Feds Stand In Way Of Research Into Marijuana !

Article originally posted on http://www.medicalmj.org

Feds Stand In Way Of Research Into Marijuana

The DEA rejected the application by UMass-Amherst researcher Lyle Craker for permission to grow marijuana for research purposes, the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS) announced in early December. As reported by the Boston Globe on Dec. 14, 2004 ( "DEA Rejects Professor's Bid To Grow Marijuana"), "A University of Massachusetts at Amherst professor hoping to grow marijuana for research purposes got a preliminary denial from the US Drug Enforcement Administration last week. Lyle Craker, a horticulturist who specializes in medicinal plants, had won support from both Senators Edward M. Kennedy and John F. Kerry in his quest to grow marijuana legally. Only one American lab, at the University of Mississippi, currently has the legal right to grow marijuana for research, and Craker argued that the Mississippi marijuana is not strong enough and not readily available to researchers."

According to the Globe, "He first applied to the DEA for permission to grow marijuana more than three years ago. Kennedy and Kerry wrote a letter to the DEA last year saying that the Mississippi lab had an 'unjustified monopoly.' Craker and a group that wants to fund his work, the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, sued the government last summer. One of their arguments was that the DEA's failure to act on the application was an 'unreasonable delay.' The US Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., asked the government to explain its delay, and instead DEA issued a decision last week. In the decision, DEA said that the University of Mississippi provides researchers 'marijuana of sufficient quantity and quality to meet all their legitimate and authorized research needs in a timely manner.' It also argues that an international treaty says the government can allow only one source for research marijuana. Craker and MAPS can still appeal to a federal administrative judge who makes recommendations to the DEA, but the judge's opinion is not binding, said MAPS president Rick Doblin. If unsuccessful, they plan to continue their fight in the courts."

You Might Be A Stoner IF....

1. you might be a stoner if.... you wear sun glasses at night so you can see better

2 you might be a stoner if.... you have acctually put out a fire with bong water

3 you might be a stoner if.... the term "hydro" does not mean water

4 you might be a stoner if.... you have an usual parking space outside your local head shop

5 you might be a stoner if.... you have a name for your 3 bongs 2 pipes one of which was made by you

6 you might be a stoner if.... you know your measurements from grams to ounces by heart

7 you might be a stoner if.... your best friends are your dealer and your roller

8 you might be a stoner if.... you sell your car for gas money

9 you might be a stoner if.... after reading this list you have done most if not all

10 you might be a stoner if.... if you respect 4:20 to a religious value

11 you might be a stoner if.... if you sue your employer for not getting holiday pay on april 20th

12 you might be a stoner if.... if glass blowing was your minor and herbology was your major.....please e-mail me we need to chat

Marijuana Impairs Immune System Functioning

Exposing Marijuana Myths: A Review of the Scientific Evidence




Marijuana Impairs Immune System Functioning




It has been widely claimed that marijuana substantially increases users' risk of contracting various infectious diseases. First emerging in the 1970s, this claim took on new significance in the 1980s, following reports of marijuana use by people suffering from AIDS.


The Facts


The principal study fueling the original claim of immune impairment involved preparations created with white blood cells that had been removed from marijuana smokers and controls. After exposing the cells to known immune activators, researchers reported a lower rate of "transformation" in those taken from marijuana smokers. 26


However, numerous groups of scientists, using similar techniques, have failed to confirm this original study. 27


In fact, a 1988 study demonstrated an increase in responsiveness when white blood cells from marijuana smokers were exposed to immunological activators. 28


Studies involving laboratory animals have shown immune impairment following administration of THC, but only with the use of extremely high doses. For example, one study demonstrated an increase in herpes infection in rodents given doses of 100 mg/kg/day - a dose approximately 1000 times the dose necessary to produce a psychoactive effect in humans. 29


There have been no clinical or epidemiological studies showing an increase in bacterial, viral, or parasitic infection among human marijuana users. In three large field studies conducted in the 1970s, in Jamaica, Costa Rica and Greece, researchers found no differences in disease susceptibility between marijuana users and matched controls. 30


Marijuana use does not increase the risk of HIV infection; nor does it increase the onset or intensity of symptoms among AIDS patients. 31 In fact, the FDA decision to approve the use of Marinol (synthetic THC) for use in HIV-wasting syndrome relied upon the absence of any immunopathology due to THC. 32


Today, thousands of people with AIDS are smoking marijuana daily to combat nausea and increase appetite. There is no scientific basis for claims that this practice compromises their immune responses. Indeed, the recent discovery of a peripheral cannabinoid receptor associated with lymphatic tissue should encourage aggressive exploration of THC's potential use as an immune-system stimulant. 33

Link to begining of Common Marijuana Myths

Common Marijuana Myths

Article Originally posted on Marijuana.com



Exposing Marijuana Myths: A Review of the Scientific Evidence

I will be editing this post with links to each Myth as I post them

Introduction:

Since the 1920s, supporters of marijuana prohibition have exaggerated the drug's dangers. In different eras, different claims have gained prominence, but few have ever been abandoned. Indeed, many of the "reefer madness" tales that were used to generate support for early anti-marijuana laws continue to appear in government and media reports today.
For a while in the 1970s, it seemed as if scientific inquiries were beginning to influence the government's marijuana policies. Following thorough reviews of the existing evidence by scholars 1 and official commissions, 2 criminal penalties for marijuana offenses were lessened and a number of states moved in the direction of decriminalization. 3 However, in response to lingering concerns about marijuana's potential toxicity, the government expanded its funding of scientific research, mostly through the newly-created National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).
Probably the most important studies of the 1970s were three large "field studies" in Greece, Costa Rica and Jamaica. These studies, which evaluated the impact of marijuana on users in their natural environments, were supplemented by clinical examinations and laboratory experiments oriented toward answering the questions about marijuana that continued to be debated in the scientific literature. The data from these studies, published in numerous books and scholarly journals, covered such matters as marijuana's effects on the brain, lungs, immune and reproductive systems, its impact on personality, development, and motivational states, and its addictive potential. 4
Although these studies did not answer all remaining questions about marijuana toxicity, they generally supported the idea that marijuana was a relatively safe drug—not totally free from potential harm, but unlikely to create serious harm for most individual users or society. In the years since, thousands of additional studies have been conducted, many of them funded by NIDA, and together they reaffirm marijuana's substantial margin of safety. Our review of that body of work reveals an occasional study indicating greater toxicity than previously thought. But in nearly all such cases, the methodologies were seriously flawed and the findings could not be replicated by other researchers.
Especially since the 1980s, when the federal government's renewed war on cannabis began, both the funding of marijuana research and the dissemination of its findings have been highly politicized. Indeed, NIDA's role seems to have become one of service to the War on Drugs. Dozens of claims of toxicity appear in its documents, despite the existence of scores of scientific studies refuting their validity. At the same time, studies that fail to find serious toxicity are ignored.
In the following pages, we review the scientific evidence surrounding the most prominent of the anti-marijuana claims.

1. Marijuana Use Is Increasing At An Alarming Rate

2. Marijuana Potency Has Increased Substantially

3. Marijuana Is A Drug Without Therapeutic Value

4. Marijuana Causes Lung Disease

5. Marijuana Impairs Immune System Functioning

6. Marijuana Harms Sexual Maturation And Reproduction

7. Marijuana Use During Pregnancy Harms The Fetus