Prompted by “Pot science imbalance”: http://www.drugwarrant.com/2015/05/pot-science-imbalance/
In addition to the standard criticism (well-expressed in the prompting post) towards the leadership-driven preference for ‘cannabis is bad’ results supposedly in the name of science, here is my fully logical (i.e. scientific) and sadly unique extension copied from my Respect Cannabis campaign introduction…
Upon scrutiny of aforementioned prohibitionist claims against cannabis use (including following their citations to the actually-non-supportive and supposed science behind their tough-talking affirmations), I can safely state the fact that no experimental science proves any harm from moderate cannabis use. Moderate in this case means any use without objectively proven harm – as opposed to the suggestively possible harm from what appears to be science, but demonstrably fails to meet all of the key factors obviously required by the scientific method – intake method differential, precise intake amount, and strain differential.
A dramatically wide variety of different cannabis strains (i.e. different perception-altering effects) are available by professional cannabis growers, so choosing a strain (or combination – i.e. “salad” – of them for more texture and depth) is basically on par with choosing music from the enormous ocean of musical possibilities.
To briefly return to the aforementioned scientific failing (actually a serious scientific challenge to be fair), given the possibly enormous psychological impact of cannabis intake, failing to scientifically differentiate between that enormous array of strains is scientifically reckless (intentionally or not) when psychological factors matter.
To sufficiently understand the current supposedly scientific environment surrounding cannabis’ psychological impact, feel free to imagine a study suggesting that music may be harmful (or beneficial, if you prefer).
Emphasis on the words “suggesting” and “may” (not to mention “can”) reflect that cannabis-use science only achieves that weak degree of reporting (often, if not always, including disclaimers stating that more research is needed). Not to belabor the point, but contrast those weak conclusions against the tough-talking affirmations deceptively (including journalistically) broadcasted for generations at the expense of non-violent cannabis users and their loved ones – merely for the serious financial benefit of those sanctioned thugs selfishly deceptively expressing those affirmations.
Metaphorical study participants listened to whatever music they wanted (or had access to), so the effects of classical and death metal are equal (for prime example) in accordance with research logistics. Obviously the psychological impact from classical through death metal is different, at least according to common sense, so condemning that research as junk science is already fitting. However, also fitting is considering the remaining scientific factors in our music study metaphor, so you can truly understand how seriously distant current cannabis research involving psychological impact remains from worthy scientific credibility for proper public utility (especially with logically mandatory respect for the healthy societal flexibility that only comes from optimal liberty by law).
In our music study metaphor, that psychological impact not only depends upon sonic variations, but also listener uniqueness. Also note that one person’s harmony is another person’s dissonance (e.g. classical music is not always more pleasing). Moreover, volume differences matter, as does differences between not only speaker systems, but also between listening environments. As cannabis intake amounts are never precisely measured, but instead too-often measured in “joints” (or such), which is highly inaccurate (e.g. joint size is not always precisely measured, and consistency applied to the contents of those joints is not always applied), even the amount of music listening is equally inaccurately assessed.
Our music study metaphor is terribly accurate when compared to the state of cannabis research pertaining to psychological impact these days, and now you understand (repeating for emphasis) that the scientific community has yet to achieve scientific results (towards the psychological impact of cannabis use) worthy of public consideration (nonetheless the application of liberty-infringing law). In other words, cannabis science (like brain science in general) is within its very early stages, so empirical data in the form of millions (if not billions) of people using cannabis for thousands of years overwhelmingly (if not completely) without that use causing (not just questionably associated with) direct rights infringement – i.e. objectively proven harm – should justly prevail to sanely prevent cannabis illegality (and the demonstrated mass harm from the aforementioned law madness).
Fittingly echoing an earlier point for similar emphasis, though prohibition has demonstrated no conclusively proven decline (even slightly) of cannabis use/abuse over the past several decades of enforcement, prohibition grossly hinders scientific pursuit to better understand this complex plant for better societal health. Wonderful people involved in actual science, but not junk science inevitably skewed by abusing grant money or such to serve a selfish agenda, are not to blame for the aforementioned serious lacking of key scientific factors involving cannabis’ psychological impact. For actual public safety, prohibition must immediately end at least for this scientific reason alone.