Cannabis Research

[Pam]

Well, at the risk of being deleted yet again, I have to agree. The problem with this thread, which has lost the site more than one member so far, is that it is indeed as Radic points out. It is clear to me that for whatever reason the site owner feels the need to disregard the feelings of known and trusted members in favor of a stranger. A stranger that the majority of us are very uncomfortable with for various reasons.

 

I don't know if anyone has noticed, but I have "emptied my desk" here, I think if you look around you'll find more than just me gone missing. The only reason I look at this thread is because I am a nosey bitch that can't seem to believe that my leaving because of it means nothing... Perhaps Cannabis Research has more to offer this community that I once called family, than I ever could.

 

So Niall, you are not alone. See you people somewhere else.

[mullray]

Seems to be a lot of people taking this very personally on both sides of the fence. If its any consolation Pam I had a post totally deleted because I gave Researcher a serving. To be honest I think this was a fair call on the part of the mods. It was a bit uncalled for on my part and I think that I should have been more polite. It's amazing how contentious this issue has been and maybe cannabis research and any other researchers who watched the thread learned something here. I say though, peace to all.

[Pam]

Thanx Mullray, but it doesn't seem to matter who, or what the justification is.

 

"I'm just a little angry at the treatment this person has gotten from some members"

 

It is sentiments like this that illustrate my point. And I have to say that I am also "just a little bit angry" at the way some members have been treated in regards to this issue.

 

I have ALWAYS been as kind and gentle with my fellow members as I possibly could be ...(well ok I did snap on Al B once, but I never lost respect for him) and I have always trusted that the mods would keep things pleasant. That trust was betrayed in a different thread, and it is apparent here as well that we are free to say what we think as long as it is in agreement with the powers that be. I believe without a doubt that if this had been a member rather than a stranger, all the posts would still be standing for all to read. Recent experience proves this to me.

Edited March 30, 2008 by Pam

[brick]

Seems to be a lot of people taking this very personally on both sides of the fence. If its any consolation Pam I had a post totally deleted because I gave Researcher a serving. To be honest I think this was a fair call on the part of the mods. It was a bit uncalled for on my part and I think that I should have been more polite. It's amazing how contentious this issue has been and maybe cannabis research and any other researchers who watched the thread learned something here. I say though, peace to all.

 

Being a new member in here I was going to keep out of the discussion, but I thought nah have your two minutes of fame. My son is a psychology student who is in his fourth year and hopes to do a masters in psyc after graduating. Now he gets involved with research as a volunteer as well as carrying out research on others. He can't work on me as it is not ethical. I have him confused enough. I digress, sorry. Whether the research is biased or not (I know it is not) it is needed to help people like researcher further their knowledge in their chosen profession and in turn help the governments and general public understand a bit more about drugs and how they effect different humans. The down side of research is that it is selective and outcomes can be totally off the track because of this selectivness. Does the researcher's critera only select people of a certain age group or is it across the broad age spectrum. I would volunteer if I lived in WA.

Without research we cannot evolve, but the research has to be non selective. How do they know that the dope they are giving their "guinea pigs" is as good as what they have been smoking or worse than what they have been smoking? Or have they had a toke before showing up? This could go on and on, but imo we do need people like researcher doing their bit. Whether we agree or disagree with the outcome we still need it.

AND I HATE MJ BEING CALLED A DRUG IT IS A HERB THAT HAS BEEN USED FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS.

[mullray]

Hey there Brick50 and hi. The problem with "drug" research (sorry my friend but cannabis is a drug grown in "clandestine drug laboratories" - a discourse proliferated by the people of which you speak) is unlike other forms of research it involves a war that has been in play for a very long time. Too often drug research is funded by as you point out governments and those governments are in the business of collusion with the US Fed Government and the INCB (which of course is a neutral UN body ). Most research around illicit drugs is tainted by the discourse of war and the propaganda that invariably comes with war. Do you ever really think that if they discovered that mj was far better for you than alcohol they would then publish this research and make it widely known through the world media and then legalise cannabis in the hope that young people smoked cannabis rather than drank?? Let's face it - such research would never see the light of day.

 

I myself have been a guinea pig in spinal research because I suffer from a rare and unique condition and in studying me my hope is they can help others who suffer the same or similar conditions that I have. This research can be often extremely painful as they probe and suck fluids from me etc. I have no doubt that this research is done by very good people with very honourable objectives and agendas. Where drug research is concerned I see completely the opposite - it is influenced grossly by hidden agendas and those agendas include imprisoning more and more people and ultimately destroying untold lives to perpetuate an inhuman disgrace.

 

I went to prison in the seventies for about 11 months (served) for possessing mj. Now they want to put me on Schedule 8 drugs (opiates) which kill my will to live, are highly addictive and have some rather nasty side effects (constipation etc). I used them for 4 months and it was horrible - I lost my zest for life and was bombed stupid most of the time. If the cops find me growing my 2 plants in my clandestine drug laboratory closet I will be treated like a criminal and dragged before the courts. I sort of live a prison like existence anyway (trapped indoors most of the time) so that part doesn't worry me anymore and I know that I will happily hobble into court and tell the judge just where he and the cops can stick it.

 

I have no doubt that researcher means well but I have no trust in the system they work within and because of this I say do not participate in any drug research. You are only helping the authorities create more lies and more propaganda.

 

Anyway, that's how I see it and I don't expect others to agree. It saddens me though that some nice people have had their feelings hurt and I hope they choose to stick around. We can not agree all the time and I think the mods did a reasonable job in ensuring that the researcher was not flamed. I hope that they have a great and successful career and remain humane and treat their subjects with the dignity they deserve while at it. Peace to them.

[freddie]

I really wish this thread would die although some interesting stuff has been said it is now repeating itself. Unfortunately some things have been said that I cant resist replying to. Sorry for flogging the dead horse.

 

Hey there Brick50 and hi. The problem with "drug" research (sorry my friend but cannabis is a drug grown in "clandestine drug laboratories" - a discourse proliferated by the people of which you speak) is unlike other forms of research it involves a war that has been in play for a very long time. Too often drug research is funded by as you point out governments and those governments are in the business of collusion with the US Fed Government and the INCB (which of course is a neutral UN body laugh.gif). Most research around illicit drugs is tainted by the discourse of war and the propaganda that invariably comes with war. Do you ever really think that if they discovered that mj was far better for you than alcohol they would then publish this research and make it widely known through the world media and then legalise cannabis in the hope that young people smoked cannabis rather than drank?? Let's face it - such research would never see the light of day.

 

Mullray, I really wish you'd answer one thing. If, as you say all cannabis research is funded by governments and is biased against cannabis users then how do you explain positive research like the example I showed in post #42. and the alcohol reference in post #47? Did you even read them? There is shitloads of research on cannabis both good and bad. I personally want to know about this herb, no matter what; positive or negative. Also what happens when governments change, or are they all the same? This conspiracy stuff reeks of paranoia and is wearing a bit thin.

 

Sorry to read about your spinal condition. I know from personal experience how beneficial cannabis is for pain and how shithouse prescription drugs can make you feel. One of the reasons I am passionate about cannabis is because of a degenerative spinal condition. I am just lucky I don't have pain all the time. Wish you all the best.

 

Well, at the risk of being deleted yet again, I have to agree. The problem with this thread, which has lost the site more than one member so far, is that it is indeed as Radic points out. It is clear to me that for whatever reason the site owner feels the need to disregard the feelings of known and trusted members in favor of a stranger. A stranger that the majority of us are very uncomfortable with for various reasons.

 

Pam, the site owner was not favouring one newer member over older members. There are some members who have been here for years that support research. Members both old and new disagree over the importance of research and we have simply had the discussion about it that might have occurred if the thread wasn't originally closed. We have all had deleted posts on both sides of the argument. You should go back and read Ozs reason for re-openning the thread. It is not unreasonable.

Edited March 30, 2008 by freddie

[brick]

G'day Mulls,

I hope that the pain you endure for the research on the spine does in the long run help someone out. More power to you. I agree with what you say about governments and not trusting them but (great word that)if we as a people of peace and kindness just give up because of our belief that all governments are dishonest and can't be trusted then we are all doomed to be stuck in a world of dishonesty and distrust and we will never escape it, the old saying "We get the government we desreve" is very true. Only we the people can change that.

Eleven months for possession what state was that in? A mate of mine got busted in Vic in the seventies he had 25 Buddha sticks. When he got to court the cop came up to him just before he was called and told him they had reduced the number to 5 sticks he took that on the chin and got probation and a fine. I told him he should have told the judge what had happened. Because the cops kept the other 20 for resale. That again reinforces your arguement about not trusting governments. But (that word again) we have to start somewhere. Ok off the fruit box brick go make a joint. Hope the mj eases your pain a bit.

[mullray]

It was WA brick50. Technically, they got me on supplying. (Truth was I was supplying some friends but I tried denying it and I was only supplying small amounts ) It was a nasty charge but I was also stitched up and made to look like a dealer when I wasn't really dealing at all. I was unlucky, no doubt about it but there have been more than a few unlucky people.

 

Freddie - no probs with other research and in years to come I may not have problems with mj research either but right now we're in the midst of Reefer Madness so why contribute?? Yes, I guess I am a little paranoid but then we all should be. That's our right. Remember we're criminals.

[WantDaChronic]

i think that research into cannabis is usually biased, but there have been cases were that has backfired on the people conducting the research. one example was a study that aimed at proving cannabis increases the risk of getting cancer more than smoking tobacco. in the end they found out that people who smoke marijuana alone had a decreased chance of getting cancer and even those who spun out their mix had no increase in their chances of getting cancer when compared to people who smoke only tobacco.

 

the guy doing the research into eye movements on here seems like he is trying to do it without any bias and wants to let the results of his research speak for itself. he is being a good scientist in that respect and as such i dont think we have a right to say that he is part of the anti-marijuana movement. even if his results are used against us in the war on drugs it will be done because the results of his unbiased, scientific research has found something the government can use, not because his research is aimed at finding something for the government to use.

 

we have a chance here to help out someone with some research into cannabis and we are also in a unique situation where we can tell the researcher how to make the research more valid, eg. telling them to use multiple strains from all over the indica - sativa scale instead of using a single strain and saying all pot is the same.

 

I for one would gladly help out with any research into cannabis and would point out any issues i saw to try and make the results fair and scientifically valid. by not taking place we are turning a blind eye and allowing bad research to go through the system which in turn leads the public to believe out right lies like cannnabis causes schizophrenia

 

as i see it the researcher is doing an unbiased study and isnt even going to people in prisons, rehab centres, homeless people, etc. where he'd get heaps of people to help out with his study, instead he is going after normal people who happen to smoke pot. he is also coming back on here to answer our questions unlike the ndarc researcher who came on here a few months back and seems open to suggestions on how to make his research more scienficially valid. we can either help out and try to get a test to lean in our favour or we can do nothing and allow the research to fall on the people in society who give pot a bad name...in the end its all up to the individual, but we have to keep in mind that we all know marijuana is both good and bad so we cant expect every bit of research into cannabis to come out in a positive light for us

[mullray]

Yep, well good luck with trying to have experts listen to us. I would think like most research the parameters are already drawn up before it goes through ethics approval.

 

I participated in some research a few years ago and it was clear the researcher was clueless about the nuances of the culture. The published stuff which I eventually had to ask for read like a load of rubbish but then based on the questions this was somewhat predictable. When I pointed out a few things they made out they were interested but that didn't change the research because the questions were set.

 

Look, if you're set on doing research you should and it would be great to hear the feedback from those who participate and then great to see the published work to help us evaluate things in future.