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
https://scholar.google.fi/scholar?q=...L3AA4QgQMIITAA
A massive amount of studies have been done regarding various areas related to marijuana. All of the above (240 thousand studies related to marijuana) can be found by just one google search. Not going into the conclusions of the studies because I seriously can't be arsed reading scientific studies about a topic I'm not super interested in. But to say it's not studied is simply not true.
Marijuana is actually one of the more studied drugs just because of it's controversial status.
Just for reference, there are 11 thousand studies related to adderall on google scholar compared to the 240 thousand relating to marijuana. Granted not all of the 240 thousand studies related to marijuana are medical studies, but still a massively more studied drug. Not to even mention less known drugs in medical use.
So yeah, what you're saying is simply wrong.
The difference is that adderall is an artifical blend of chemicals (created and engineered by scientists, pharmacists, etc.) while marijuana is naturally occuring, meaning we know far less about it than we do adderall, since we didn't specifically engineer it for a single purpose. I don't think I need a source for this since it's obvious.
Originally Posted by Surfings
The difference is that adderall is an artifical blend of chemicals (created and engineered by scientists, pharmacists, etc.) while marijuana is naturally occuring, meaning we know far less about it than we do adderall, since we didn't specifically engineer it for a single purpose. I don't think I need a source for this since it's obvious.
I wasn't using an argument "Marijuana is a better known drug than adderall is". Adderall was my reference for the amount of studies conducted on the drug, to show that marijuana indeed is an extensively studied drug.
But now that you argued with such points I'll just throw this back at you.
The effects of an artificial combination of chemicals on the human body is not something that is ever going to be simply obvious.
The argument "we automatically know far less about naturally occuring chemicals than synthetic ones" seems quite far fetched.
Just because we engineer a chemical for a singular purpose, doesn't mean it doesn't need to be studied all the same.
So yeah, I don't think that is obvious at all. I would like a source on "We know the effects of adderall better than we do of cannabis".
I think it's funny that we see words like obvious here, used in the context of medicinal studies. As if anyone of us knew what is the required amount of valid studies conducted on a specific drug for it to be valid for medicinal use. Or even what studies can be concluded to be valid. The only thing we can do is google quotes from more authoritative sources. As far as I know, we don't have experts on pharmaceutics here, SO how about we dont use the word "obvious" here.
Last edited by cowmeat; Oct 23, 2016 at 02:52 PM.
