Cannabis & Science

Cannabis is a highly flexible drug. Saying cannabis research is generically like saying food research, so imagine research concluding on whether or not food is healthy (e.g. junk food and vegetables are absurdly equal in such research).

Three critical scientific factors are left out of apparently all cannabis research, and therefore such research does not conform to the scientific method, so is not really science.

1. Intake Method Differential

Human studies only seem to focus upon smoking cannabis, but without comparing other intake methods (e.g. vaporization), such research cannot conclude if the cannabis is (for prime example) negatively affecting the user, or the act of smoking something is.

While smoking is still the dominant intake method, given the huge intake efficiency boost from vaporization (so saving the user a lot of money) and more positive health impact, it is (at least logically) reasonable to conclude that vaporization will overtake smoking, so at least factoring in vaporization is key.

2. Precise Intake Amount

Measuring cannabis intake in joints (or such) is ludicrous. Joint size can vary dramatically, and the content of the joints can vary equally dramatically (the latter covered in the last factor).

Absolute precision is needed here, because intake amount is significant in terms of health impact.

Researchers demonstrate no ability to achieve anywhere near that precision up to this point.

3. Strain Differential

Due to the large number of cannabis compounds (which can be manipulated genetically and/or by growing techniques), strain effects (at least psychologically) can vary dramatically between strains (to the point where two strains can feel like different drugs), which is why there are hundreds (if not thousands) of strains available.

We need to see results connected to precise strain profiles. It is not even enough to compare Blue Dream with Granddaddy Purple (and so on), because strains with those names can vary significantly.

I understand that science is being politicized to the point of humanly tragically muddying science.

I understand there are likely honorable scientists doing the best they can with the atrocious limits imposed by an outrageously mass destructive prohibition that the mainstream media refuses to righteously challenge on behalf of the people’s right to know.

I understand that the scientific method is certainly (so purely) the completely logical advancement of understanding, so the spin doctors and liars abusing the term science will eventually lose out to the dominating consensus that the scientific method cannot be allowed to become muddied selfishly into irrelevance.

To say more cannabis research is needed is somehow an understatement.

What is conclusive, however, is cannabis prohibition is demonstrably ineffective (e.g. no “drug free” prison system, and no correlation between usage statistics and toughness of drug laws), destructive (millions of non-rights-infringing, so innocent, people having their lives ruined to varying degrees — including horrific and deadly ones), expensive (billions of taxpayer dollars wasted annually), unwarranted (the fact is no experimental science concludes any harm in cannabis use), and (speaking of rationality) — if you agree that the Commerce Clause cannot possibly be a rational basis for illegality — undeniably unconstitutional (i.e. ironically illegal).

We live in the “land of the free” to be whoever our oligarchy (too often corruptly) tells us we can be, despite the critical value and national obligation to uphold the unalienable right to liberty that is synonymous with harmless liberty — e.g. responsibly using cannabis.

That right is critical in order to prevent logically the worst form of abuse (at least due to its mainly broad scope of destruction) — the abuse of law.

To ensure that right is realized, selfish discrimination (e.g. race, gender, sexual preference, recreational drug choice, and so on) of any kind must (at least judicially) finally end, and evidence needed to judicially ban some activity must be conclusive (not pathetically weakly suggestive at best) in order to prevent that worst form of abuse in order to actually protect the children and the rest of us.

Prompted by the article: Here’s What the National Academy’s Medical Cannabis Report Actually Says