I have been reading on some recent studies that have been done on marijuana. I have noticed that the titles of the studies that show something bad caused by marijuana, are usually untrue. For example: This would lead the average person to think that marijuana has some serious effects on people. I would assume that a small percentage of people would even look at what Kaposi's Sarcoma is, which is a type of cancer - a cancer, however, mostly related to AIDS a while ago, and even less nowadays because of the advances of medicine. (http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_1X_What_is_Kaposis_Sarcoma_21.asp) Also I would assume most people will not read the entire article, but just the first few lines, or just the title. I read somewhere (sorry, no sources there) that it might be a few seconds, the time that a person spends looking at an unknown website. Now, this is what the article is really about, and not the marijuana causing direct Kaposi's Sarcoma, as people are led to believe in the title: Only people with weakened immune systems are susceptible to this, i.e. AIDS patients, or people with a different sickness. If you have a disease that weakens your immune system, you most likely will be taking medication for it, and therefore, lessening your chances of getting this Sarcoma even if you smoke marijuana. Full article I found some more doing the same thing. So when somebody shoves a study up in your face, read it carefully and think if it was unbiased and impartial.
same goes towards studies that are pro-marijuana. as much as you want to believe them, you should read the whole article before using it in an argument.
Scientific literature is fraught with data obscured for other purposes. When it is, you can usually follow the money back to it's source. In the case of marijuana reserch, it's often NIDA. It's not just with this though. You've got to really read in between the lines to know what sorts of information your getting.
Yes. But really, I didn't find many positive recent findings on marijuana. sciencedaily.com is a good source of recent discoveries, and few show up with benefits.
Very little, since I had never searched for actual studies done on marijuana, aside from the well publicized ones.
so true man^^ if people were to question the facts or look deeper into problems that would be nice. i.e. studies will show that marijuana contains more tar than cigarettes but when it really comes down to it, does it? often (not everyone) people who smoke cigarettes regularly, chain smoke them. but when you smoke some bud, you dont smoke 4 joints and one bowl. unless you just really want to get stoned off your head. there's really more factors that play into things and affect them than we realize.
I also found a study on that... that says that one joint equals about 2.5-5 cigarettes, but only because people who smoke bud hold it in longer, and other minor factors. It also states that using vaporizers reduces this statistic greatly.
really?!? yes, of course they are, that's why there are so many conflicting studies. Hell, all studies on anything are biased at least a little. Unless maybe if they're researched/written entirely by robots. Robots that were not created by humans. Anyway, yes, both pro- and anti-marijuana studies are biased, proven by the fact that they are pro- or anti-marijuana. Has anyone ever seen a study which doesn't put marijuana in either a good or bad light? It doesn't count that you agree with it being put in a good light, because that just means your biases are similar to those of the article.
Why would you test marijuana to see if it has neutral properties? It would be a pointless study. What I mean is, the further creation of a stigma against marijuana is being prolonged. It should be stopped.
