Cannabis Research

[Empress NYah]

however I don't expect you to take me up on my offer, as I suspect dollars rule in your world and not the passionate livication to uncovering the truth about Cannabis

correct me if I'm wrong, or overstepping the mark

look, please don't think I'm personally attacking you

I raspect your quest for truth

most scientists are of honorable intent, i believe, and I think you fall into that category

unless you are a millionare, you are over the barrel just like everyone else

I don't doubt your personal integrity, I do however doubt the integrity of most financiers

there must be a personal gain for investors to put up such large sums of money,

bottom line.......!!!!!!!

see, only very few of us have nothing to lose and everything to gain by uncovering the positive benefits of Cannabis

I really do hope you are one of us

as we are in a David and Goliath situation here

small people versus big business

and yes, it is a war, but not one that we started

we are the ones desparately in need of defence

our lives and the lives of too many, depend upon it

so again, I urge you, please don't feel personally attacked

its lies and deception that I seek to negate, not intelligent, honest and courageous individuals

I look forward to following your findings as I believe you will see for yourself that Cannabis does not harm reflexes, delay reflexes in an inhibiting way, nor does it cause cognitive brain damage, in fact THC builds receptors in the brain and wherever they are needed in the body to heal and repair damaged nerves, cells, organs and tissues.

This is common knowledge in the psychiatric community in my area, I know because we were talking to the ex-head psychiatrist of our local psychiatric institution just the other day about this very thing.

Thak you for taking the time to include us here at Ozstoners in your quest to learn more about this powerful plant and its long-term effects on us humans

I wish you an exhilerating career of potent truth and service to humankind

Blessed Be

Nyah I Conscious

[freddie]

Most of the researchers i have met in any field are there because they are passionately interested in their subject. It is hard to shut them up if you get them started on their chosen field. They have not all gone through uni with $ in mind. To suggest they are simply puppets of large drug companies and will bend their research aims and findings regardless of what their science tells them seems a bit insulting to most (although i am sure this does happen in some cases).

 

I am not saying that drug companies aren't hugely powerful and influential. They don't fund everything though. Funding comes from a variety of sources, commercial, government. What I am saying is have a little faith; that not everyone has cynical intent. There I go believing n the easter bunny and the tooth fairy again.

 

University research like this will be published in peer reviewed academic journals. This doesn't mean that any wrong research will be necessarily found out but what it does mean is that it is there for all to see. Aims, method and results.

 

If you truly believe that university research is biased against cannabis how do you explain positive research that has come out about cannabis? one example. I can find plenty more.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2501729_pf.html

 

 

I hate quoting wiki but this is all I can find:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_funding

[mullray]

On the upside guys and girls - I doubt there is any coincidence between the fact that we have just lived through an age of evil. There is definitely no coincidence that Bush and his politics of war and inhumanity have been pervasive in the drug debate; there can be no coincidence that Bush and his politics of lies and distortion of the facts have been involved in the drug debate in the past decade. There is also no doubt that Bush is about to become political history - likewise, Howard the Nazi was given his mandate by the Australian people (I.e. See ya later). Money is on that things do now become better regarding the approach that governments do take to illicit drugs. Just one example..... No compulsory drug testing in schools. Let's see what comes in the next decade. While I doubt we will ever see legalisation, we may just see a more tolerant approach in politics and a more tolerance in general.

 

Peace to you Researcher but hopefully you can understand what many of us have lived through in recent times. We have had a war waged against us through the use of research and the media and the police. It has been an age of propaganda in general and I for one just can't see any positives in helping research because of this.

[Radic]

irey freddie

love yah vibez man

strictly positive

 

If you truly believe that university research is biased against cannabis how do you explain positive research that has come out about cannabis? one example. I can find plenty more.

 

yah know

diss is da very ting dat keeps me smile pon me face 24/7

hey dont kid yah self i am not being a cynic

the reality is

they have been lookin strictly for permenant negitive effects for the last 60 odd years

every scientist and every researcher started out employed to go so

and what have dey found??????

strictly positive

hahahahahaha

i believe there are no permenant negitive effects caused by cannabis

never have i seen or read any where in the world history of cannabis of any permenant negitive effects

but that is just in my own personal research

so what????? big deal radic

i hear yah

now hear diss

all the scientists and researchers globally with all the resources available from both gov and private sectors

have been hard it for 63 yrs

$$$$billions have been spent globally

and all they can find is strictly positive permenant effects

that is so beautiful

;-)

every study i have read confirms another long held suspision that cannabis somehow helps with diss or dat ailment

in fact the laughter brought tears to my eyes when i realized what i had in common with redneck rick simson

cause we are both still waiting for some1 to show we "someting cannabis can not cure"

 

as dr harry freeman and i were discussing just last week

the latest scientific studies, who were being payed $$$$$ to prove that cannabis kills brain cells,

instead they discovered evidance that showed cannabis somehow seems to grow brain cells

 

you know dr harry freeman dont you researcher?????

google his name if yah dont

 

forward ever cannabis

heal the people

heal the land

Edited March 27, 2008 by Radic

[cannabis.research]

http://www.northernstar.com.au/?storyid=36...condsubsection=

 

 

i hadnt heard of dr freeman, but googled his name and this is what came up. Yes there seem to be lots of good things about cannabis, but we cant ignore the possible adverse things as well.

[Radic]

that was last years news

i am telling you what hary said last week

[freddie]

i hadnt heard of dr freeman, but googled his name and this is what came up. Yes there seem to be lots of good things about cannabis, but we cant ignore the possible adverse things as well.

 

We shouldn't ignore the risks of cannabis use or overuse by teenagers. Teenagers tend to abuse everything and should not be taking cannabis at an early age. I started too young.

http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/Pubs/rn/2006-07/07rn21.htm

 

Interesting quote from here that governments don't seem to have attached to the latest anti-dope ads (please read the rest to get the context):

 

With respect to scenario a in the first hypothesis, the evidence in support of cannabis use causing a specific ‘cannabis psychosis’ is not strong. It is plausible that high doses of cannabis can lead to psychotic symptoms in the short term. However, the evidence for a distinct cannabis condition or syndrome which would not occur other than from heavy cannabis use is less compelling ‘because the clinical symptoms reported by different observers have been so mixed’.(15) It is also notable that alcohol abuse is a stronger predictor of psychotic symptoms than regular cannabis use (by a factor of four).

 

In case you missed the last sentence:

It is also notable that alcohol abuse is a stronger predictor of psychotic symptoms than regular cannabis use (by a factor of four)

 

edit: just putting this research in here for general consumption. Not directed at anyone in particular.

 

Hey radic what else did Dr Freeman say last week?

Edited March 27, 2008 by freddie

[Luke Skywalker]

Please keep in mind that this person doesn't make the law, they just research the effects smoking have on the brain and reactions.

 

And for those criticising research, I sure hope you never use a study as a basis of arguing for pot to be legalised.

[Radic]

but we cant ignore the possible adverse things as well.

 

true

 

is that what this research seeks to essablish?????

 

adverse things caused by cannabis

[Luke Skywalker]

And why shouldn't it? Wouldn't you feel more empowered to know what could possibly be wrong with your drug of choice than to live in ignorance? I for one would be fascinated to find out if there is a pre-pulse inhibition effect of cannabis. This research is attempting to find out whether there are similarities between pre-pulse inhibition in schizofrenia patients and cannabis users, not trying to prove detrimental effects, just trying to compare two subsets of the population in one specific factor. If it was a direct attempt to prove that "cannabis is detrimental" there would be far easier and more effective ways to test a hypothesis of that nature, and we've seen evidence of some researchers doing that in the past. This has probably made us more than a little cynical on that but any scientist/researcher worth their salt (almost all of them are, it's not a particularly highly paid profession with a lot of attraction) would be more interested in the "truth" than trying to push people away from pot. This person just wants to test if the idea that cannabis users have a similar ppi to those patients.

 

Scientific research, in all fields, puts forward a hypothesis about something, then tests it and makes conclusions open to interpretation or refutation by further studies. Science itself isn't bad, it's how you use it. Rocket science is a good example of that. Without it, we wouldn't have nuclear tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles which could wipe out humankind, but we also wouldn't have communications satellites.

 

I'm sorry if I seem to bang on about it, but the behaviour of some members towards this researcher has been nothing short of offensive to me. I've tried to hold my tongue on that but I don't think I can much longer. There is definitely a very good argument for confirmation bias on our part. This person is just conducting a study to test a hypothesis. Trying to find out the truth, not trying to push an agenda of legalisation/decrim like we are. We can (justifiably) appear to be a very paranoid bunch with a whole pile of obscure conspiracy theories. Whether these ideas are true or not is not the point, it's the appearance that's important. And I wouldn't blame this researcher for thinking that we're just a bunch of stoners without any interest in anything but information that confirms our pre-decided point of view.

 

My partner (an ex-smoker) has put it well, and quite often to my own eyes rolling heavenwards, with "why would you trust a bunch of stoners to give you an unbiased view on weed?" And she's got a point. I don't agree with her pov on cannabis, but she does have a point.

 

Shock, horror, taking recreational drugs can have an effect on your brain, (if they don't I don't know why I take them) general health and human behaviours in a negative (and sometimes positive) way. We have all argued that for alcohol, and certainly there's enough information out there, both anectdotal and empirical to prove that hypothesis. Cannabis has been shown over the years to be a RELATIVELY safe recreational drug, but that doesn't mean that it's harmless, and it doesn't mean that we may not find out it's more detrimental than we presently believe in the future. Inhaling smoke is almost guaranteed to be inherently detrimental to your health. And this is a psychoactive drug, so it's understandable that it may have detrimental effects on brain function.

 

I for one would like to know what those effects could be both negative and possibly positive or indifferent, and wouldn't shoot the messenger for telling me, or for asking me to be in a research project that attempted to find out what they were.

 

As an example, if there was a large scale test that showed cannabis was almost certain to severely affect IQ in 95% of users (which there isn't AFAIK, this is a hypothetical) and the science was sound and tests well defined and operated, would we stop smoking pot? Probably not I think. Perhaps the next generations would look at it differently from what those do today but we'd probably just blissfully continue on choofing our brains away.

 

I hope that made sense, I'm just a little angry at the treatment this person has gotten from some members.