
Why Is It So Hard to Study Marijuana? - happy-go-lucky
https://medium.com/ucsf-magazine/why-is-it-so-hard-to-study-marijuana-d7a17c206fe1
======
steventhedev
I recall that NIDA had some rather nasty quality control issues (you'd think
you'd be able to do better with a budget of 69 million dollars)[0]. To be
honest, I could imagine at least some studies being rejected for lack of
adequate supplies. Not much point in trying to do science if your samples are
heavily contaminated.

[0]: [http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/scientists-say-
governmen...](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/scientists-say-governments-
pot-farm-moldy-samples-no-guidelines/)

~~~
veli_joza
Moldy samples from the only approved source? What a waste of taxpayer money.
They should be held accountable.

~~~
true_religion
They who? The farm? The scientists?

~~~
pboutros
I'm guessing the farm.

------
arca_vorago
Quick first point, the proper term to be used should be cannabis.

Back about 10 years ago I looked into this, the main problem was that the
University of Mississippi was using very questionable methods to produce what
they call "research-grade" cannabis. They were growing and then doing "thc
extracts" (focused on just the thc content, not the other cannabinoids), and
then spraying the concentrated THC onto what everyone who interacted with it
called questionable "plant-matter", supposedly so they could more carefully
control the THC percentages.

In essence, for a long time, all the studies that were using UoM cannabis were
actually not using natural cannabis, so it's no wonder many of the studies
failed in general.

Personally, after working in genetics for a while (just as a sysadmin), I came
to the conclusion that the big guys like Monsanto just wanted to get all the
IP/patents on the genomics so they could then do modified versions it would be
illegal to grow on your own, and as soon as they get all that sorted, they
will use their corruption of congress to get it legalized under their control.

On a more constitutional note, I personally have come to the conclusion that
the government primarily has abused the commerce clause (as it has in many
other instances) in order to get to this level of control in the "drug war".
On top that, as a general principle, under natural rights, I don't think
either the federal or state government has any rightful power to restrict what
I do or do not do with my body, whether that be drink coke, smoke cannabis, or
eat lettuce. Therefore on princple as a constitutionalist, I have to admit the
real proper move is to legalize drugs and treat them as medical issue.

One of my primary criticisms of the recent recreational/legalization movement
is that often in those states it is still illegal to grow your own. I think
this is also unconstitutional, because there is no reason to require people to
buy from someone else when they can easily grow it on their own.

What's next, you may not grow your own tomatoes or jalapeno peppers? A overly
dramatic rhetoric for sure, but you get my point.

The other problem is that the drug war has essentially enabled pre-crime to
become commonplace because that is what it is on it's face. We arrested that
drug user because he is doing drugs and therefore will eventually commit a
crime...

One more thing, I get really tired of people who pop adderall all week, get
drunk all weekend, and smoke cigars of acting all high and mighty about people
smoking cannabis.

~~~
dlwdlw
Not everyone is a well adjusted fully mature individual though. As an extreme
example, imagine a child shooting a classmate without understanding what death
actually is. From the child's perspective, the "bad" that that classmate done
may have been the worst thing he or she has ever experienced, having no other
experience to calibrate.

Drug use similarly requires an established life, otherwise it consumes the
life in a cycle of addiction. Simple curiosity can lead down a one way path.

Ideally parents will be responsible for the maturity of a child but that is
far from the case.

Preventing people from falling through a floor is what society is supposed to
do. Families that can insulate themselves can afford to not care about most
aspects of society which are basically services for the "unwashed masses". In
fact, these floors are often limiting to these families as the presence of a
floor also correspondingly creates a ceiling.

To let the majority of society suffer from the consequences of "stupid
actions" can only be said from a position of privilege. In an increasingly
complex world with real one way switch reoercussions, society and culture has
to be programmed to prevent people from falling through the cracks.

Chinese kids end up fairly well off for example because theie culture prizes
education. The kids hate it growing up but it prevents them from falling
through the "disdain for education" crack. The ceiling here is that you end up
not having to think for yourself a lot and may never truly find what you
really enjoy.

Creating a society is often about creating floors for safety while leaving
enough leeway so that ceilings can be navigated. Often though this purpose is
lost as the US has done with cannabis. The whole system literally pushes
people downwards and never lets them rise.

------
itomato
Have we forgotten what the problem of secondhand smoke actually is?

Multiple pack a day indoor smokers keeping a space filled with carcinogens.

Sitting next to someone with a joint of Certified Organic Top Shelf California
cannabis at an outdoor Paul McCartney concert is an absurd comparison.

------
bluetwo
I would have bet money Obama would have moved it to Schedule III before
leaving office.

~~~
will_pseudonym
I would have gladly taken that bet. He had 8 years to do so if he wanted to.

~~~
kevmo
At the end of the day, he was just the same old establishment president.
Didn't move the needle on mass incarceration, furthered crony capitalism.

~~~
metamet
Was he really though? In this presidential burger, he is a far cry from both
Bush and Trump.

~~~
rdtsc
Perhaps. However looking at why people expected and hoped for and what they
got from his presidency I can see how he gp's point stands.

It kinda makes me sad the best we have to say about him after 8 years is well
he is not Bush. I had really bought into the whole hope and change rhetoric.
But maybe it was my fault for being so gullible...

~~~
lern_too_spel
He had one Congress that wasn't controlled by Tea Party fanatics. With that
Congress, he was able to pass universal healthcare (a feat that eluded even
Bill Clinton) and Dodd-Frank while simultaneously battling a financial crisis
that would have gotten much worse otherwise. The things that armchair
politicians think presidents should squander political capital on (remember,
marijuana legalization still isn't popular in most of America) astound me.
With the number of ACA repeal attempts he had to fight, that Obama finished
his presidency with only a single government shutdown is a wonder in itself.

~~~
will_pseudonym
* Even with the ACA, the country's uninsured is about 11% [0]

* Universal health insurance != universal health care

[0] [http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/11/the-number-of-americans-
witho...](http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/11/the-number-of-americans-without-
health-insurance-rose-in-first-quarter-2017.html)

~~~
lern_too_spel
The only reason it isn't universal is due to Tea Party controlled states
denying free (to them) federal funds. The law as written was designed for
universal coverage.

------
doggydogs94
Anybody who believes that inhaling any smoke is harmless is fooling
themselves.

~~~
mwfunk
When did anyone ever say inhaling smoke is harmless?

~~~
lern_too_spel
Read the first paragraph of the article.

------
draw_down
Pretty simple: cui bono?

------
calafrax
Interesting question which is then used to spread a lot of unsupported FUD
about "second hand smoke" and imply that marijuana is as dangerous as Tobacco
and state without any support whatsoever that the marijuana market will become
dominated by mega-corporations the same as tobacco was.

~~~
overcast
Second hand smoke is dangerous, no matter what the source is. You're burning a
fuel into carcinogens. Just because Marijuana might combust into something
slightly less, doesn't mean anyone wants to breathe it.

~~~
collyw
Probably not as bad as diesel fumes, but no one gives a shit about those.

~~~
mwfunk
I don't know where you get the idea that "no one gives a shit about inhaling
diesel fumes". That's an odd assertion to make.

~~~
collyw
In comparison to "ban smoking from parks", "ban electronic cigarettes", no one
seems to give a shit. In fact I haven't seen any move to limit the fumes in
any way.

