Did You Know? 71 Peer-Reviewed Medical Marijuana Studies, on ProCon.org
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 medicalmarijuana.procon.org, part of the ProCon.org family.
Follow Drug War Chronicle for more important facts from ProCon.org over the next several weeks, or sign up for ProCon.org's email list or RSS feed. Read last week's ProCon.org blurb here.
ProCon.org 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.
Comments
double blind vs. "human" studies
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”.
Add new comment