Links to scientific, peer reviewed, cannabis related research

[The Hash Nibbler]

This one is interesting and also really funny. Best spidermite infestation ever

 

 

 

Naycha

Lmao, I remember us looking at this ages ago, was so funny, we couldnt believe how shit these growers were and I seen some pretty crazy spider mite infestations, but this is a breeding program. . Awesome Naycha, cheers. will work me way through em all......eventually.. Peace. Nibbler.

[Budzzz]

Here's a few

 

Medical Marijuana: Clearing Away the Smoke

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3358713/?tool=pubmed

 

Marijuana not linked with long term cognitive impairment

 

http://healthland.time.com/2011/07/19/study-marijuana-not-linked-with-long-term-cognitive-impairment/

 

Scientists are high on idea that marijuana reduces memory impairment

 

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-11/osu-sah111408.php

 

Stoned drivers were as safe as their sober counterparts

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20464803

 

Developmentally children of cannabis smokers are not worse than non-smokers

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1957518

 

 

Just a note, not all the research is unbiased on Pubmed. Here's an example.

 

Legalization, decriminalization & medicinal use of cannabis: a scientific and public health perspective.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22675784

http://www.msma.org/docs/communications/momed/Medicinal_Use_Cannabis.pdf

 

Abstract

Empirical and clinical studies clearly demonstrate significant adverse effects of cannabis smoking on physical and mental health as well as its interference with social and occupational functioning. These negative data far outweigh a few documented benefits for a limited set of medical indications, for which safe and effective alternative treatments are readily available. If there is any medical role for cannabinoid drugs, it lies with chemically defined compounds, not with unprocessed cannabis plant. Legalization or medical use of smoked cannabis is likely to impose significant public health risks, including an increased risk of schizophrenia, psychosis, and other forms of substance use disorders.

 

The reason that this paper is biased is because it compares the negative effects of cannabis against the positives and uses this as justification for it to remain illegal. It would like saying that we have to make tobacco illegal because it has no health benefits and only adverse effects. Actually it wouldn't even matter if cannabis had no health benefits at all and this couldn't be used as a justification to keep it illegal. I have read the paper through and found the conclusion unsupported. The paper does not establish what it stated in the abstract: Legalisation is likely to impose significant public health risks and more negative outcomes.

There is no actual data in the paper that supports this assertion, therefore the conclusion is not valid. As we all know this is not science but propaganda.

Edited June 13, 2012 by Budzzz

[jaikai]

Thats a hefty read 1st thing in the morn`...none the less interesting. Opens up a few questions to me.JAIKAI

[mjbarratt]

As Budzzz says, peer reviewed literature is not necessarily unbiased. In the end the peer review system is a social system - it is not always double-blind reviewed. For example, the journals Drug and Alcohol Review and Addiction have anonymous reviewers but the reviewers can see who the paper's authors are. If they aren't their friends, maybe they will give them a damning review and reject their paper. It's hard to test this because as an author you never know who your reviewers are.

 

We still rely on the peer review system to determine what articles are quality science, but it has its flaws unfortunately...

[Allotropy]

No Comment Edited June 21, 2012 by Anthesis

[Allotropy]

I think one of the biggest reasons people are so fed up with the government/police and drug policy governing bodies in general, is because marijuana/cannabis is still illegal. It's an absolute disgrace.

 

Tear your house apart, throw you in jail for a substance safer then tabacco and alcohol in most cases more enjoyable.

 

Spend hundreds of thousands of Tax Payers dollars to chase down a medicinal plant.

 

What a joke

 

Wasn't there an earlier discussion on this?

 

I'm Very aware of the negative implications of cannabis and I still stand by my judgement and not someone elses distorted perception.

 

Alcohol and tabacco are far more dangerous and cause more illness and misery then cannabis. If your mentally ill, stay away from it.. if your genetically vunerable to it then you will know whether it agrees with you or not.

Edited July 1, 2012 by Anthesis

[mjbarratt]

Thought you might be interested in this new paper, which considers carbon footprint of indoor growing and how it may be affected by law reform.

 

Mills, E. (2012). The carbon footprint of indoor Cannabis production. Energy Policy, 46, 58-67.

 

The emergent industry of indoor Cannabis production - legal in some jurisdictions and illicit in others - utilizes highly energy intensive processes to control environmental conditions during cultivation. This article estimates the energy consumption for this practice in the United States at 1% of national electricity use, or $6 billion each year. One average kilogram of final product is associated with 4600. kg of carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere, or that of 3 million average U.S. cars when aggregated across all national production. The practice of indoor cultivation is driven by criminalization, pursuit of security, pest and disease management, and the desire for greater process control and yields. Energy analysts and policymakers have not previously addressed this use of energy. The unchecked growth of electricity demand in this sector confounds energy forecasts and obscures savings from energy efficiency programs and policies. While criminalization has contributed to the substantial energy intensity, legalization would not change the situation materially without ancillary efforts to manage energy use, provide consumer information via labeling, and other measures. Were product prices to fall as a result of legalization, indoor production using current practices could rapidly become non-viable.

Mills 2012.pdf

[Frazz]

Thanks for posting the .pdf

 

it reads to me, like just another Cannabis bashing exercise

cant they get it through their thick heads if both psychoactive and hemp Cannabis were legal it would suck up billions of tons of CO2 and far, far out-weigh the hidden secret squirrel indoor jobs,

outdoor Cannabis farming could actually reverse Carbon pollution world-wide!!!!!

 

first it was cows farting gases now its time to further demonise Cannabis growers who have been forced indoors by Government incompetence!!

 

i must stop reading this American-centric Cannabis-bashing propaganda before my blood pressure goes ballistic!

 

[Naycha]

Yield and turnover of illicit indoor cannabis (Cannabis spp.) plantations in Belgium

 

Abstract

 

In prosecution, Belgian judiciary currently uses outdated yield figures (28.1 g per plant, sold at € 3/g at grower level) for fining illicit indoor cannabis plantations. Using state-of-the-art cultivation techniques, our growth experiments showed that yield is better expressed in g/m² cultivated surface area rather than in g per plant, and that yield varies significantly between different cannabis strains. It was found that the lower-bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval of the yield of an indoor cannabis plantation can be set at 575 g/m². Prices and pricing mechanisms were investigated using interviews with respondents selected through snowball sampling. Results reveal that (i) the Belgian cannabis market chain is highly complex; (ii) unit prices are predominantly determined by transaction sizes; but also (iii) a set of product- and socially-related price-fixing mechanisms have an equally important role. At grower level, respondents reported prices for 1 g of dry cannabis buds to range € 3.00–4.25.

 

Wouter Vanhove, Tim Surmont, Patrick Van Damme, Brice De Ruyver, Yield and turnover of illicit indoor cannabis (Cannabis spp.) plantations in Belgium, Forensic Science International, Volume 220, Issues 1–3, 10 July 2012, Pages 265-270, ISSN 0379-0738, 10.1016/j.forsciint.2012.03.013.

(http://www.sciencedi...379073812001375)

 

 

 

Some good info in here for SOG growers and some good general info too. Interesting to see how much each strain yeilds at different densities.

 

Naycha

Yield and turnover of illicit indoor cannabis (Cannabis spp.) plantations in Belgium.pdf

[Naycha]

The Effect of Electrical Lighting Power and Irradiance on Indoor-Grown Cannabis Potency and Yield

 

Abstract:  The floral development and potencies [Δ⁹-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) contents] of cannabis plants were compared when grown indoors under high-pressure sodium lamps consuming electrical power at three densities (270, 400, and 600 W/m²). After a 3-week vegetative phase, plants were grown for 8 weeks, with lamps maintaining an artificial day length of 12 h. Foliar and floral yields were measured. Gas chromatography was used to measure the content of the psychoactive cannabinoid THC. Mean yields per unit of electrical power in each lighting regime ranged from 0.9 to 1.6 g/W, the highest being achieved in the lowest irradiance regime. The individual potencies of the separated leaf and flower materials were not affected by increasing irradiance. However, there was a corresponding increase in the overall potency of the aerial plant tissue. This was because of the plants in brighter conditions producing a higher proportion of floral material.

 

1. David J. Potter Ph.D.,
   
2. Paul Duncombe Ph.D
   

1. 
    
   

1. Forensic Sci, May 2012, Vol. 57, No. 3
   

doi: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2011.02024.x

 

The Effect of Electrical Lighting Power and Irradiance on Indoor-Grown Cannabis Potency and Yield.pdf