\u201d More likely, this federally funded study suggests, some people simply have an underlying propensity to try drugs, and start with what\u2019s most readily available. Morral AR, McCaffrey D and Paddock S. Reassessing the Marijuana Gateway Effect. Addiction. December 2002. p. 1493-1504.<\/a><\/p>\n

7 – PROHIBITION DOESN\u2019T WORK (PART I):<\/strong>
\nThe 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, \u201cthe nation possesses little information about the effectiveness of current drug policy, especially of drug law enforcement.\u201d And what data exist show \u201clittle apparent relationship between severity of sanctions prescribed for drug use and prevalence or frequency of use.\u201d In other words, there is no proof that prohibition \u2013 the cornerstone of U.S. drug policy for a century \u2013 reduces drug use. National Research Council. Informing America\u2019s Policy on Illegal Drugs: What We Don\u2019t Know Keeps Hurting Us. National Academy Press, 2001. p. 193.<\/a><\/p>\n

6 – PROHIBITION DOESN\u2019T WORK (PART II):
\nDOES PROHIBITION CAUSE THE \u201cGATEWAY EFFECT\u201d?):<\/strong> 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 \u201ctolerant\u201d 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.<\/a><\/p>\n

5 – OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART I):<\/strong>
\nFederal 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\u2019s lifespans. Munson, AE et al. Antineoplastic Activity of Cannabinoids. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Sept. 1975. p. 597-602.<\/a><\/p>\n

4 – OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER, (PART II):<\/strong>
\nIn 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, \u201cin a dose-dependent manner\u201d (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 Mice, Gavage Studies.<\/a> See also, \u201cMedical Marijuana: Unpublished Federal Study Found THC-Treated Rats Lived Longer, Had Less Cancer,\u201d AIDS Treatment News no. 263, Jan. 17, 1997.<\/a><\/p>\n

3 – OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART III):<\/strong>
\nResearchers 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\u2019t 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.<\/a><\/p>\n

2 – OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART IV):<\/strong>
\nDonald 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.<\/a>
\n
\n1 – MARIJUANA DOES HAVE MEDICAL VALUE:<\/strong>
\nIn response to passage of California\u2019s medical marijuana law, the White House had the Institute of Medicine (IOM) review the data on marijuana\u2019s medical benefits and risks. The IOM concluded, \u201cNausea, appetite loss, pain and anxiety are all afflictions of wasting, and all can be mitigated by marijuana.\u201d While noting potential risks of smoking, the report added, \u201cwe 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.\u201d The government\u2019s refusal to acknowledge this finding caused co-author John A. Benson to tell the New York Times that the government \u201cloves to ignore our report \u2026 they would rather it never happened.\u201d Joy, JE, Watson, SJ, and Benson, JA. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. National Academy Press. 1999. p. 159.<\/a> See also, Harris, G. FDA Dismisses Medical Benefit From Marijuana. New York Times. Apr. 21, 2006<\/a><\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

Also See:<\/p>\n