> > >>> 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@example.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.