You are talking about just "studies on marijuana", I'm not sure that's the way the FDA works.
Let's take a look at the evidence you present:
"A social psychology of marijuana use: longitudinal studies of high school and college youth."
Relevant?
"Psychological studies of marijuana and alcohol in man"
Relevant?
"… /mass spectrometric and nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometric studies of carcinogenic polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons in tobacco and marijuana smoke …"
Relevant?
"High-potency marijuana impairs executive function and inhibitory motor control"
Relevant?
"Using full matching to estimate causal effects in nonexperimental studies: examining the relationship between adolescent marijuana use and adult outcomes."
Relevant?
Repeat ad infinitum. I don't think the FDA accepts "but google says there's 240k studies!" when many if not most are not relevant... So yeah... Maybe that's how the FDA works, I don't know. But I really doubt you can get through just with sheer volume of studies even if they are irrelevant.
You don't really think that's true do you?
By the way compare to the top adderall studies...
"Analog classroom assessment of Adderall® in children with ADHD"
"Differential effectiveness of methylphenidate and Adderall® in school-age youths with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder"
"A comparison of Ritalin and Adderall: efficacy and time-course in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder"
"A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study of SLI381 (Adderall XR) in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder"
Oh wow they are all actually about studying the effect of the drug directly.
By the way "marijuana" a plant and "adderall" a drug is not a fair comparison.
Let's take a look at the evidence you present:
"A social psychology of marijuana use: longitudinal studies of high school and college youth."
Relevant?
"Psychological studies of marijuana and alcohol in man"
Relevant?
"… /mass spectrometric and nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometric studies of carcinogenic polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons in tobacco and marijuana smoke …"
Relevant?
"High-potency marijuana impairs executive function and inhibitory motor control"
Relevant?
"Using full matching to estimate causal effects in nonexperimental studies: examining the relationship between adolescent marijuana use and adult outcomes."
Relevant?
Repeat ad infinitum. I don't think the FDA accepts "but google says there's 240k studies!" when many if not most are not relevant... So yeah... Maybe that's how the FDA works, I don't know. But I really doubt you can get through just with sheer volume of studies even if they are irrelevant.
You don't really think that's true do you?
By the way compare to the top adderall studies...
"Analog classroom assessment of Adderall® in children with ADHD"
"Differential effectiveness of methylphenidate and Adderall® in school-age youths with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder"
"A comparison of Ritalin and Adderall: efficacy and time-course in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder"
"A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study of SLI381 (Adderall XR) in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder"
Oh wow they are all actually about studying the effect of the drug directly.
By the way "marijuana" a plant and "adderall" a drug is not a fair comparison.
Last edited by wibblefox; Oct 22, 2016 at 11:06 PM.
If you have minions in your avy or sig DO NOT REPLY TO MY POSTS
Originally Posted by wibblefox
Titles of studies you havent read and cherry picking
You havent read any of those studies, neither have I. You are just putting forth titles like it's an argument for there not being enough studies on cannabis. Wait what
"these studies arent valid/relevant enough for me. I haven't read a single study relating to this topic ever, but I am so smart that I can tell by titles which studies are valid/relevant enough" is basically your point here.
More relevant studies for you because they sound more scientific, right?
https://scholar.google.fi/scholar?q=...s_vis=1&oq=thc
Now that we are cherry picking I can do the same. You can find studies like:
"Neurocognitive performance during acute THC intoxication in heavy and occasional cannabis users"
"Blood cannabinoids. I. Absorption of THC and formation of 11-OH-THC and THCCOOH during and after smoking marijuana"
"subjective and physiological effects and whole blood Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol concentrations in heavy, chronic cannabis smokers following acute smoked cannabis"
On and on and on and on...
You said "there haven't been enough studies". I pointed to you that there are tens and hundreds of thousands of studies.
So let's not pretend that we are experts in chemistry or medicine who can discern which studies are relevant enough for the FDA. Mmkay?
I'm not even saying anything about the medicinal usage of marijuana. I never did. I'm only talking about the fact that your argument "there aren't enough proper studies" is just wrong.
-----
inb4:
"Well how can you say that these studies are relevant then?"
I can't. I'm just pointing out that these thousands of studies exist. Neither you nor I can deny nor confirm their relevance.
Last edited by cowmeat; Oct 23, 2016 at 12:22 AM.
Reason: <24 hour edit/bump
national institute of cancer general info about cannabis:
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/...p/cannabis-pdq|
the section on human/clinical studies:
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/...pdq#section/_9
a study on cannabis effects for chemotherapy,performed in patients:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21343383
and here just by adding keywords like "cannabis treatment" we get
all types of studies and researches for various ailments:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...abis+treatment
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/...p/cannabis-pdq|
the section on human/clinical studies:
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/...pdq#section/_9
a study on cannabis effects for chemotherapy,performed in patients:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21343383
and here just by adding keywords like "cannabis treatment" we get
all types of studies and researches for various ailments:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...abis+treatment
Last edited by nikosefs; Oct 23, 2016 at 12:33 PM.
Originally Posted by cowmeat
You havent read any of those studies, neither have I.
Then why do you think they are relevant and why do you think they should have any bearing on FDA approval?
In the context of my comment "It needs to be properly studied and regulated like any other drug." I thought it would be obvious that I was talking about FDA approval, apparently not, I apologise.
To restate again, FDA approval requires specific kinds of studies, I'm fairly certain you can't just show up there and say "look how many hits I get on google!" and expect that to fly.
If you have minions in your avy or sig DO NOT REPLY TO MY POSTS
Originally Posted by wibblefox
Then why do you think they are relevant and why do you think they should have any bearing on FDA approval?
In the context of my comment "It needs to be properly studied and regulated like any other drug." I thought it would be obvious that I was talking about FDA approval, apparently not, I apologise.
To restate again, FDA approval requires specific kinds of studies, I'm fairly certain you can't just show up there and say "look how many hits I get on google!" and expect that to fly.
Originally Posted by cowmeat
-----
inb4:
"Well how can you say that these studies are relevant then?"
I can't. I'm just pointing out that these thousands of studies exist. Neither you nor I can deny nor confirm their relevance.
I already answered in my own post, kind of knowing you'd bring that up.
I'm not saying anything about any study's validity.
I'm not arguing it should, or shouldn't be approved for medicinal use.
But what I am saying is that YOU (or anyone here) can't say "It's not studied well enough" without forwarding me to more credible sources. I gave you thousands of studies just to point out that marijuana is an extensively studied drug with multiple areas of studies. Not that "THERE ARE SO MANY STUDIES, IT MUST BE VALID FOR MEDICINAL USE"
At no point in any post have I even mentioned my view on marijuanas medicinal validity. Only about the fact that when we discuss scientific topics like this, our opinions about relevance and validity of studies are not worth jack shit.
You did not show any credible sources for your statements, and I pointed that out to you. That's all.
Last edited by cowmeat; Oct 23, 2016 at 03:16 PM.
