| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Fredric L. Rice" |
| Date: |
17 Oct 2005 01:35:53 AM |
| Object: |
Smoke dope. It's good for you. |
Actually the study is almost certainly *****.
-=-
Marijuana might cause new cell growth in the brain
* 22:00 13 October 2005
* NewScientist.com news service
* Kurt Kleiner
A synthetic chemical similar to the active ingredient in marijuana makes
new cells grow in rat brains. What is more, in rats this cell growth
appears to be linked with reducing anxiety and depression. The results
suggest that marijuana, or its derivatives, could actually be good for
the brain.
In mammals, new nerve cells are constantly being produced in a part of
the brain called the hippocampus, which is associated with learning,
memory, anxiety and depression. Other recreational drugs, such as
alcohol, nicotine and cocaine, have been shown to suppress this new
growth. Xia Zhang of the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon,
Canada, and colleagues decided to see what effects a synthetic
cannabinoid called HU210 had on rats' brains.
They found that giving rats high doses of HU210 twice a day for 10 days
increased the rate of nerve cell formation, or neurogenesis, in the
hippocampus by about 40%.
Just like Prozac?
A previous study showed that the antidepressant fluoxetine (Prozac) also
increases new cell growth, and the results indicated that it was this
cell growth that caused Prozac’s anti-anxiety effect. Zhang wondered
whether this was also the case for the cannabinoid, and so he tested the
rats for behavioural changes.
When the rats who had received the cannabinoid were placed under stress,
they showed fewer signs of anxiety and depression than rats who had not
had the treatment. When neurogenesis was halted in these rats using
X-rays, this effect disappeared, indicating that the new cell growth
might be responsible for the behavioural changes.
In another study, Barry Jacobs, a neuroscientist at Princeton
University, gave mice the natural cannabinoid found in marijuana, THC
(D9-tetrahydrocannabinol)). But he says he detected no neurogenesis, no
matter what dose he gave or the length of time he gave it for. He will
present his results at the Society for Neuroscience meeting in
Washington DC in November.
Jacobs says it could be that HU210 and THC do not have the same effect
on cell growth. It could also be the case that cannabinoids behave
differently in different rodent species - which leaves open the question
of how they behave in humans.
Zhang says more research is needed before it is clear whether
cannabinoids could some day be used to treat depression in humans.
Journal reference: Journal of Clinical Investigation (DOI:10.1172/JCI25509)
---
http://www.ElmerFudd.US/ http://www.notserver.com/
http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
http://www.rightard.org/ http://www.thedarkwind.org/
Bush is a Christian. Get over it!
.
|
|
| User: "Nog" |
|
| Title: Re: Smoke dope. It's good for you. |
18 Oct 2005 10:25:38 AM |
|
|
"Fredric L. Rice" <FRice@SkepticTank.ORG> wrote in message
news:11l6histkvr4h65@corp.supernews.com...
Actually the study is almost certainly *****.
-=-
Marijuana might cause new cell growth in the brain
* 22:00 13 October 2005
* NewScientist.com news service
* Kurt Kleiner
A synthetic chemical similar to the active ingredient in marijuana makes
new cells grow in rat brains. What is more, in rats this cell growth
appears to be linked with reducing anxiety and depression. The results
suggest that marijuana, or its derivatives, could actually be good for
the brain.
In mammals, new nerve cells are constantly being produced in a part of
the brain called the hippocampus, which is associated with learning,
memory, anxiety and depression. Other recreational drugs, such as
alcohol, nicotine and cocaine, have been shown to suppress this new
growth. Xia Zhang of the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon,
Canada, and colleagues decided to see what effects a synthetic
cannabinoid called HU210 had on rats' brains.
They found that giving rats high doses of HU210 twice a day for 10 days
increased the rate of nerve cell formation, or neurogenesis, in the
hippocampus by about 40%.
Just like Prozac?
A previous study showed that the antidepressant fluoxetine (Prozac) also
increases new cell growth, and the results indicated that it was this
cell growth that caused Prozac's anti-anxiety effect. Zhang wondered
whether this was also the case for the cannabinoid, and so he tested the
rats for behavioural changes.
When the rats who had received the cannabinoid were placed under stress,
they showed fewer signs of anxiety and depression than rats who had not
had the treatment. When neurogenesis was halted in these rats using
X-rays, this effect disappeared, indicating that the new cell growth
might be responsible for the behavioural changes.
In another study, Barry Jacobs, a neuroscientist at Princeton
University, gave mice the natural cannabinoid found in marijuana, THC
(D9-tetrahydrocannabinol)). But he says he detected no neurogenesis, no
matter what dose he gave or the length of time he gave it for. He will
present his results at the Society for Neuroscience meeting in
Washington DC in November.
Jacobs says it could be that HU210 and THC do not have the same effect
on cell growth. It could also be the case that cannabinoids behave
differently in different rodent species - which leaves open the question
of how they behave in humans.
Zhang says more research is needed before it is clear whether
cannabinoids could some day be used to treat depression in humans.
Journal reference: Journal of Clinical Investigation
(DOI:10.1172/JCI25509)
---
http://www.ElmerFudd.US/ http://www.notserver.com/
http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
http://www.rightard.org/ http://www.thedarkwind.org/
Bush is a Christian. Get over it!
The government is spending billions and billions to eradicate a harmless
weed. But it's ok to send kids off to Iraq to die!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fredric L. Rice" |
|
| Title: Re: Smoke dope. It's good for you. |
18 Oct 2005 03:01:03 PM |
|
|
"Nog" <iiiiiiiiii8@verizon.net> wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <FRice@SkepticTank.ORG> wrote in message
news:11l6histkvr4h65@corp.supernews.com...
Actually the study is almost certainly *****.
Marijuana might cause new cell growth in the brain
The government is spending billions and billions to eradicate
a harmless weed. But it's ok to send kids off to Iraq to die!
Funny since it's growing all over the San Gabriel Mountains in side
canyons. The government goes through and rips up the weeds that are
easy to get to, the stuff that people can get to by driving their
cars. But they don't even try to rip up the weeds in the canyons
far from the roads.
There was a project back in the 1970's called the California Repot
Project where millions of pot seeds to donated and collected at a
central organization -- which were then spread in the hills,
mountains, and along freeways. The project was a failure because
California is a desert and most places don't have enough water --
except along freeways where the authorities easily ripped them up.
---
http://www.ElmerFudd.US/ http://www.notserver.com/
http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
http://www.rightard.org/ http://www.thedarkwind.org/
Bush is a Christian. Get over it!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Heath" |
|
| Title: Re: Smoke dope. It's good for you. |
17 Oct 2005 09:37:23 PM |
|
|
"Fredric L. Rice" <FRice@SkepticTank.ORG> wrote in message
news:11l6histkvr4h65@corp.supernews.com...
Actually the study is almost certainly *****.
-=-
Marijuana might cause new cell growth in the brain
* 22:00 13 October 2005
* NewScientist.com news service
* Kurt Kleiner
A synthetic chemical similar to the active ingredient in marijuana makes
new cells grow in rat brains. What is more, in rats this cell growth
appears to be linked with reducing anxiety and depression. The results
suggest that marijuana, or its derivatives, could actually be good for
the brain.
In mammals, new nerve cells are constantly being produced in a part of
the brain called the hippocampus, which is associated with learning,
memory, anxiety and depression. Other recreational drugs, such as
alcohol, nicotine and cocaine, have been shown to suppress this new
growth. Xia Zhang of the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon,
Canada, and colleagues decided to see what effects a synthetic
cannabinoid called HU210 had on rats' brains.
They found that giving rats high doses of HU210 twice a day for 10 days
increased the rate of nerve cell formation, or neurogenesis, in the
hippocampus by about 40%.
Just like Prozac?
A previous study showed that the antidepressant fluoxetine (Prozac) also
increases new cell growth, and the results indicated that it was this
cell growth that caused Prozac's anti-anxiety effect. Zhang wondered
whether this was also the case for the cannabinoid, and so he tested the
rats for behavioural changes.
When the rats who had received the cannabinoid were placed under stress,
they showed fewer signs of anxiety and depression than rats who had not
had the treatment. When neurogenesis was halted in these rats using
X-rays, this effect disappeared, indicating that the new cell growth
might be responsible for the behavioural changes.
In another study, Barry Jacobs, a neuroscientist at Princeton
University, gave mice the natural cannabinoid found in marijuana, THC
(D9-tetrahydrocannabinol)). But he says he detected no neurogenesis, no
matter what dose he gave or the length of time he gave it for. He will
present his results at the Society for Neuroscience meeting in
Washington DC in November.
Jacobs says it could be that HU210 and THC do not have the same effect
on cell growth. It could also be the case that cannabinoids behave
differently in different rodent species - which leaves open the question
of how they behave in humans.
Zhang says more research is needed before it is clear whether
cannabinoids could some day be used to treat depression in humans.
Cannabinoids have been used to treat many malidies one would suspect
depression as well, for many many years. Actually it was one of the first
herbal treatments in use by man and was the main drug of choice between 1000
BCE to about 1900 CE. Between 1842 - 1890 Extracts and derivatives of the
hemp plant are the second and third most prescribed medicines in the U.S.A.
Eli Lilly, Parke-Davis, Squibb, Brothers Smith and other firms produce these
medicines through 1930. During this time, not one death or severe
side-effect is attributed to use.
Of course the AMA and isn't going to be adding it to the standard formulary
any time soon.
But then for the last 40 years the government has actively propagandized the
US about the dangers of Hemp despite the thousands upon thousands of studies
in the US and around the world to the contrary. Not only that in 1983 The
Reagan/Bush Administration "softly" requests that every American university
destroy all 1966-76 cannabis research work, including compendiums in
libraries.
Sounds just like the Christians in the early centuries of the last
millennium doesn't it.
Re: Smoke dope. It's good for you?
Well I have to say running out and smoking a bunch of dope is not a hot tip
either, but, on the other hand there is plenty of good evidence that it
isn't going to hurt you and does have beneficial properties. Is it going to
"grow brain cells" who knows, more studies probably need to be done.
Sounds like a bit of political dogma that you are spreading, without looking
at the whole picture.
http://www.gozarks.com/hemp/index.htm
THE BIG PICTURE
Experts conservatively estimate that the legalization of hemp as a food,
fiber, cellulose, biomass crop and medicine has the potential to be the
world's largest industry, generating 500 billion to one trillion dollars
annually. This industry would be agriculturally based, breathing new life
into small-scale farms (not to mention our sagging U.S. economy), and would
be much more environmentally friendly than petro-chemical based resource
exploitation.
Also, as ozone depletion threatens the cultivation of many food crops (soy
bean production, for example, could be reduced by 30% to 50% due to higher
ultra-violet radiation), hemp is the one known crop that is ultra-violet
light tolerant and actually thrives with higher levels of this radiation.
Modern day science has conducted over 10,000 studies into the effects of
cannabis. Over 4,000 of these were done in the U.S.A. Of all these studies
only about a dozen showed any negative effects of cannabis use and other
scientists, endeavoring to replicate these studies, have been unable to draw
the same negative conclusions.
Documented therapeutic use of cannabis has shown benefit to 80% of
asthmatics, 90% of glaucoma patients, 60% of epileptics, and could safely
substitute for 50% of all sleeping pills, muscle relaxers, headache
treatments and stress reducing medication. Cannabis is a complex, highly
evolved plant. There are some 400 compounds in its smoke. Of these, at least
60 are known to have therapeutic value and the others, due to prohibiting
regulations, are fundamentally un-researched.
Carlton Turner, Drug Czar under Reagan, states that kids deserve to die as
punishment from smoking paraquat poisoned pot in order to teach them a
lesson.
Later Larry
aa # 2216
Journal reference: Journal of Clinical Investigation
(DOI:10.1172/JCI25509)
---
http://www.ElmerFudd.US/ http://www.notserver.com/
http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
http://www.rightard.org/ http://www.thedarkwind.org/
Bush is a Christian. Get over it!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dore" |
|
| Title: Re: Smoke dope. It's good for you. |
17 Oct 2005 06:50:25 PM |
|
|
"Fredric L. Rice" <FRice@SkepticTank.ORG> wrote in message
news:11l6histkvr4h65@corp.supernews.com...
Actually the study is almost certainly *****.
Why? marijuana has proven that it heals glaucoma, cancer and removes the
side affects of chemotherapy. In fact, they have found absolutely NO
negative affects from marijuana use.
#22 U.S. Government Repressed Marijuana-Tumor Research
Alternet
May 31, 2000
Title: Pot Shrinks Tumors; Government Knew in ‘74
Author: Raymond Cushing
www.alternet.org/print.html?StoryID=9257
Faculty Evaluator: Mary King M.D.
Student researchers: Jennifer Swift, Licia Marshall,
Corporate media coverage: AP and UPI news wires 2/29/00
A Spanish medical team’s study released in Madrid in February 2000 has
shown that tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the active chemical in
marijuana,
destroys tumors in lab rats. These findings, however, are not news to
the
U.S. government. A study in Virginia in 1974 yielded similar results
but
was suppressed by the DEA, and in 1983 the Reagan/Bush administration
tried to persuade U.S. universities and researchers to destroy all
cannabis research work done between 1966 and 1976, including
compendiums
in libraries.
The research was conducted by a medical team led by Dr. Manuel Guzman
of
Complutence University in Madrid. In the study, brains of 45 lab rats
were
injected with a cancer cell, which produced tumors. On the twelfth day
of
the experiment, 15 of the rats were injected with THC and 15 with
Win-55,
212-2, a synthetic compound similar to THC. The untreated rats died
12-18
days after the development of the tumors. THC treated rats lived
significantly longer than the control group. Although three were
unaffected by the THC, nine lived 19-35 days, while tumors were
completely
eradicated in three others. The rats treated with Win-55,212-2 showed
similar results.
In an e-mail interview for this story, the Madrid researcher said he
had
heard of the Virginia study, but had never been able to locate
literature
on it. "I am aware of the existence of that research. In fact I have
attempted many times to obtain the journal article on the original
investigation by theses people, but it has proven impossible," Guzman
said. His response wasn’t surprising, considering that in 1983 the
Reagan/Bush administration tried to persuade American universities and
researchers to destroy all 1966/76 cannabis research work, including
compendiums in libraries, reports Jack Herer. "We know that large
amounts
of information have since disappeared," he says.
Guzman provided the title of the work—"Antineoplastic Activity of
Cannabinoids," an article in a 1975 Journal of the National Cancer
Institute—and author Raymond Cushing obtained a copy at the UC Medical
School Library in Davis, California, and faxed it to Madrid. The 1975
article does not mention breast cancer tumors, which were featured in
the
only newspaper story ever to appear about the 1974 study in the local
section of the Washington Post on August 18, 1974. The headline read,
"Cancer Curb Is Studied," and was followed in part by, "The active
chemical agent in marijuana curbs the growth of three kinds of cancer
in
mice and may also suppress the immunity reaction that causes rejection
of
organ transplants, a Medical College of Virginia team has discovered.
The
researchers found that THC slowed the growth of lung cancers, breast
cancers, and a virus-induced leukemia in laboratory mice, and
prolonged
their lives by as much as 36 percent."
Drug Enforcement Agency officials shut down the Virginia study and all
further cannabis research, according to Jack Herer, who reports on
these
events in his book, The Emperor Wears No Clothes. In 1976, President
Gerald Ford put an end to all public cannabis research and granted
exclusive research rights to major pharmaceutical companies. These
companies set out—unsuccessfully—to develop synthetic forms of THC
that
would deliver all the medical benefits without the "high."
Update by Raymond Cushing
When I was a cub reporter twenty-eight years ago at the daily Advocate
in
Stamford, Connecticut, my first city editor—a white-haired veteran of
the
International Herald Tribune named Marian Campbell—told me that the
cure
for cancer was the holy grail of all news stories.
"Unless they discover the cure for cancer," she would say over the
clackety-clack of the manual typewriters, "this paper goes to press on
time."
What I found out a quarter-century later is that not even the cure for
cancer is a big enough story to crack the Berlin Wall of media
censorship
in this country. Toss in the facts that the cure appears to be a
benign
substance that has been illegal for 63 years, and that the government
knowingly suppressed evidence of its curative powers 25 years, and you
get
twice the storyćand twice the censorship.
I won’t name the "investigative journalists" who didn’t respond when I
sent them this story. I won’t list the numerous "progressive"
publications
that ignored it. I won’t describe the forbidding sense of professional
isolation I endured in the months I tried to place the story.
Suffice it to say that it’s what one would expect in a society that
has
criminalized its own young for two generations around the cannabis
issue
simply because we were told to do so.
Thousands of innocent people who are in U.S. prisons for possessing or
selling "the cure for cancer" await liberation and reparations.
Someday
our grandchildren will look back and ask, "What did you do to set the
cannabis prisoners free?"
Here’s what any responsible journalist should be doing:
Go to primary sources when evaluating cannabis research. The AP and
other
news organizations love to elevate "bad science" and suppress "good
science" when it comes to cannabis. You have to read the original
research
articles yourself and make your own judgments.
Investigate and report on the war on children that is a major
component of
the war on drugs. The marijuana laws are the main tool the police use
to
persecute minors. No other policy affects more families in more
insidious
and devastating ways than cannabis prohibition.
Learn about the history of cannabis prohibition and about the
pharmaceutical, liquor, and tobacco giants that are behind it. If you
don’t know the history of cannabis and hemp prohibition, you’re too
ignorant to justifiably call yourself a journalist.
If it turns out—as my story would seem to indicate—that cannabis is
the
cure for cancer and the government suppressed this information for 25
years (and continues to suppress it), then the body count alone will
make
this the biggest holocaust in recorded history. Virtually all federal
drug
policy makers of both parties since 1975—including legislators,
presidents
and the DEA—will be complicit and criminally liable.
That’s why they don’t want this story covered.
To learn the history of cannabis prohibition, read www.jackherer.com.
To
read my story, type in the address at the beginning of this segment.
Raymond Cushing:
HOW DANGEROUS IS MARIJUANA
COMPARED WITH OTHER SUBSTANCES?
Number of American deaths per year that result directly or primarily
from the following selected causes nationwide, according to World Almanacs,
Life Insurance Actuarial (death) Rates, and the last 20 years of U.S.
Surgeon Generals' reports.
TOBACCO
340,000 to 450,000
ALCOHOL (Not including 50% of all highway deaths and 65% of all
murders)
150,000+
ASPIRIN (Including deliberate overdose)
180 to 1,000+
CAFFEINE (From stress, ulcers, and triggering irregular heartbeats,
etc.)
1,000 to 10,000
"LEGAL" DRUG OVERDOSE (Deliberate or accidental) from legal,
prescribed or patent medicines and/or mixing with alcohol - e.g.
Valium/alcohol
14,000 to 27,000
ILLICIT DRUG OVERDOSE (Deliberate or accidental) from all illegal
drugs.
3,800 to 5,200
MARIJUANA
0
(Marijuana users also have the same or lower incidence of murders and
highway deaths and accidents than the general non-marijuana using population
as a whole. Crancer Study, UCLA; U.S. Funded ($6 million), First & Second
Jamaican Studies, 1968 to 1974; Costa Rican Studies, 1980 to 1982; et al.
LOWEST TOXICITY 100% of the studies done at dozens of American universities
and research facilities show pot toxicity does not exist. Medical history
does not record anyone dying from an overdose of marijuana (UCLA, Harvard,
Temple, etc.).
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
In The Matter Of MARIJUANA RESCHEDULING PETITION
Docket No. 86-22
OPINION AND RECOMMENDED RULING, FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE FRANCIS L. YOUNG, Administrative Law
Judge
DATED: SEPTEMBER 6, 1988
Section 8 of Judge Young's "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and
Decision."
Page 56 & 57 http://mojo.calyx.net/~olsen/MEDICAL/YOUNG/young
3. The most obvious concern when dealing with drug safety is the
possibility of lethal effects. Can the drug cause death?
4. Nearly all medicines have toxic, potentially lethal effects. But
marijuana is not such a substance. There is no record in the extensive
medical literature describing a proven, documented cannabis-induced
fatality.
This is a remarkable statement. First, the record on marijuana encompasses
5,000 years of human experience. Second, marijuana is now used daily by
enormous numbers of people throughout the world. Estimates suggest that
from twenty million to fifty million Americans routinely, albeit illegally,
smoke marijuana without the benefit of direct medical supervision. Yet,
despite this long history of use and the extraordinarily high numbers of
social smokers, there are simply no credible medical reports to suggest that
consuming marijuana has caused a single death.
6. By contrast aspirin, a commonly used, over-the-counter medicine, causes
hundreds of deaths each year.
7. Drugs used in medicine are routinely given what is called an LD-50. The
LD-50 rating indicates at what dosage fifty percent of test animals
receiving a drug will die as a result of drug induced toxicity. A number of
researchers have attempted to determine marijuana's LD-50 rating in test
animals, without success. Simply stated, researchers have been unable to
give animals enough marijuana to induce death.
8. At present it is estimated that marijuana's LD-50 is around 1:20,000 or
1:40,000. In layman terms this means that in order to induce death a
marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as much
marijuana as is contained in one marijuana cigarette. NIDA-supplied
marijuana cigarettes weigh approximately .9 grams. A smoker would
theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within about
fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response.
9. In practical terms, marijuana cannot induce a lethal response as a
result of drug-related toxicity.
--
Dore
www.dorewilliamson.com
"Fredric L. Rice" <FRice@SkepticTank.ORG> wrote in message
news:11l6histkvr4h65@corp.supernews.com...
Actually the study is almost certainly *****.
-=-
Marijuana might cause new cell growth in the brain
* 22:00 13 October 2005
* NewScientist.com news service
* Kurt Kleiner
A synthetic chemical similar to the active ingredient in marijuana makes
new cells grow in rat brains. What is more, in rats this cell growth
appears to be linked with reducing anxiety and depression. The results
suggest that marijuana, or its derivatives, could actually be good for
the brain.
In mammals, new nerve cells are constantly being produced in a part of
the brain called the hippocampus, which is associated with learning,
memory, anxiety and depression. Other recreational drugs, such as
alcohol, nicotine and cocaine, have been shown to suppress this new
growth. Xia Zhang of the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon,
Canada, and colleagues decided to see what effects a synthetic
cannabinoid called HU210 had on rats' brains.
They found that giving rats high doses of HU210 twice a day for 10 days
increased the rate of nerve cell formation, or neurogenesis, in the
hippocampus by about 40%.
Just like Prozac?
A previous study showed that the antidepressant fluoxetine (Prozac) also
increases new cell growth, and the results indicated that it was this
cell growth that caused Prozac’s anti-anxiety effect. Zhang wondered
whether this was also the case for the cannabinoid, and so he tested the
rats for behavioural changes.
When the rats who had received the cannabinoid were placed under stress,
they showed fewer signs of anxiety and depression than rats who had not
had the treatment. When neurogenesis was halted in these rats using
X-rays, this effect disappeared, indicating that the new cell growth
might be responsible for the behavioural changes.
In another study, Barry Jacobs, a neuroscientist at Princeton
University, gave mice the natural cannabinoid found in marijuana, THC
(D9-tetrahydrocannabinol)). But he says he detected no neurogenesis, no
matter what dose he gave or the length of time he gave it for. He will
present his results at the Society for Neuroscience meeting in
Washington DC in November.
Jacobs says it could be that HU210 and THC do not have the same effect
on cell growth. It could also be the case that cannabinoids behave
differently in different rodent species - which leaves open the question
of how they behave in humans.
Zhang says more research is needed before it is clear whether
cannabinoids could some day be used to treat depression in humans.
Journal reference: Journal of Clinical Investigation
(DOI:10.1172/JCI25509)
---
http://www.ElmerFudd.US/ http://www.notserver.com/
http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
http://www.rightard.org/ http://www.thedarkwind.org/
Bush is a Christian. Get over it!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jesus H Christ" |
|
| Title: Re: Smoke dope. It's good for you. |
17 Oct 2005 02:02:15 AM |
|
|
(Fredric L. Rice) wrote in
news:11l6histkvr4h65@corp.supernews.com:
Actually the study is almost certainly *****.
Who gives a flying *****, *****.
POST SOMEWHERE WHERE THEY GIVE A *****.
Post on-topic, you fuckwit.
Jesus, does anyone READ the fucking USENET FAQs any more?
Jesus!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Torch" |
|
| Title: Re: Smoke dope. It's good for you. |
17 Oct 2005 04:21:52 AM |
|
|
"Jesus H Christ" <jhc@catholic.religion.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96F2AD4DBB560jhccatholicchurchinc@203.26.24.228...
FRice@SkepticTank.ORG (Fredric L. Rice) wrote in
news:11l6histkvr4h65@corp.supernews.com:
Actually the study is almost certainly *****.
Who gives a flying *****, *****.
POST SOMEWHERE WHERE THEY GIVE A *****.
Post on-topic, you fuckwit.
Jesus, does anyone READ the fucking USENET FAQs any more?
Jesus!
Frederic Rice is a long term contributor to this ng and posts on wide range
of topics usually related to the areas of religion and science. If
occasionally he strays into areas that are not, strictly speaking, related
to atheism but may be of interest to scientific minded atheists, that is
not a problem to me and I suspect is not a problem to most regular visitors
to the group.
What is a problem though, is your completely inappropriate, nasty and
ignorant response which is a far worse transgression of the etiquette of
this medium than anything posted by Frederic Rice .
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jesus H Christ" |
|
| Title: Re: Smoke dope. It's good for you. |
17 Oct 2005 05:00:35 AM |
|
|
"Torch" <Torch@torch.com> wrote in
news:divqfe$rf$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk:
"Jesus H Christ" <jhc@catholic.religion.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96F2AD4DBB560jhccatholicchurchinc@203.26.24.228...
FRice@SkepticTank.ORG (Fredric L. Rice) wrote in
news:11l6histkvr4h65@corp.supernews.com:
Actually the study is almost certainly *****.
Who gives a flying *****, *****.
POST SOMEWHERE WHERE THEY GIVE A *****.
Post on-topic, you fuckwit.
Jesus, does anyone READ the fucking USENET FAQs any more?
Jesus!
Frederic Rice is a long term contributor to this ng and posts on wide
range of topics usually related to the areas of religion and science.
If occasionally he strays into areas that are not, strictly speaking,
related to atheism but may be of interest to scientific minded
atheists, that is not a problem to me
Well you need to go and read the freaking USENET faqs again 'cos you sure
as ***** ain't gettin' it.
and I suspect is not a problem
to most regular visitors to the group.
Well, it's time for the village idiots to gee up their little personal
agenda wagons and ***** somewhere else. There's a newsgroup for
every topic and for that posting it sure as ***** ain't here.
What is a problem though, is your completely inappropriate, nasty and
ignorant response which is a far worse transgression of the etiquette
of this medium than anything posted by Frederic Rice .
Well, you'll just have to deal with it. You won't see any nice touchy
feely BS from THIS little jesus.
But thanks for the insight. Next time I'll be nastier - since it caught
*your* eye and drew out a response I'll make sure the next one's a REAL
eye-watering exercise in vitriol.
Jesus!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Torch" |
|
| Title: Re: Smoke dope. It's good for you. |
17 Oct 2005 07:22:38 AM |
|
|
"Jesus H Christ" <jhc@catholic.religion.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96F2CB89DC640jhccatholicchurchinc@203.26.24.228...
"Torch" <Torch@torch.com> wrote in
news:divqfe$rf$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk:
"Jesus H Christ" <jhc@catholic.religion.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96F2AD4DBB560jhccatholicchurchinc@203.26.24.228...
FRice@SkepticTank.ORG (Fredric L. Rice) wrote in
news:11l6histkvr4h65@corp.supernews.com:
Actually the study is almost certainly *****.
Who gives a flying *****, *****.
POST SOMEWHERE WHERE THEY GIVE A *****.
Post on-topic, you fuckwit.
Jesus, does anyone READ the fucking USENET FAQs any more?
Jesus!
Frederic Rice is a long term contributor to this ng and posts on wide
range of topics usually related to the areas of religion and science.
If occasionally he strays into areas that are not, strictly speaking,
related to atheism but may be of interest to scientific minded
atheists, that is not a problem to me
Well you need to go and read the freaking USENET faqs again 'cos you sure
as ***** ain't gettin' it.
and I suspect is not a problem
to most regular visitors to the group.
Well, it's time for the village idiots to gee up their little personal
agenda wagons and ***** somewhere else. There's a newsgroup for
every topic and for that posting it sure as ***** ain't here.
What is a problem though, is your completely inappropriate, nasty and
ignorant response which is a far worse transgression of the etiquette
of this medium than anything posted by Frederic Rice .
Well, you'll just have to deal with it. You won't see any nice touchy
feely BS from THIS little jesus.
But thanks for the insight. Next time I'll be nastier - since it caught
*your* eye and drew out a response I'll make sure the next one's a REAL
eye-watering exercise in vitriol.
You are very odd - you post like rabid fundy - are you sure you are not a
closet theist?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jesus H Christ" |
|
| Title: Re: Smoke dope. It's good for you. |
17 Oct 2005 08:23:17 AM |
|
|
"Torch" <Torch@torch.com> wrote in
news:dj052o$32c$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk:
You are very odd - you post like rabid fundy - are you sure you are
not a closet theist?
<laughing> Now THAT's a good one, a keeper. Thanks!
Though I find a well fashioned argument can actually provide an educational
response, the spittle-fire-and-brimstone act IS often effective as a shock-
and-awe tactic to get morons to evac the free-fire zone.
(even if it does take a fair amount of creative effort to get into that
particular persona ;-)
JeeeeeeeeeeZUZ!
.
|
|
|
| User: "mas elcnu-" |
|
| Title: Re: Smoke dope. It's good for you. |
17 Oct 2005 08:32:22 AM |
|
|
"Jesus H Christ" <jhc@catholic.religion.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96F2EDE7DB672jhccatholicchurchinc@203.26.24.228...
"Torch" <Torch@torch.com> wrote in
news:dj052o$32c$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk:
JeeeeeeeeeeZUZ!
You call upon youself? You must be an atheist!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jesus H Christ" |
|
| Title: Re: Smoke dope. It's good for you. |
17 Oct 2005 09:17:25 AM |
|
|
"mas elcnu<-" <unclesam@maselcnu.biz> wrote in news:4353a85c_1@x-
privat.org:
"Jesus H Christ" <jhc@catholic.religion.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96F2EDE7DB672jhccatholicchurchinc@203.26.24.228...
"Torch" <Torch@torch.com> wrote in
news:dj052o$32c$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk:
JeeeeeeeeeeZUZ!
You call upon youself? You must be an atheist!
I'm the original self-referential deity.
Jesus!
.
|
|
|
| User: "mas elcnu-" |
|
| Title: Re: Smoke dope. It's good for you. |
17 Oct 2005 11:36:32 AM |
|
|
"Jesus H Christ" <jhc@catholic.religion.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96F32F11959Fjhccatholicchurchinc@203.26.24.228...
"mas elcnu<-" <unclesam@maselcnu.biz> wrote in news:4353a85c_1@x-
privat.org:
"Jesus H Christ" <jhc@catholic.religion.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96F2EDE7DB672jhccatholicchurchinc@203.26.24.228...
"Torch" <Torch@torch.com> wrote in
news:dj052o$32c$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk:
JeeeeeeeeeeZUZ!
You call upon youself? You must be an atheist!
I'm the original self-referential deity.
You are an atheist... that says it all.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "agnostic.atheist" |
|
| Title: Re: Smoke dope. It's good for you. |
17 Oct 2005 07:36:05 AM |
|
|
"Torch" <Torch@torch.com> wrote in message news:dj052o$32c$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
"Jesus H Christ" <jhc@catholic.religion.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96F2CB89DC640jhccatholicchurchinc@203.26.24.228...
"Torch" <Torch@torch.com> wrote in
news:divqfe$rf$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk:
You are very odd - you post like rabid fundy - are you sure you are not a
closet theist?
Im agnotic atheist. Where do I sign up?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Smoke dope. It's good for you. |
17 Oct 2005 05:12:18 AM |
|
|
On 17 Oct 2005 20:00:35 +1000, Jesus H Christ
<jhc@catholic.religion.com> wrote:
"Torch" <Torch@torch.com> wrote in
news:divqfe$rf$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk:
"Jesus H Christ" <jhc@catholic.religion.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96F2AD4DBB560jhccatholicchurchinc@203.26.24.228...
FRice@SkepticTank.ORG (Fredric L. Rice) wrote in
news:11l6histkvr4h65@corp.supernews.com:
Actually the study is almost certainly *****.
Who gives a flying *****, *****.
POST SOMEWHERE WHERE THEY GIVE A *****.
Post on-topic, you fuckwit.
Jesus, does anyone READ the fucking USENET FAQs any more?
Jesus!
Frederic Rice is a long term contributor to this ng and posts on wide
range of topics usually related to the areas of religion and science.
If occasionally he strays into areas that are not, strictly speaking,
related to atheism but may be of interest to scientific minded
atheists, that is not a problem to me
Well you need to go and read the freaking USENET faqs again 'cos you sure
as ***** ain't gettin' it.
and I suspect is not a problem
to most regular visitors to the group.
Well, it's time for the village idiots to gee up their little personal
agenda wagons and ***** somewhere else. There's a newsgroup for
every topic and for that posting it sure as ***** ain't here.
What is a problem though, is your completely inappropriate, nasty and
ignorant response which is a far worse transgression of the etiquette
of this medium than anything posted by Frederic Rice .
Well, you'll just have to deal with it. You won't see any nice touchy
feely BS from THIS little jesus.
But thanks for the insight. Next time I'll be nastier - since it caught
*your* eye and drew out a response I'll make sure the next one's a REAL
eye-watering exercise in vitriol.
Jesus!
Hold on folks...
This is the second coming.
And it ain't gonna be pretty.
.
|
|
|
| User: "gogalazov" |
|
| Title: Re: Smoke dope. It's good for you. |
17 Oct 2005 06:47:34 AM |
|
|
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:r6u6l1pism5b3kf50ecf35vkmfuimbq9bv@4ax.com...
On 17 Oct 2005 20:00:35 +1000, Jesus H Christ
<jhc@catholic.religion.com> wrote:
"Torch" <Torch@torch.com> wrote in
news:divqfe$rf$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk:
Hold on folks...
This is the second coming.
And it ain't gonna be pretty.
Like your dad came twice... and look at you!
Pffffffff...
Drink my *****!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "towelie" |
|
| Title: Re: Smoke dope. It's good for you. |
17 Oct 2005 04:36:09 AM |
|
|
TV's Jesus H Christ wrote:
FRice@SkepticTank.ORG (Fredric L. Rice) wrote in
news:11l6histkvr4h65@corp.supernews.com:
Actually the study is almost certainly *****.
Who gives a flying *****, *****.
POST SOMEWHERE WHERE THEY GIVE A *****.
Post on-topic, you fuckwit.
Jesus, does anyone READ the fucking USENET FAQs any more?
Jesus!
*plonk*
--
aa #2133
ap #19
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jesus H Christo" |
|
| Title: Re: Smoke dope. It's good for you. |
17 Oct 2005 05:05:42 AM |
|
|
"towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:beydnSFTYNbi7c7enZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@centurytel.net:
TV's Jesus H Christ wrote:
FRice@SkepticTank.ORG (Fredric L. Rice) wrote in
news:11l6histkvr4h65@corp.supernews.com:
Actually the study is almost certainly *****.
Who gives a flying *****, *****.
POST SOMEWHERE WHERE THEY GIVE A *****.
Post on-topic, you fuckwit.
Jesus, does anyone READ the fucking USENET FAQs any more?
Jesus!
*plonk*
*shrug*
jesus!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Zarkov" |
|
| Title: Re: Smoke dope. It's good for you. |
17 Oct 2005 09:48:26 AM |
|
|
Fredric L. Rice wrote:
Actually the study is almost certainly *****.
It's not *****--It was published in a reputable scientific journal.
But you have to be careful about drawing conclusions from one study--and
this study was only in rats.
OTOH there are many published studies showing positive effects or at
least no negative effects from marijuana (including some showing it has
anti-cancer effects; see a few at end of post). The government
routinely ignores those. What the government, the National Institute on
Drug Abuse, and prohibitionists typically do is select the evidence that
supports their viewpoint and ignore the rest. Another typical ploy is
to confound the effects of the illegality (like crime) with the effects
of drugs themselves. As Morgan and Zimmer put it:
"The National Institute on Drug Abuse funds research to find harm from
marijuana...then disseminates the findings. Very modest findings are
presented as "significant." Statistical associations...are used to
imply a causal relationship. Studies showing no effect--or a positive
effect related to marijuana--are ignored completely."
--John Morgan, MD, Lynn Zimmer, PhD. _Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts_,
New York: Lindesmith Center, 1997.
This is an excellent review of marijuana by two independent scientists.
In writing this book, Zimmer and Morgan found and reviewed literally
every academic and medical research paper available on the medical or
therapeutic properties of cannabis, making this book the single best
secondary source on the planet with respect to that substance. It has
been endorsed by writers from the Journal of the American Medical
Association, the National Review, the British Medical Journal, Science
Magazine, and many other publications.
_Licit and Illicit Drugs_. EM Brecher and the Editors of Consumer
Reports. Mount Vernon, NY: Consumers Union, 1972.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm
"They [marijuana and hashish] are not addicting. Neither tolerance nor
withdrawal symptoms have been reported." (Chap. 53, p396)
"...there are normally no adverse physiological effects or withdrawal
symptoms occurring with abstinence from the drug [marijuana], even in
regular users." (Chap. 60, p460)[Interim Report Of The Commission of
Inquiry Into The Non-Medical Use of Drugs. Ottawa: Queen's Printer for
Canada, 1970.]
Lester Grinspoon, MD. _Marihuana Reconsidered_. 2nd edition. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
"There is no longer any doubt that marihuana is not a drug of
addiction." (p233)
"Not only are there no withdrawal symptoms, but there is no necessity to
increase dosage over time." (p233)
"There is no physical disturbance on withdrawal of the drug: no real
tolerance is developed." (p233)
"Nor has anyone found evidence of pharmacologic tolerance in human
beings at recreational doses, even in Jamaicans who use up to 420 mg THC
a day."
"It is reasonably well established that cannabis causes no tissue
damage. There is no evidence that it leads to any cellular damage to
any organ."
"[There was] no deterioration even with frequent cannabis use in scores
on a set of psychological tests including the Wechsler Adult
Intelligence Scale and tests of spatial perception." A number of other
studies referenced in this book also reported that marijuana had no
effect on intelligence.
Health Aspects of Marijuana
By Leo E. Hollister
Pharmacological Review, 1986, Vol. 38, No. 1
The American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
Veterans Administration Medical Center and Stanford University School of
Medicine
http://www.pdxnorml.org/PR_Hollister_Health_Aspects_1986.html
"...one is forced to conclude that cannabis is a relatively safe drug as
social drugs go. To date it compares favorably with tobacco and alcohol,
if not caffeine."
"Compared with other licit social drugs, such as alcohol, tobacco, and
caffeine, marijuana does not pose greater risks."
"The smoking of marijuana, even long term, is not harmful to health."
--Deglamorising Cannabis, Lancet 346:1241, 1995.
"Use [of marijuana]...does not constitute a major threat to public health."
-National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, Marihuana: A Signal of
Misunderstanding, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972; page 90.
The U.S. government's own commission (the Shafer Commission) found no
evidence that marijuana caused crime, psychiatric problems, sexual
promiscuity, or loss of motivation, or that it was a stepping stone to
other drugs. The Shafer Commission, which included 4 physicians, 2
lawyers, and 4 members of Congress, extensively reviewed the existing
evidence on marijuana and funded original studies in areas where
evidence was lacking. Nixon had appointed a Republican, former
Pennsylvania governor Ray Shafer, to head the commission, thinking it
would take a hard line. But after months of investigation, the facts
convinced even this commission, which reported: "Marijuana use, in and
of itself, is neither causative of, nor directly associated with crime."
They found no evidence for the gateway theory, and they concluded that
personal use of marijuana should no longer be a crime.
(National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse. Marihuana: A Signal of
Misunderstanding, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972.)
"Marijuana does not cause people to use hard drugs. What the gateway
theory presents as a causal explanation is a statistical
association...Most marijuana users never use any other illegal drug."
--John Morgan, MD, Lynn Zimmer, PhD. _Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts_,
New York: Lindesmith Center, 1997.
"On measures of social and psychological adjustment, teenagers who use
marijuana occasionally are remarkably similar to nonusers. In fact,
researchers found...that teens who use marijuana occasionally were
better adjusted, socially and psychologically, than non-marijuana users."
--John Morgan, MD, Lynn Zimmer, PhD. _Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts_,
New York: Lindesmith Center, 1997.
Shendler and Block concluded that "problem drug use is a symptom, not a
cause, of personal and social maladjustment."
--Shendler J, Block J. Adolescent drug use and psychological health.
American Psychologist. 45:612-630, (May) 1990.
Shendler and Block's finding that "maladjustment" leads to drug use
rather than the reverse was confirmed a few years later by a study
funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, which stated, "Conduct
disorder is in large part the common forerunner of both drug abuse and
criminality...challenging the assumption that drug use causes crime."
--Swan N. Researchers probe which comes first: drug abuse or antisocial
behavior? NIDA Notes. May/June 1993, pp1-6.
"Marijuana does not cause crime. The vast majority of marijuana users
do not commit crimes...Among marijuana users who do commit crimes,
marijuana plays no causal role. Almost all human and animal studies
show that marijuana *decreases* rather than increases aggression."
--John Morgan, MD, Lynn Zimmer, PhD. _Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts_,
New York: Lindesmith Center, 1997.
The National Academy of Sciences report on marijuana recommended that
marijuana possession be decriminalized, and that lawmakers give serious
consideration to creating a system of regulated distribution and sale.
(National Research Council. _An Analysis of Marijuana Policy_
Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 1982.)
Using modern brain imaging technologies like the CAT scan, as well as
EEG recordings, researchers have found no evidence of brain damage in
human marijuana users, even in subjects smoking an average of nine
marijuana cigarettes per day. Brain-wave patterns of chronic marijuana
users are no different from nonusers.
(Hannerz J, Hindmarsh T. Neurological and neuroradiological examination
of chronic cannabis smokers. Ann Neurol. 13(2):207-210, 1983. Co BT et
al. Absence of cerebral atrophy in chronic cannabis users: evaluation
by computerized axial tomography. Journal of the American Medical
Association. 237:1229-1230, 1977. Kuehnle J, et al. Computed
tomographic examination of heavy marihuana smokers. Journal of the
American Medical Association. 237:1231, 1977.)
Marijuana might cause new cell growth in the brain
* 22:00 13 October 2005
* NewScientist.com news service
* Kurt Kleiner
A synthetic chemical similar to the active ingredient in marijuana makes
new cells grow in rat brains. What is more, in rats this cell growth
appears to be linked with reducing anxiety and depression. The results
suggest that marijuana, or its derivatives, could actually be good for
the brain.
In mammals, new nerve cells are constantly being produced in a part of
the brain called the hippocampus, which is associated with learning,
memory, anxiety and depression. Other recreational drugs, such as
alcohol, nicotine and cocaine, have been shown to suppress this new
growth. Xia Zhang of the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon,
Canada, and colleagues decided to see what effects a synthetic
cannabinoid called HU210 had on rats' brains.
They found that giving rats high doses of HU210 twice a day for 10 days
increased the rate of nerve cell formation, or neurogenesis, in the
hippocampus by about 40%.
Just like Prozac?
A previous study showed that the antidepressant fluoxetine (Prozac) also
increases new cell growth, and the results indicated that it was this
cell growth that caused Prozac’s anti-anxiety effect. Zhang wondered
whether this was also the case for the cannabinoid, and so he tested the
rats for behavioural changes.
When the rats who had received the cannabinoid were placed under stress,
they showed fewer signs of anxiety and depression than rats who had not
had the treatment. When neurogenesis was halted in these rats using
X-rays, this effect disappeared, indicating that the new cell growth
might be responsible for the behavioural changes.
In another study, Barry Jacobs, a neuroscientist at Princeton
University, gave mice the natural cannabinoid found in marijuana, THC
(D9-tetrahydrocannabinol)). But he says he detected no neurogenesis, no
matter what dose he gave or the length of time he gave it for. He will
present his results at the Society for Neuroscience meeting in
Washington DC in November.
Jacobs says it could be that HU210 and THC do not have the same effect
on cell growth. It could also be the case that cannabinoids behave
differently in different rodent species - which leaves open the question
of how they behave in humans.
Zhang says more research is needed before it is clear whether
cannabinoids could some day be used to treat depression in humans.
Journal reference: Journal of Clinical Investigation (DOI:10.1172/JCI25509)
---
http://www.ElmerFudd.US/ http://www.notserver.com/
http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
http://www.rightard.org/ http://www.thedarkwind.org/
Bush is a Christian. Get over it!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fredric L. Rice" |
|
| Title: Re: Smoke dope. It's good for you. |
17 Oct 2005 10:28:55 AM |
|
|
"Dr. Zarkov" <Ming@Mongo.com> wrote:
Fredric L. Rice wrote:
Actually the study is almost certainly *****.
It's not *****--It was published in a reputable scientific journal.
A lot of ***** gets published in otherwise legitimate peer reviewed
journals. A single study reports findings that are at odds with the
previous hundred smells like ***** even if the findings were what
they are. Once it's repeated, then I'd _start_ to accept some of it
provisionally.
But you have to be careful about drawing conclusions from one study--and
this study was only in rats.
Right, and the rats weren't forced to _smoke_ it.
OTOH there are many published studies showing positive effects or at
least no negative effects from marijuana (including some showing it has
anti-cancer effects; see a few at end of post).
I must have seen them all by now. I'm aware of the claims and
counter claims. This one study added a new one and it's that which
I don't accept as reasonably evidenced.
---
http://www.ElmerFudd.US/ http://www.notserver.com/
http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
http://www.rightard.org/ http://www.thedarkwind.org/
Bush is a Christian. Get over it!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Zarkov" |
|
| Title: Re: Smoke dope. It's good for you. |
17 Oct 2005 05:47:02 PM |
|
|
Fredric L. Rice wrote:
"Dr. Zarkov" <Ming@Mongo.com> wrote:
Fredric L. Rice wrote:
Actually the study is almost certainly *****.
It's not *****--It was published in a reputable scientific journal.
A lot of ***** gets published in otherwise legitimate peer reviewed
journals. A single study reports findings that are at odds with the
previous hundred smells like ***** even if the findings were what
they are. Once it's repeated, then I'd _start_ to accept some of it
provisionally.
It is not at odds with the "previous hundred"--as that extensive review
of published studies by Morgan and Zimmer shows.
But you have to be careful about drawing conclusions from one study--and
this study was only in rats.
Right, and the rats weren't forced to _smoke_ it.
The method of drug delivery is unlikely to be relevant to its effects on
brain cells. Following that reasoning, we should also throw out the
studies that reported negative effects if the experimental animals did
not smoke it. And NIDA propaganda includes studies that were just in
vitro--not done in animals at all.
OTOH there are many published studies showing positive effects or at
least no negative effects from marijuana (including some showing it has
anti-cancer effects; see a few at end of post).
I must have seen them all by now. I'm aware of the claims and
counter claims. This one study added a new one and it's that which
I don't accept as reasonably evidenced.
One study does not prove anything, but you can't dismiss it out of hand
because it doesn't fit your preconceived notions. You have to review
the published studies on a topic. That is why I cited several
references (which you snipped), including that book:
John Morgan, MD, Lynn Zimmer, PhD. _Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts_,
New York: Lindesmith Center, 1997.
This is an excellent review of marijuana by two independent scientists.
In writing this book, Zimmer and Morgan found and reviewed literally
every academic and medical research paper available on the medical or
therapeutic properties of cannabis, making this book the single best
secondary source on the planet with respect to that substance. It has
been endorsed by writers from the Journal of the American Medical
Association, the National Review, the British Medical Journal, Science
Magazine, and many other publications.
Whereas NIDA distorts the evidence; as Morgan and Zimmer put it:
"The National Institute on Drug Abuse funds research to find harm from
marijuana...then disseminates the findings. Very modest findings are
presented as "significant." Statistical associations...are used to
imply a causal relationship. Studies showing no effect--or a positive
effect related to marijuana--are ignored completely."
_Licit and Illicit Drugs_. EM Brecher and the Editors of Consumer
Reports. Mount Vernon, NY: Consumers Union, 1972.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm
"They [marijuana and hashish] are not addicting. Neither tolerance nor
withdrawal symptoms have been reported." (Chap. 53, p396)
"...there are normally no adverse physiological effects or withdrawal
symptoms occurring with abstinence from the drug [marijuana], even in
regular users." (Chap. 60, p460)[Interim Report Of The Commission of
Inquiry Into The Non-Medical Use of Drugs. Ottawa: Queen's Printer for
Canada, 1970.]
Lester Grinspoon, MD. _Marihuana Reconsidered_. 2nd edition. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
"There is no longer any doubt that marihuana is not a drug of
addiction." (p233)
"Not only are there no withdrawal symptoms, but there is no necessity to
increase dosage over time." (p233)
"There is no physical disturbance on withdrawal of the drug: no real
tolerance is developed." (p233)
"Nor has anyone found evidence of pharmacologic tolerance in human
beings at recreational doses, even in Jamaicans who use up to 420 mg THC
a day."
"It is reasonably well established that cannabis causes no tissue
damage. There is no evidence that it leads to any cellular damage to
any organ."
"[There was] no deterioration even with frequent cannabis use in scores
on a set of psychological tests including the Wechsler Adult
Intelligence Scale and tests of spatial perception."
Health Aspects of Marijuana
By Leo E. Hollister
Pharmacological Review, 1986, Vol. 38, No. 1
The American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
Veterans Administration Medical Center and Stanford University School of
Medicine
http://www.pdxnorml.org/PR_Hollister_Health_Aspects_1986.html
"...one is forced to conclude that cannabis is a relatively safe drug as
social drugs go. To date it compares favorably with tobacco and alcohol,
if not caffeine."
"Compared with other licit social drugs, such as alcohol, tobacco, and
caffeine, marijuana does not pose greater risks."
"The smoking of marijuana, even long term, is not harmful to health."
--Deglamorising Cannabis, Lancet 346:1241, 1995.
"Use [of marijuana]...does not constitute a major threat to public health."
-National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, Marihuana: A Signal of
Misunderstanding, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972; page 90.
The U.S. government's own commission (the Shafer Commission) found no
evidence that marijuana caused crime, psychiatric problems, sexual
promiscuity, or loss of motivation, or that it was a stepping stone to
other drugs. The Shafer Commission, which included 4 physicians, 2
lawyers, and 4 members of Congress, extensively reviewed the existing
evidence on marijuana and funded original studies in areas where
evidence was lacking. Nixon had appointed a Republican, former
Pennsylvania governor Ray Shafer, to head the commission, thinking it
would take a hard line. But after months of investigation, the facts
convinced even this commission, which reported: "Marijuana use, in and
of itself, is neither causative of, nor directly associated with crime."
They found no evidence for the gateway theory, and they concluded that
personal use of marijuana should no longer be a crime.
(National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse. Marihuana: A Signal of
Misunderstanding, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972.)
"Marijuana does not cause people to use hard drugs. What the gateway
theory presents as a causal explanation is a statistical
association...Most marijuana users never use any other illegal drug."
--John Morgan, MD, Lynn Zimmer, PhD. _Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts_,
New York: Lindesmith Center, 1997.
"On measures of social and psychological adjustment, teenagers who use
marijuana occasionally are remarkably similar to nonusers. In fact,
researchers found...that teens who use marijuana occasionally were
better adjusted, socially and psychologically, than non-marijuana users."
--John Morgan, MD, Lynn Zimmer, PhD. _Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts_,
New York: Lindesmith Center, 1997.
Shendler and Block concluded that "problem drug use is a symptom, not a
cause, of personal and social maladjustment."
--Shendler J, Block J. Adolescent drug use and psychological health.
American Psychologist. 45:612-630, (May) 1990.
Shendler and Block's finding that "maladjustment" leads to drug use
rather than the reverse was confirmed a few years later by a study
funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, which stated, "Conduct
disorder is in large part the common forerunner of both drug abuse and
criminality...challenging the assumption that drug use causes crime."
"Marijuana does not cause crime. The vast majority of marijuana users
do not commit crimes...Among marijuana users who do commit crimes,
marijuana plays no causal role. Almost all human and animal studies
show that marijuana *decreases* rather than increases aggression."
--John Morgan, MD, Lynn Zimmer, PhD. _Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts_,
New York: Lindesmith Center, 1997.
The National Academy of Sciences report on marijuana recommended that
marijuana possession be decriminalized, and that lawmakers give serious
consideration to creating a system of regulated distribution and sale.
(National Research Council. _An Analysis of Marijuana Policy_
Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 1982.)
Using modern brain imaging technologies like the CAT scan, as well as
EEG recordings, researchers have found no evidence of brain damage in
human marijuana users, even in subjects smoking an average of nine
marijuana cigarettes per day. Brain-wave patterns of chronic marijuana
users are no different from nonusers.
(Hannerz J, Hindmarsh T. Neurological and neuroradiological examination
of chronic cannabis smokers. Ann Neurol. 13(2):207-210, 1983. Co BT et
al. Absence of cerebral atrophy in chronic cannabis users: evaluation
by computerized axial tomography. Journal of the American Medical
Association. 237:1229-1230, 1977. Kuehnle J, et al. Computed
tomographic examination of heavy marihuana smokers. Journal of the
American Medical Association. 237:1231, 1977.)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: Smoke dope. It's good for you. |
19 Oct 2005 11:33:32 AM |
|
|
In article <11l6histkvr4h65@corp.supernews.com>, Fredric L. Rice
said...
Actually the study is almost certainly *****.
So is ID, but I don't expect to hear the usual crowd shouting
that we should "teach the controversy" regarding marijuana use.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
