Blogs > Liberty and Power > Studies that Do Not Make the News

Feb 11, 2005

Studies that Do Not Make the News


by Liberty and Power


In my last post concerning yet another government sponsored attempt to distort the public perception of marijuana use I promised to pass along any information I received exposing the current lie. The expected information came with my weekly e-mail newsletter from NORML. I quote the relevant part below.

NORML E-Zine Volume 8 Issue 6 February 10, 2005 Science Refutes Latest Marijuana And Cognition Claim, Washington, DC: “Research published this week in the journal Neurology speculating that marijuana's effects on the cerebrovascular system may bring about residual cognitive deficits in longtime users is not supported by the majority of available clinical evidence. Numerous prior reviews of marijuana's potential impact on neurocognitive performance include: A 2003 meta-analysis published in the Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society that"failed to reveal a substantial, systematic effect of long-term, regular cannabis consumption on the neurocognitive functioning of users who were not acutely intoxicated;" A 2002 clinical trial published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal that determined,"Marijuana does not have a long-term negative impact on global intelligence;" A 2001 study published in the journal Archives of General Psychiatry that found that long-term cannabis smokers who abstained from the drug for one week"showed virtually no significant differences from control subjects (those who had smoked marijuana less than 50 times in their lives) on a battery of 10 neuropsychological tests." Researchers added,"Former heavy users, who had consumed little or no cannabis in the three months before testing, [also] showed no significant differences from control subjects on any of these tests on any of the testing days;" A 1999 clinical trial published in the American Journal of Epidemiology that found"no significant differences in cognitive decline between heavy users, light users, and nonusers of cannabis" over a 15-year period. More recently, a study published last fall in the journal Psychological Medicine examining the potential long-term residual effects of cannabis on cognition in monozygotic male twins reported"an absence of marked long-term residual effects of marijuana use on cognitive abilities." In addition, a scientific review published earlier this month in the journal Current Opinion in Pharmacology concluded,"There is little evidence ... that long-term cannabis uses causes permanent cognitive impairment. ... Overall, by comparison with other drugs used mainly for 'recreational' purposes, cannabis could be rated a relatively safe drug.".

What do you think the odds are that The Washington Times, CNN or the BBC ran any stories on the above mentioned studies? Extremely slim?


comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Max Swing - 2/11/2005

I'd like to know whether you tried it yourself or not, because it is easy to discuss something like drugs, if you did not try it or seen it in action.

Since I have some friends who smoked (or still smoke) marijuahna, I have seen different results. They all go along with this examination, except for some parts.
First, the user needs a strong will and good self-perception to handle the amount and seeing a critical phase (f.e. when the drug and its short-time effects, dizziness and laziness, affect your daily life leading to decay of your peception of the world).
Yes, there are no long-term problems, if you can stop smoking M. for some time in-between.
A friend of mine did not do it and hadn't the will to constrain his consumption. He had to go to undergo a therapy to get his life back.

Though this are only small and extreme cases, the general assumption that Marijuahna is of no negative effect to the consumer, is false.
It is true that it is not as addictive or dangerous as cocain or crack or opium or any other of the more engineered drugs, but it still has toxics in it, that can destroy your life.

This does not mean that I am for the War of Drugs! I just wanted to state that despite the different stances science has taken in it, it should still be considered a dangerous drug.
However, the use of this drug should be entirely in the obligations of the family and/or the individual.
There are also many medical cases in which it could help ease the pain or even heal eye-damage (Green Star).
So, the decision should be ours not someone elses.