Skip to main content

Did You Know? 71 Peer-Reviewed Medical Marijuana Studies, on

Submitted by David Borden on (Issue #676)

Did you know there were 71 peer-reviewed medical studies involving cannabis and cannabis extracts between 1990 and 2010? Read the details at 71 Peer-Reviewed Studies on Marijuana, on the web site, part of the family.

Follow Drug War Chronicle for more important facts from over the next several weeks, or sign up for's email list or RSS feed. Read last week's blurb here. is a web site promoting critical thinking, education, and informed citizenship by presenting controversial issues in a straightforward, nonpartisan primarily pro-con format.

Permission to Reprint: This content is licensed under a modified Creative Commons Attribution license. Content of a purely educational nature in Drug War Chronicle appear courtesy of DRCNet Foundation, unless otherwise noted.


Page S (not verified)

Someone, either at procon or at Drug Reform Coordination Network,  should point out the differences between a double blind study and “human” or uncontrolled study.  All an uncontrolled study can demonstrate is correlation, not causation.  Causation is ONE possible explanation for correlation but it is by no means the only explanation.  If there is causation, there will be correlation.  This is not some minor academic point.  I would bet that most measurable correlations do not reflect causation but an underlying cause for both.  

Any scientist who asserts causation from an uncontrolled study is not worth paying any attention to.  He is either an ignoramus or a sellout and I don't care which side of the argument he comes down on.  A correlation is a great way to generate a causative hypothesis to be tested but it is not a “test”.

Thu, 03/24/2011 - 4:51pm Permalink

Add new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.