Top 10 Cannabis Studies the 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-Tetrahydrocannabin
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.”
http://libertycrier.com/