While pro-warming political pundits like to demonize climate skeptic research by comparing it to that of tobacco company research and marketing, it seems there is a parallel between the story of global warming and marijuana demonization. This story is about the parallels in research, and does not represent any position on drug use by WUWT – Anthony
Guest Essay by Dr. Robert G. Brown, Duke University (elevated from a comment)
Judith Curry’s remarks [Scientists and motivated reasoning], as usual, are dead on the money.
Here’s an almost perfectly analogous problem: CNN recently completely reversed its editorial policy and now calls for the legalization of Marijuana. Sanjay Gupta, its “resident physician editorialist”, who had previously somewhat vigorously led this opposition from the scientific point of view completely reversed his own position, and explained why in considerable detail both in text and in online video.
Historically, marijuana was both legal and considered to be a useful medicine all the way up through the beginning of the twentieth century. At that point, William Randolph Hearst had invested heavily in pine forests in Mexico, intending to sell them to his own newspapers to make newsprint. The Dupont family were discovering petrochemicals including plastic and oil-derived pharmaceuticals. A machine was invented that was the equivalent of a “cotton gin” for hemp — it mechanically stripped down the hemp plant and turned it into useful fiber, oil, and vegetable waste that could be used as an animal fodder (yes, we can imagine some very happy cows, can’t we?:-). One of many uses for the now inexpensive hemp fiber was to make equally inexpensive newsprint paper that was clearly superior in quality and cost to wood pulp paper. Another was that the oils and fiber could be used to synthesize various chemical products. Both Dupont and Hearst were suddenly hundreds of millions of dollars at risk.
They turned to Harry Anslinger, who happened to be Hearst’s brother in law. Anslinger was a suddenly idle ex-prohibitionist working for the FBI, and he created a propaganda campaign that portrayed hemp as literally maddening those that actually smoked it, leading them to commit acts of rape and robbery and moral turpitude. At the same time, political revolutions in Mexico (funded and fought by a private army belonging to Hearst) and a negative portrayal of blacks and Mexicans as common users of hemp for recreation purposes added a useful racist hook. Between these, congress outlawed hemp.
So matters remained until the Viet Nam war and the 1960s and early 70s. As part of the quiet “revolution” against what many perceived as a military-industrial complex with a life of its own that was fighting a series of expensive and pointless wars, pot had become “the” recreational drug of choice among young hippies and freaks as well as the military draftees who fought the war. Its use was so prevalent that Texas dropped the question about cannabis use from its entrance exam to police academy, because “asking a vet of they had ever smoked pot was like asking them if they smoked Camels”. Suddenly a large fraction of an entire generation of U.S. citizens had smoked pot and discovered that no, it does not turn you into a crazed rapist, and usually does not make you insane unless you are most of the way there on your own already. They also discovered that it is neither physically addictive nor dangerous in the sense that it is literally impossible to overdose on marijuana — it is literally one of the safest compounds we know of, with no meaningful fatal dose.
However, Ronald Reagan took office in the 80′s, an immediately declared a “War on Drugs”. Marijuana was reclassified as a schedule 1 narcotic by the federal government [in 1970], trumping communities that had already begun to experiment with decriminalization or even legalization. This once again gave law enforcement agencies lots of useful work (helpful if you are trying to build a police state), gave cops everywhere the ability to selectively enforce drug laws and thereby control the populace, and caused us to rather suddenly need to build enormous numbers of prisons because it rapidly turned out that by making marijuana trafficking a felony and putting even mere users in jail (just like heroin, cocaine, and actually dangerous drugs) somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of all prison sentences were being handed down for low grade drug offenses. Our expenditure on controlling pot went from next to nothing to tens of billions of dollars a year. Obviously, many profited from this, including (as usual) the money launderers and organized criminals that made fortunes providing marijuana on the black market, and the politicians and bankers that provided well-paid-for top cover.
And now to the interesting bit (although I think all of the above is interesting:-). One of the reasons given for making marijuana a schedule 1 felony class drug [in 1970] was that we didn’t know about the harm it might cause, and there was no known medical benefit. Yes, it had been used as a medicine for centuries, the founding fathers literally “mandated” the growing of hemp on American farms because it was so useful a plant both industrially and medicinally, but we had entered the era of double blind placebo controlled drug trials, and there were now enormous pharmaceutical companies whose billion-dollar products were at risk, dwarfing even the Duponts’ complaint back in the 30′s. Its risks were similarly unstudied.
A period of research then ensued. If you wanted to study pot, you had to both get funded and get the experimental marijuana from a single, small farm in Mississippi that grew “legal” pot for this purpose. The government itself was in complete control, in other words of what research got conducted, because even if you could find outside funding, you couldn’t get legal pot to do the research with without approval.
Gupta initially opposed marijuana legalization because a review of the medical literature showed him that 96% of all published articles found some sort of negative effect of marijuana, and almost no articles showed a benefit, especially compared to existing approved medications. However, a couple of anecdotal cases coming out of the states that had legalized medicinal marijuana in SPITE of the federal governments laws caused him to go back and reexamine the funding model. In retrospect it shouldn’t have been surprising, but he learned that 96% of all funded research was to look for negative effects of marijuana, and that to get funded and permission to get government grown pot was so difficult that there simply weren’t all that many papers in the first place. In well over thirty years of intensive examination, all of the examination was literally preselected to find problems, almost none to find benefits, and one had to walk on water and push much paper to do either one (and relatively few scientists had bothered).
That caused him to examine the body of emerging, still anecdotal, evidence from the states that had legalized medical marijuana. They showed that — again unsurprisingly — marijuana is a rich pharmacopeia with multiple legitimate medical uses that could survived double blind placebo controlled investigation, while at the same time having minimal side effects and no known lethal dose. Perhaps he came to realize that its negative effects might, conceivably, have been a bit exaggerated or might arise from confounding uncontrolled elements. Confirmation bias is, after all, the bete noir of science.
This situation almost perfectly matches the evolution of “climate science”. Nobody cared about it for decades, but suddenly a group of individuals emerged that all benefited from the demonization of carbon. This included environmental groups, that hated civilization itself and the burning of anything (as long, of course, as their own lifestyle was preserved), energy producers that saw in this the opportunity to triple or quadruple their profits by creating artificial scarcity of a plentiful resource, politicians that saw in this the opportunity to raise taxes, get elected on a world-saving “issue”, and perhaps line their own pockets along the way, and a United Nations that saw an opportunity to transform it into a way to tax the rich nations and transfer money to developing nations (while again lining various pockets along the way). The role of Anslinger was admirably met by one James Hansen, a True Believer who never stinted and does not stint today in exaggerating the data and claims of disaster (five meter sea level rise! temperatures like that on Venus!). And suddenly, quite literally all funded research was on how burning carbon was bad for the climate.
Even completely ethical scientists have to eat, and if the only way they can eat is to get funded, and the only way they can get funded is to submit proposals that seek to prove that CO_2 is bad, guess what they will propose to study? And if they want to get funded AGAIN, guess what they will find? Climate science has been effectively corrupted beyond any hope of objectivity.
On the good side of things, scientists are actually usually pretty ethical. Also, in the end data talks, bullshit walks. The hypothesis of CAGW or CACC could, in fact, be true (across a wide spectrum of the meaning of “true”, in fact). However, recent data is not in good correspondence with the theories that have predicted it, and many good scientists are in the process of reassessing their conclusions. As is the almost simultaneous case with regard to marijuana, the confounding evidence is starting to overwhelm to narrowly funded and directed arguments to date. We will see where the future takes us, in both cases.
======================================================
Addendum by Anthony:
1. I have added links to historical references into the essay along with some small edits [in brackets] for clarity.
2. This paragraph:
A period of research then ensued. If you wanted to study pot, you had to both get funded and get the experimental marijuana from a single, small farm in Mississippi that grew “legal” pot for this purpose.
Has a parallel with source data for global warming research. If you want to study the surface temperature record, there is one source: NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) who is not only the administrator, collator and keeper of the surface temperature record for the United States, but also the world via their Global Historical Climatological Network (GHCN). All other surface temperature datasets, HadCRUT, GISS, and even the supposedly independent BEST, are derivatives and/or custom interpretations of this source data, which as we know, is custom blended with NCDC’s own set of adjustments.
Like with pot research, the government is again the only source for data to study the surface record.
And people wonder why I spend so much time and effort to examine weather stations and adjustments.
Magnus Pyke comment (as far as I can remember) on the subject: Anyone who wishes to aspire to great achievement is well advised to avoid drugs.
Pot, like LSD, provides the illusion of insight, and the sensation of enlightenment, without the substance.
Tom in Florida says:
August 22, 2013 at 8:39 am
Tom, I don’t know what your generation is but I was part of the Boomer generation.
I have never smoked pot. In fact, now that I think about it, I have never touched it.
Been in places (hard not to) where the air reeked of the smell. In all these cases, left quickly.
Honestly, never touched the stuff.
Any other abstainers out there?
Pamela Gray says:
August 22, 2013 at 9:19 am
Pamela,
Excellent observation. Is the pot smoking a result of schizophrenia or a cause?
Unfortunately, I also happen to have some knowledge of schizophrenia. A very close, very dear, and very honest friend raised a son with serious schizophrenia. She had always maintained it was the pot smoking causing the disease. However, as you pointed out, it is quite possible her son was dealing with the early subclinical consequences with pot. His mother noted the pot use and the subsequent schizophrenia development. It was very reasonable for her to draw the conclusion she did. However, she may have been wrong in her reasoning.
Another possible explanation, pot smoking may simply be the act of pulling the trigger on the genetically loaded schizophrenia found in some individuals.
BTW, I always enjoy your comments.
Tamara says:
August 22, 2013 at 9:35 am
Tamara,
I appreciate your observation. It is true there should be requirements for safety, purity, and efficacy for drugs. Sad to say, there is an increasing body of evidence to suggest pharmaceutical companies game the system designed to protect the public. Some tricks of the trade: ghost writing articles for physicians to sign in various journals, not revealing the studies indicating dangerous side effects or lack of efficacy, attempting to denigrate the early reports of a drug killing people, not revealing the simple fact many of the drugs coming out are analogs of naturally occurring substances and not very effective analogs at that, hyping conditions not needing to be controlled (“high” cholesterol is a personal favorite of mine), misleading statistical reports of efficacy, etc.
The result is about 100,000 people die every year from properly prescribed and administered drugs approved by the FDA.
I have thought for a long time there should be a way to test the contents of any substance being rolled out as a ‘cure’ for disease. Some sort of organization completely independent of govt and business influences. I would like to be able to send a sample of say, St. John’s Wort, to this lab and get a report on its actual contents.
Have we gotten to the first anniversary of the impending release of the “game changer” study?
policycritic says:
August 22, 2013 at 3:57 pm
policycritic,
I did some checking on the published literature regarding glioma and THC.
Here’s one result:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19425170
Try this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21233844
Third time is a charm:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16804518
If I found myself, or one of my loved ones, afflicted with glioma, I would definitely run someone down using THC for its apparent anti tumor qualities.
The point that anything can be demonized or used to create a false scarcity to line somebody’s pockets is a valid one, you might have chosen a slightly less problematical example or better yet a more suitable vilified belief system. While the abuse of Pot does not make it a benign substance or victimless crime anymore than abusing a gun, the proper use of the marijuana plant has many benefits just as a gun does and likewise it is a shame that the rest of us have to deal with the fall out of those who are irresponsible.
But just to gore the ox of the Libertarians who blindly push for the legalization of Pot Abuse by smoking it, consider that putting anything into your body that shouldn’t be there has consequences. Just because it is a “natural substance” doesn’t make it benign, you can kill yourself by over using aspirin. A recent study I heard of fingered smoking pot as one of the key triggers for schizophrenia in twenty somethings. Honestly, do you really want to be a brainless pot head stumbling around via diminished mental capacity, albeit a temporary effect, just as an alcoholic? There are few things more pathetic than someone who has chosen diminished mental capacity. Just imagine what your lungs look like from smoking pot. You really think that is healthy? The case for legalizing anything to abuse it is in itself a case against it. What next, legalize huffing of spray paint and shoe polish? I have seen the results of that behavior and society doesn’t need more people who can’t or won’t be self sufficient due to their self destructive dysfunction. And no Libertarians, society is just not going to leave them in the gutter and step over them. Their self destructive behavior costs society and therefore society has a right to ban certain behaviors that incur said costs. Claiming we should legalize the abuse of the marijuana plant because the active ingredient THC has some medicinal uses is like demanding we legalize morphine abuse because it has medicinal properties. It’s just plain stupid illogical reasoning but then rational logic has nothing to do with substance abuse, just a cover for abuse.
David Smith says:
August 22, 2013 at 4:15 pm
David,
This website attracts liberty loving people.
There are many freedoms I cherish. The most important freedom in my mind is being able to gather the facts for any topic I might be interested in. Some of the biggest mistakes I’ve made in my life were made when I was operating under false assumptions. In some cases, I was willfully ignorant; in others, I was lied to.
I’m much more careful now in making decisions and advising others while they make decisions.
I always ask, even on topics I know something about, why do I believe this? I might go through a rather involved investigation if the question is important or interesting enough. Or maybe not. It might be a cursory examination. But now I always ask: why do I believe this?
What I love about this blog is the large collection of experts on almost any topic imaginable. It never ceases to amaze and delight me to have people roll out of woodwork and provide some real insight into topics I may never have known existed. Or, new understandings of topics I thought I knew.
I have had to change my mind on several topics due to statements found here.
None of this would be possible without freedom to explore the world of knowledge.
Obviously, this does not please some organizations and individuals. These groups and individuals will do everything in their power to conceal information contrary to their interests.
The typical comments found on this blog reveals a group of individuals who don’t like these traits of some organizations and individuals.
I’m not surprised at all people here did not attack you for your honestly held position.
But try lying or misrepresenting something.
John Eggert says:
August 22, 2013 at 7:53 am
Pot does have a lethal dose. Bruce Lee died of a hash overdose. It is difficult to OD by smoking as the effect from smoking is very rapid and you pass out before you get hurt. Eat enough high potency pot and you will indeed die of an overdose. That being said, there is enough cyanide in 15 pounds of almonds to kill a human as well. Good luck getting that into your stomach all at once.
The cyanide in apricot and almond and grasses and other nuts and fruit seeds is the form of a nitriloside that is only absorbed by anaerobic metabolism. The animal kingdom is aerobic metabolism thus the nitriloside is non-toxic. In metabolism, nitriloside is hydrolyzed to free hydrogen cyanide, benzaldehyde or acetone and sugar. This occurs largely through the enzyme Beta-glucosidase produced by intestinal bacteria as well as by the body. The released HCN [hydrocyanide] is detoxified by the enzyme rhodanese to the relatively non-toxic thiocyanate molecule. The sugar is normally metabolized. The released benzaldehyde in the presence of oxygen is immediately oxidized to benzoic acid which is non-toxic. Thus, the aerobic metabolism.
Its lethal dose, by injection, is about 25,000 milligrams per kilogram of body weight. By mouth it is less than 1/20 as toxic as aspirin.
As with the marijuana, big AMA, Pharma, and FDA have falsely demonized nitrilocide as dangerous to human consumption; however it destroys anaerobic cancer cells that thrive on blood glucose by accepting the nitrilocide as food in the cell’s mitochondria release of hydrocyanide. The reason cancer was known as “consumption” is that developing cancer puts huge demand on blood glucose levels which drives the body to self-digest.
Terry Oldberg says:
August 22, 2013 at 8:11 am
On the whole, Dr. Brown does an excellent job. However, there is an inaccuracy and it is an important one. He says that “…recent data is not in good correspondence with the theories that have predicted it” ; Actually, the climate models are not “theories” in the scientific sense of the word and they do not “predict” but rather “project.” A model that predicts supplies information to a maker of policy on CO2 emissions about the outcomes from his or her policy decisions. A model which, like the current crop of climate models, “projects” provides a policy maker with no information.
————————————————————————————–
Whether models predict or project and whether or not they provide useful facts is evidenced in the actions of the end users and the scientists supplying the pseudo data.
In this case world governments, NGOs and MSM are using the model outputs as predictions, period. No honest scientist or other professional would lie like this.
Scientists not only predict CAGW, they encourage (maybe demand is a better word) governments to use their predictions.
That may be the way you define models and you may twist, stretch and bend this as much as you want but you’re wrong about the models and how they are being used.
The public doesn’t know the difference, but THE TEAM does…..and they lie.
cn
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
In making arguments about global warming, climatologists often use a harder to detect form of deception than a lie. It is the so-called “equivocation fallacy.” I describe this fallacy and the ways in which climatologists use it in reaching false or unproved conclusions in the peer-reviewed article at http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=7923 .
One of the ways in which climatologists create equivocation fallacies is by conflating the words “predict” and “project.” In his article, Dr. Brown is guilty of doing this. When you state that “Scientists not only predict CAGW, they encourage (maybe demand is a better word) governments to use their predictions” you are guilty of doing this.
The word “predict” has a precise meaning and this meaning differs from the meaning of “project.” Climate models make no predictions. They do make projections.
Governments, NGOs and mainstream media are among those who have been duped by the equivocation fallacy into thinking that the climate models make predictions when they do not make them. A model that makes predictions conveys information to a policy maker about the outcomes from his or her policy decisions. A model that makes no predictions conveys no such information to a policy maker. Policy makers have been robbed of all of the information which they think they have through the agency of the equivocation fallacy.
Pamela Grey,
your reply is the only mention of “Adult psychosis.” I have seen, but perhaps I missed seeing it some where. Why do you think it import ant to mention it? As a physician since 1987 I have treated many suffering psychotic symptoms and schizophrenia.
For “know(ing) about schizophrenia”, your statement sans documentation “likely has early subclinical signs that become clinically manifest, usually, by age 18” , is mistaken. Mild negative symptoms are quite common and non specific among adolescents. Incidentally nearly all cannabis users experience at least one negative psychotic symptom every time they use cannabis.
Your hypothesis concerning onset of cannabis use is interesting but also only speculation. You to then go on to specify the order of onset of sub clinical disease first and implying secondary pot use as a form of self medication is pointless and directly akin to alarmist stating CO2 is causing warming even though there is absolutely no intermediate proof showing causation or even association. In fact if your theory were correct there would be no increase in risk of schizophrenia for cannabis users compared to non-users. In fact Dr. Brown made the error in his statement in his article. Please revisit Dr Brown’s statement ” …and usually does not make you insane unless you are most of the way there on your own already.”
The two studies I cited above were, however, showed strong indicators of increased risk of psychosis associated with cannabis use. There is about a 3% risk in the general population, by age 26 years, for overt psychosis predominately schizophrenia, but a 10% risk associated with teenage onset cannabis use. There are many other studies supporting this finding, and the skill of this finding is strong. Does correlation prove causation? Of course not, but in the current situation of not knowing fully the neuro-psychiatric effects of cannabis it is a great incentive for caution.
Beyond that, It is clear that cannabis use before age 25 (risk increasing with A. early cannabis use onset, and B. female gender) there is at least a two fold increase in risk (over the general population) of developing Schizophrenia. It seems probable that some or even half would become schizophrenic later in life even without cannabis use. But others seem to be tipped over the clinical diagnostic edge by cannabis use, and at a much earlier time in their life. Some studies suggest up to a three fold risk. Clearly by some mechanism cannabis affects developing humans more than most users and advocates appreciate.
There are many studies on the effects of cannabis use on developing human brains.
Consider Impact of Marijuana on Children and Adolescents, CSAM WEBSITE Evidence-‐Based Information on Cannabis/Marijuana (http://www.csam-asam.org/sites/default/files/impact_of_marijuana_on_children_and_adolescents.pdf)
“…marijuana use during adolescence has been found to contribute to asymmetrical increases in the size of the hippocampi, structures that are critical for learning and memory(Scallet, Uemura et al. 1987; Medina, Schweinsburg et al. 2007). The cerebellum, important for concentration and fine motor control, is enlarged in young marijuana users(Medina, Nagel et al.). The amygdalae, important for emotionality, have been found to be asymmetrically enlarged in female marijuana users(McQueeny, Padula et al. 2011). And the frontal cortex has been shown to be thinner in adolescent marijuana users, particularly in those who began smoking at earlier ages(Churchwell, Lopez-‐Larson et al. 2010). Measures of impulsivity were also higher the thinner the cortex, indicating that structural changes have functional consequences….Not only does the brain’s natural endocannabinoid neural system undergo development throughout adolescence, but it also helps guide the development of the rest of the brain. The proper laying down of nerve tracts within the brain is facilitated by our natural cannabinoids(Romero, Garcia-‐Palomero et al. 1997). Even the maturation of other neurotransmitter systems is influenced by our endogenous cannabinoid system(Trezza, Cuomo et al. 2008). Exposure to excessive cannabinoid stimulation from the outside during early phases of development has been shown to alter the normal development of endorphin, glutamate, GABA, serotonin and catecholamine (e.g., adrenaline and dopamine) neural systems.”
Does cannabis have beneficial effects? My great grandmother thought so. She grew it in her back yard (seeds brought from Czechoslovakia) in Texas till the 1960’s when she was told it was illegal. She used to make a tea from the leaves and buds, and used it for aches and pains. But Cannabis use is a serious health hazard to those under age 25 years.
Patrick says: @ur momisugly August 22, 2013 at 9:54 am
“rgbatduke says:
August 22, 2013 at 9:50 am
As is aspirin,…”
Came from coal!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
HUH? Aspirin is from willow bark. It was originally made into a tea.
Another comment on Hemp smoking, aspirin, tylenol, ibeprofen and hemp smoking. I was suffering from a ‘Slipped’ Disk and on perscription meds. A neighbor convinced me to try a couple puffs of hemp. It killed the pain and eased the muscle spasms without the side effects from the meds. Unfortunately it is illegal so I am still on the ^&$% pain killers instead which has mucked up my stomach and no doubt my liver too.
I’d do it for more cancers than a glioma. Watch the movie I link to at August 22, 2013 at 4:15 pm. It’s not scientific, but it’s authentic. As I wrote above, I gave this film to my sister-in-law for her sister-in-law who was diagnosed terminal in her 30s. She’s in remission now after the European doctors did what was in this film.
However, there is a greater public danger lurking in all this that no one knows about because the press is remiss in covering it. The woman in this article is a volunteer investigating “grows” on public lands in CA. The Mexican cartel is using public lands to grow marijuana brutalizing Mexicans they haul across the border to watch their crops. You can read the entire article at the link, but this is the salient part towards the bottom of the article, and one you should print off for any teenager or young adult you care about who smokes it. This info came out in March, 2013
http://www.theweeklings.com/kago/2013/03/12/the-mexican-connection-part-i-cannabis-wrecks/
We need legalization and we need it fast.
Onlooker from Troy says:
August 22, 2013 at 10:14 am
David
I agree. It’s the prohibition itself that causes the greater harm to society. It creates the black market and empowers those who will be brutal in the growth & defense of their business. (and on and on) We learned nothing from our great prohibition experiment. Absolutely nothing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes we did Learn something. Once a bureaucracy is created it will live on even if its original purpose is gone. (Think NASA and Muslim outreach …rolls eyes)
Pfizer used to have this posted on their web site (sited at bottom). It is an example of the great harm being inflicted by pharmaceauticals and their abitility to control the AMA, insurance, and FDA. Alway research thoroughly before being duped by doctors who can’t seem to think for themselves.
There are many other examples of our government agencies boldly spreading misinformation for the purpose of agenda promotion regardless of the long term damage to the public. CAGW is just another in the list and look at how many publications like National Geographic have followed off the cliff as ponds.
LIPITOR
The following adverse events were reported, regardless of causality assessment in patients treated with atorvastatin in clinical trials.
Body as a Whole: Chest pain, face edema, fever, neck rigidity, malaise, photosensitivity reaction, generalized edema.
Digestive System: Nausea, gastroenteritis, liver function tests abnormal, colitis, vomiting, gastritis, dry mouth, rectal hemorrhage, esophagitis, eructation, glossitis, mouth ulceration, anorexia, increased appetite, stomatitis, biliary pain, cheilitis, duodenal ulcer, dysphagia, enteritis, melena, gum hemorrhage, stomach ulcer, tenesmus, ulcerative stomatitis, hepatitis, pancreatitis, cholestatic jaundice.
Respiratory System: Bronchitis, rhinitis, pneumonia, dyspnea, asthma, epistaxis.
Nervous System: Insomnia, dizziness, paresthesia, somnolence, amnesia, abnormal dreams, libido decreased, emotional lability, incoordination, peripheral neuropathy, torticollis, facial paralysis, hyperkinesia, depression, hypesthesia, hypertonia.
Musculoskeletal System: Arthritis, leg cramps, bursitis, tenosynovitis, myasthenia, tendinous contracture, myositis.
Skin and Appendages: Pruritus, contact dermatitis, alopecia, dry skin, sweating, acne, urticaria, eczema, seborrhea, skin ulcer.
Urogenital System: Urinary tract infection, urinary frequency, cystitis, hematuria, impotence, dysuria, kidney calculus, nocturia, epididymitis, fibrocystic breast, vaginal hemorrhage, albuminuria, breast enlargement, metrorrhagia, nephritis, urinary incontinence, urinary retention, urinary urgency, abnormal ejaculation, uterine hemorrhage.
Special Senses: Amblyopia, tinnitus, dry eyes, refraction disorder, eye hemorrhage, deafness, glaucoma, parosmia, taste loss, taste perversion.
Cardiovascular System: Palpitation, vasodilatation, syncope, migraine, postural hypotension, phlebitis, arrhythmia, angina pectoris, hypertension.
Metabolic and Nutritional Disorders: Peripheral edema, hyperglycemia, creatine phosphokinase increased, gout, weight gain, hypoglycemia.
Hemic and Lymphatic System: Ecchymosis, anemia, lymphadenopathy, thrombocytopenia, petechia
REFERENCE:
http://www.lipitor.com/cwp/appmanager/lipitor/lipitorDesktop?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=prescribingInformation#contraindications
Trust me when I say I wasn’t always that way. Until May 2008, I was intransigent on the issue for decades. If I found out you smoked dope (ingested, whatever) I mentally drew a big X on your face and you were removed from my sphere of operation. No exceptions. it was a physical, mental, and spiritual, crime as far as I was concerned.
I was misinformed. I bought the govt line. I was willing to believe without investigation, research, or objectivity, and I was willing, obviously, to be manipulated emotionally. Not a pretty sight of myself, but accurate.
As far as I’m concerned, everyone should be free to grow two Indica White Widow plants in their bathroom (with grow lights and extra CO2), and should be able to go to their local Fire Department on the weekends to make the hemp oil under their watchful eye for safety concerns. White Widow plants are the ones with sufficient THC to cure. You can buy the seeds from England. Legally. If you ever get cancer, you might want to know this. Takes ten weeks to grow.
Janice Moore says:
August 22, 2013 at 11:26 am
There are many harmful effects of chronic marijuana use, e.g., as was pointed out above, memory impairment (lol, Bob B.) and respiratory ailments, making it, IMO, a noxious substance I am happy to have banned from the public square…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And how much of that is actual and how much is due to a well orchestrated propaganda campaign? I know of several members of society who are brilliant contributers to society and who smoke. Except for one try of cigarettes and one of MJ I am a user of neither I don’t even drink coffee, another drug and alcohol very rarely.
What people are missing is a six year old can now go into Mommy’s purse and buy drugs on the playground. The police do not even bother to arrest drug dealers they just wait till he has sold most of the drugs and confiscate the cash under civil asset forfeiture laws. No need to make an arrest, no need to go to court and “..Over $7 billion has been forfeited to the federal government since 1985…”
In other words the ‘War on Drugs” is actually a profit making enterprise and has nothing to do with public protection.
Dr. Brown also failed to mention the Private Prison Profits Skyrocket, As Executives Assure Investors Of ‘Growing Offender Population’
If you wanted ‘useful slaves’ for your industry, do you want murders, rapists, and thugs or do you want a nice mellow pothead who won’t give you any trouble?
ALWAYS FOLLOW THE MONEY!
Great piece. That 96% number is certainly a consensus.
Typo: ” starting to overwhelm to narrowly funded”
(Disclaimer: Yeah, so, I read the article all the way to the end. I’m boring.)
Great comment Gail.
“Gail Combs says:
August 23, 2013 at 9:52 am
In other words the ‘War on Drugs” is actually a profit making enterprise and has nothing to do with public protection.”
Ya think?
M Courtney says:
August 22, 2013 at 12:03 pm
This post is clearly not intended to be a post. It is a conversational aside…
Personally, I’d legalise all drugs and advertise the deleterious effects. If people knowingly make that choice, let them.
After all, they may be right and I may be wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes and while you are at it legalize AND REGULATE Prostitution and Gambling. We now have the computer systems that would allow ‘restricted’ gambling. That is you can only bet a percentage of your net income. Prostitution should be regulated for health reasons and for the safety of the ‘Ladies’ and most of all for the safety of children ensnared into the trade and kept there via drugs/violence.
We waste a heck of a lot of resources on ‘Policing’ drugs, prostitution and gambling instead of concentrating on actual crimes like murder, assault, rape, theft and fraud. Just try to get the modern legal system to move on a theft. From past experience (multiple) I can tell you IT AIN’T GONNA HAPPEN. You can have the person, the evidence, witnesses and they still aren’t interested.
Coke isn’t a problem in Ecuador, when it is consumed by chewing on coca leaves, which similarly limits the dose consumed. Effectively, it’s like coffee, as a mild stimulant — and one that increases worker productivity, at least in manual chores.
So how about trying this first? The grocery store would sell vegetables like broccoli, carrots, etc. that had been marinated in dilute solutions of cocaine, opiates, etc. In terms of grams per dollar, these would be cheaper than what is available on the street. But to extract those grams users would have to consume lots of veggies–and doing so would take lots of time and thus put an effective limit on the amount consumed per session.
In addition, there’d be nutritional benefits from all this veggie consumption.
DirkH says: @ur momisugly August 22, 2013 at 12:07 pm
…..I would expect ANY society that hands out highly addictive psychotrope substances like candy to collapse within a decade and be replaced by a saner one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well there goes the USA….
Perhaps we would be better off piping a bit of MJ smoke into the schools. /sarc