Marijuana use connected to aggression

[RainDog]

86. I'm not supplying anecdotes. I posted links to science

if you note, my post, above, links to research that looks at various studies and also to Roger Pertwee, who is the leading pharmacologist in Great Britain.

I was talking about others on this thread who you were complaining about and explaining why the initial reaction is "bullshit." There's a long history of lies to make such a claim. I didn't say the call of "bullshit' made the claim valid or not. I was just explaining why you see it. It's a bias - but it has a basis in reality. All the way back to the 1940s when Mayor La Guardia did a study that indicated the govt was lying to the American people.

Not many people know about that - but that's the truth - someone tried to catapult the propaganda, but the liars in govt. wouldn't have it.

Later, a professor did another study that indicated the govt was lying about cannabis. What did he get for his efforts? Harassment by the federal govt. He had to take legal means to stop them - all this is on record - it's not anecdotal. The guy started a drug research organization after he experienced the full weight of the federal govt's lies that cannabis is addictive.

The hostility you perceive is based upon 70 years of lies. Somehow that doesn't matter to you. Only your perceived slight is taken into account - which indicates bias on your part as well. But your bias has some basis too, because, yes, you hear the people who are responding to those 70 years of lies. The fault, iow, lies with those who have engaged in anti-cannabis propaganda for decades.

Here's a link to the full La Guardia Committee report: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/lag/lagmenu.htm

Here's a link to the story of how the federal govt. harassed Prof. Lindesmith: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/anslingerlindesmith.htm (originally posted in the peer reviewed Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology; Chicago; Winter 1998

The late Alfred Lindesmith was an Indiana University sociology professor who was a long-time advocate of medical treatment of addiction. We demonstrate below how the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN) attempted to intimidate Lindesmith, stifle his research, and interfere with his publication of articles counter to FBN policies. In addition, we argue that the American banning of the 1946 Canadian film on drug addiction, Drug Addict, may have been a pivotal event in a pattern of censorship and disinformation carried on by the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN) under the leadership of its long-time Director, Harry Anslinger. The FBN's campaign to suppress information played a significant role in the emerging public ideology and mythology regarding drug addicts and drug addiction in the United States. Lindesmith's unsuccessful efforts against the ban, as illustrated by his personal papers, his FBN file recently released to the National Archives, Anslinger's papers in the National Archives, and those recently released under the Freedom of Information Act, demonstrate the nearly absolute control of information exercised by the FBN.

Here's a link that talks about the Heath study: http://voices.yahoo.com/does-marijuana-really-kill-brain-cells-4229143.html

In 1974, Dr. Robert G. Heath, a researcher at Tulane University in New Orleans, reported that he had found proof that marijuana caused brain damage while experimenting on monkeys. Heath reported that rhesus monkeys smoking an equivalent of 30 joints a day began to atrophy and die after just 90 days. Autopsies revealed that the monkeys who had been exposed to the marijuana smoke had more dead brain cells than the control monkeys, who had not been exposed.

How did Heath come up with these results? What were his procedures? For six years, no one knew. It took Playboy and NORML six years of requesting and suing under the Freedom of Information Act to finally receive an accurate accounting of the procedures Heath used.

The poor monkeys were being suffocated for five minutes at a time, on a daily basis, over a period of three months. After which they were killed so that their brains could be autopsied, and the dead brain cells caused by carbon monoxide poisoning were attributed to marijuana. This was Ronald Reagan's "reliable scientific" source.

Here's a link that talks about the repressed marijuana study related to cancer. Project Censored calls this one of the most important censored stories of the 20th Century. A link to the actual study is available on DU in the Drug Policy Forum

http://www.alternet.org/story/9257/

In 1974 researchers at the Medical College of Virginia, who had been funded by the National Institute of Health to find evidence that marijuana damages the immune system, found instead that THC slowed the growth of three kinds of cancer in mice -- lung and breast cancer, and a virus-induced leukemia.

The DEA quickly shut down the Virginia study and all further cannabis/tumor research, according to Jack Herer, who reports on the 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, who set out -- unsuccessfully -- to develop synthetic forms of THC that would deliver all the medical benefits without the "high."

Additionally, the U.S. had a federal program, the Compassionate Investigational New Drug program, that supplied medical marijuana to patients because patients sued because the govt cannot deny people the right to health. The argument for use was "medical necessity." George H.W. Bush shut down the program because, basically, it demonstrates that the Federal Govt. is lying about the medical efficacy of cannabis. There are only four patients who were in the program who are still alive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compassionate_Investigational_New_Drug_program

U.S. v. Randall

http://www.marijuana-as-medicine.org/Alliance/legal.html#U.S.%20v.%20Randall

also info here:

Randall v. U.S.

In 1978, federal agencies, disquieted by Randall’s outspoken opposition to the medical prohibition, sought to silence him by disrupting his legal access to marijuana.

In response, Randall, represented pro bono publico by the law firm of Steptoe & Johnson, brought suit against FDA, DEA, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the Department of Justice and the Department of Health, Education & Welfare.

Twenty-four hours after the suit was filed, federal agencies requested an out-of-court settlement. The resulting settlement provided Randall with prescriptive access to marijuana through a federal pharmacy located near his home.

The settlement in Randall v. U.S. became the legal basis for FDA’s Compassionate IND program. Initially, this program was limited to patients afflicted by marijuana-responsive disorders and some orphan drugs. In the mid-1980′s however, the Compassionate IND concept was expanded to include HIV-positive people seeking legal access to drugs which had not yet received final FDA marketing approval.