Applying Actual Science instead of Government-Sponsored Pseudo-Science
I have read your paper on Marijuana and have found that the majority of it to be misleading, incorrect, or simply wrong. I will elaborate...
"A recent study in New Zealand found that 99% of other illicit drug users had previously used marijuana.8 However, a majority of marijuana users studied (63%) did not progress to the use of other illicit drugs." And what about coffee and complex sugars? They each had even worn clothes, so why not say that the usage of clothing or interaction with human beings is directly linked to hard drug use? Because, simply put, it's ridiculous. If A happens, then B happens, that's not proof that A caused B. This concept is slightly older than 2,500 years, and I think Aristotle and Plato called it something like "logic" or "reasoning."
"There is still no conclusive evidence that marijuana is, in fact, a gateway drug, though it is clear that most illicit drug users have experimented with marijuana at some point in time." Don't forget that they had experimented also first with alcohol, paying taxes, believing the media, buying in to capitalism, and selling out anything that resembled a soul in themselves. Why make war against Marijuana, when there's powerful governments and capitalists working hand in hand to keep the common people ignorant? It makes no sense -- it is, as a philosopher might say, completely illogical.
There's a source provided for a list of seven things that list ACDE.org as a source. Of course, if you did your research, you'd understand that the paper you quote by the ACDE has already been debunked -- by me. How did I do that? I sent them an e-mail asking "What's your source?" and they never responded. Yet, if you did your research thoroughly, you would have discovered that material provided by ACDE is fraudulent, and when you republished it -- almost word for word -- you yourselves became guilty of fraud. Republishing health information, without being too interested in whether it is accurate or not, is a violation of the Hippocratic Oath. That you're a "medical university" teaching about the Hippocratic Oath, while at the same time openly violating it, is more than just a hilarious irony -- it's horribly tragic.
"Long-term marijuana abuse has several negative impacts on the user, including: Limiting the brainís capacity to store and retrieve information..." That's according to the fraudulent material that you've thought was fit to republish. But, according to a real study: "Experiments on rats given a potent cannabinoid have shown the drug stimulates the growth of new brain cells. Canadian researchers found that the drug caused neurons to regenerate in the hippocampus, an area that controls mood and emotions, after one month of treatment." (Independent.co.uk) Note: It is HIGH doses of cannabinoids, and not moderate or low, that were associated with fighting depression and developing more socially and emotionally-adjusted subjects. That is, it PROMOTES the ability of the brain to store and retrieve information.
Lie number two: "Damage to the brainís memory functions, as well as math and verbal skills." Read the book "Cannabis and Cognitive Functioning," by Nadia Solowij, published all the way back in 1998, for a discussion that measures hundreds of studies to get to one basic conclusion: while intoxicated, subject animals show less ability to do reasoning. In some of the studies, though, performance of the Marijuana-dosed rats was greater than the non-drugged rats: but this is typically associated with the "two-way shuttle" test that detects the capability of abstract, high-level thought. Hardly "damage to the brain's memory functions."
"Sexual dysfunction and reproductive problems" is clearly wrong. Why has it been prescribed by physicians as an aphrodisiac for, say, the past 4,000 years throughout the world to billions of people? Why are there paintings going back all this time of people having sex at the exact same time that they're smoking? And why are these paintings done by ancient Arab and Japanese cultures alike? Why are they a trend in old artwork for India and China? Everyone knows the world is round, and you step in to the picture and declare it to be flat, without doing any research or finding anyone who has done any research. Ignorance and pride, from America's "best" in the medical field. (CannabisCulture.com)
"Weakening of the immune system" is, similarly, wrong. Marijuana fights cancer and bacteria. It weakens the immune system in the way that using a topical anti-biotic on an infected sore weakens the immune system: that is, the immune system is "weakened" because it doesn't have to do as much. Since the infection is being cured by a topical anti-biotic, why make more white blood cells? I'd hope this concept to be extremely basic and understandable by "medical professionals and students," but apparently it's not. And your conclusion, upon use of antibiotics is, "They weaken the immune system." No -- they take over functions for the immune system, which actually strengthen it, were a new disease to overtake the subject. This, too, is basic, common, household medical information going back six or seven decades, but you may have forgotten it.
"Increased risk of cancer and lung damage" is so absolutely plainly. Wrong. Marijuana treats brain cancer. Source: Expert-Reviews.com . It fights prostate cancer. Source: NCBI.NLM.NIH.gov . It fights oral cancer. Source: NORML.org . It fights lung cancer. Source: Nature.com and ScienceDaily.com. It fights skin cancer. Source: JCI.org . It fights pancreatic cancer. Source: Cancerres.AACRJournals.org . It fights cancer in the Biliary Tract (the liver). Source: NORML.org . Finally, Marijuana fights Lymphoma. Source: MolPharm.ASPETJournals.org .
Do you know how to read, or do you just choose not to? Or, do you selectively read, and choose only to republish and respect whoever agrees with you, regardless of how scientifically inaccurate they are? Next lie: "Increased blood pressure and risk of heart attack." Blood pressure, yes, heart attack, not quite. Increased blood pressure can mean an increased heart attack, if an individual is living an unhealthy lifestyle. For example, if someone eats red meat, veal, steak, and pork, as the FDA "Food Pyramid for Children" recommends, then they may have problems.
Again, there is no association between marijuana and increased heart attack. There is an association between increased blood pressure and heart attack in individuals who have been eating meat. So, it's the flesh you put into your body that makes you have a heart attack. Consuming the cure to cancer, by itself, does not increase the chance of heart attack. But, why fight unhealthy lifestyles? You can earn government credits by fighting drug use!
Here's the final effect of Marijuana that you list: "Loss of motivation and interest in everyday activities and future plans." Oh, you mean, "everyday activities and future plans" like accurate, proper, and adequate research before publishing highly questionable medical opinions? Yeah, seems like being a student of any university or college can accomplish that. That's the real study that I see here: a bunch of medical students, using openly forged data, as a resource for some paper that simply copied someone else's ideas, just to support the current opinion of the government in regards to drugs.
Isn't that so so so curious? You don't list any references, except another paper, and that paper, itself, doesn't list references. So, you basically referenced something that was unreliable. In fact, you have rewritten the ideas, so specifically, in such a way that these ideas only exist exactly as they are in two papers: yours and that paper by ACDE.
Well, my friend, I'd have to say that use of Marijuana is less associated with ignorance and stupidity in general, than say, obedience to the official opinions of your school's administration and your state's politicians. That is the true worth of the "study" that is your paper against Marijuana.
I patiently await a response. Thank you.