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

I'm an honest freak (or reasonably responsibly balanced "misfit", if you prefer) of an entertainer working and resting as my careful contribution to help improve society. Too many people abuse reasoning (e.g. 'partial truth = whole truth' scam), while I exercise reason to explore and express whole truth without any conflict-of-interest.

Tagged with: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Keep It Objective, Respect Cannabis

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

a couple of images of yours truly "There are some things so serious you have to laugh at them." – Niels Bohr

Feel free to join us in seamlessly riding our boundless community waves.

Fun through serious, my carefully formed results are honest and usually offer a freshly unique view.

As a fairly complex person, I cover many interests, so for your convenience, I separate them into "RSS-able" branches...

Follow Spirit Wave Journal on
Thank You
To those of you making up the number in the box above (and informal followers elsewhere -- e.g. tapping into my RSS feeds here), I thank you for your undeniably necessary role for (and as part of) my beloved 3Fs (family, friends, and fans).
Help Needed

Helping raise awareness and any other constructive way to participate in our growing community is equally appreciated.

Legal Disclaimer
Spirit Wave ("entertainer" herein) disclaims that entertainer only publicly posts content ("entertainment" herein) for entertainment purposes only. You (the reader of this sentence) agree to the fullest extent permissible by law that entertainer is not liable for any damage. Moreover, entertainer never advocates breaking the law, so any expression involving drug use is addressed solely to anyone capable of lawfully engaging in that use. Since this journal is a part of the All Sines entertainment ecosystem, you (the reader of this sentence) agree to be bound by the All Sines legal disclaimer located @
%d bloggers like this: