>
>
>>> Dear Bruno,
>>
>> FYI:
>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/**releases/2008/06/080602160845.**htm<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080602160845.htm>
>>
>
> 15 people is not a serious sample, and then, to make it illegal you have
> to compare with the long-term effect of other activities (alcohol,
> breathing air in cities, tobacco, chocolate, aspirin, etc.)
>
> To get the stat meaningful you have to study large population of cannabis
> smokers. And that has been done, and the effect are more positive than
> negative, unless cannabis is consumed with alcohol or tobacco.
>
Also the study deals with heavy cannabis users ("Fifteen carefully selected
long-term (>10 years) and heavy (>5 joints daily) cannabis-using men"). It
is extremely common for the response to drugs to be positive up to a
certain dose and become negative after a threshold. This is even true of
many nutritional building blocks. One could probably draw similar
conclusions if "heavy vitamin D users" were studied.
Epidemiological studies are the lowest form of science. Sometimes they are
the best we can do, but drawing generic conclusions about the effects of a
drug from an epidemiological study with population sizes of 15 and with
extreme dosages is a bit crazy.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
