Cannabis News
Cannabis Research Fraud? – Over Half of the $1.5 Billion Spent on Marijuana Research Was to Find Harmful and Adverse Effects
A Tale of Two Studies
Exploring the nature of cannabis science
The pursuit of scientific truth is a noble endeavor, but it is not without its complexities and contradictions. Even as researchers strive for objectivity, the realities of funding, politics, and preconceived notions can influence the direction and interpretation of scientific inquiry. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the contentious field of cannabis research.
A 2020 analysis published in Science magazine revealed a striking disparity in cannabis research funding. Of the $1.56 billion directed to the topic between 2000 and 2018 in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, roughly half was spent on investigating the potential harms and adverse effects of recreational cannabis use. The U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the largest funder, allocated more money to studying cannabis misuse and its negative consequences than to exploring the therapeutic potential of cannabis and its derived compounds.
This imbalance underscores a troubling reality: not all scientific research is created equal. Just as the tobacco industry once enlisted medical professionals to promote smoking, some cannabis research may be steered toward finding and emphasizing negative outcomes. Studies that dare to suggest therapeutic benefits or challenge prevailing narratives often face bureaucratic hurdles and skepticism from agencies like the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
Against this backdrop, today we’ll examine two cannabis studies published just months apart. Though similar in design, these studies arrived at markedly different conclusions about the cognitive impacts of cannabis use. By juxtaposing their findings, we’ll shed light on the contradictory nature of cannabis research and the importance of critical thinking when interpreting scientific results.
As we delve into these studies, it’s crucial to remember that science is an ongoing process of discovery, not a collection of immutable truths. While some research may be tainted by agendas or biases, other studies earnestly seek to expand our understanding of this complex plant and its effects on the human body and mind. Only by approaching each study with a discerning eye and a willingness to question assumptions can we hope to navigate the murky waters of cannabis science and emerge with a clearer picture of the truth.
In the coming paragraphs, we’ll take a closer look at these two divergent studies, their methodologies, and their implications. By doing so, we aim to equip readers with the tools to critically evaluate cannabis research and make informed decisions in the face of conflicting scientific narratives.
The first study we’ll examine is titled “Regular cannabis use alters the neural dynamics serving complex motor control,” published in the journal NeuroImage in 2023. This study aimed to investigate the effects of regular cannabis use on the brain mechanisms underlying motor planning and execution. The researchers used magnetoencephalographic (MEG) imaging and time series analysis to compare the neural oscillatory dynamics of 18 regular cannabis users and 23 demographically matched nonuser controls during a motor sequencing task.
At first glance, the study appears to be well-designed and comprehensive. The researchers controlled for age, sex, race, and alcohol use, and participants underwent detailed interviews and screenings to assess their substance use patterns and overall health. MEG data were carefully processed and analyzed, and the results were presented with statistical rigor.
However, upon closer inspection, several inconsistencies and potential biases emerge. First and foremost, the study’s conclusion that regular cannabis use negatively impacts cognitive function seems to overreach the actual findings. While the researchers did observe differences in neural oscillatory patterns between cannabis users and nonusers, these differences did not translate into any significant impairments in task performance. In fact, the study explicitly states that “there were no group differences in task performance (e.g., reaction time, accuracy, etc.).”
This discrepancy raises questions about the researchers’ interpretation of their data. If cannabis users performed just as well as nonusers on the motor sequencing task, can we really conclude that their neural differences reflect a negative impact on cognitive function? It’s possible that the observed neural alterations represent compensatory mechanisms or adaptations that allow cannabis users to maintain normal performance despite chronic exposure to the drug.
Another potential issue lies in the study’s premise and framing. The researchers seem to approach the topic with the preconceived notion that cannabis use is inherently harmful, as evidenced by their emphasis on identifying “deficits” and “impairments” in the cannabis-using group. This bias may have influenced their interpretation of the neural data and led them to overstate the significance of the observed differences.
Furthermore, the study’s sample size of 41 participants (18 users and 23 nonusers) is relatively small, which limits the generalizability of the findings. The researchers also acknowledge that they could not control for the type, dose, or frequency of cannabis use among their participants, introducing additional variability that could confound the results.
Despite these limitations, the study’s authors assert that their findings “demonstrate that regular cannabis use is associated with alterations across multiple brain regions involved in motor control” and that these alterations “may be precursors of behavioral deficits that may emerge in the future.” While these statements are presented as definitive conclusions, they seem to rely more on speculation than on the actual evidence presented in the study.
Now, let’s take a look at another study on a similar subject matter and how they concluded…
The second study we’ll explore is titled “Medical cannabis does not impair cognitive function when used as prescribed,” published in the journal Drug Science, Policy and Law in 2022. This study took a different approach to investigating the cognitive effects of cannabis use, focusing specifically on patients using prescribed medical cannabis to manage various health conditions.
In this open-label trial, 40 participants (22 females) with a mean age of 41.38 years attended a single laboratory session where they self-administered their prescribed medical cannabis under supervision.
The researchers assessed cognitive performance using the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB) and Druid application (app) before and after cannabis administration. They also measured subjective drug effects using visual analog scales at multiple time points.
The study’s methodology has several strengths. By focusing on medical cannabis users following their prescribed regimens, the researchers captured a more realistic picture of how cannabis affects cognitive function in a clinical context. The use of validated cognitive assessment tools like CANTAB and Druid adds credibility to the findings, as does the inclusion of subjective measures to gauge participants’ experiences.
However, the study is not without limitations. The open-label design and lack of a placebo control group may introduce bias, as participants’ expectations could influence their performance and subjective ratings. The single-session format also provides only a snapshot of the acute effects of medical cannabis, leaving questions about long-term cognitive impacts unanswered.
Despite these caveats, the study’s results paint a strikingly different picture than the previous study on regular cannabis users. Participants’ performance on the CANTAB Multitasking Test and Rapid Visual Information Processing test actually improved over time, while all other cognitive measures showed no significant changes. These findings suggest that, when used as prescribed, medical cannabis may have minimal acute impact on cognitive function in patients with chronic health conditions.
The stark contrast between the conclusions of these two studies highlights the complex and often contradictory nature of cannabis research.
While the first study found neural alterations in regular cannabis users that were interpreted as potentially harmful, the second study found no evidence of cognitive impairment in medical cannabis patients following their prescribed regimens.
These divergent findings underscore the importance of context and nuance in interpreting scientific results. Factors such as the reason for cannabis use (recreational vs. medical), the specific products and doses consumed, and individual differences in health status and other variables can all influence the observed outcomes.
Moreover, these studies remind us that science is not a monolith but an ongoing process of inquiry and discovery. As new evidence emerges, our understanding of complex topics like cannabis and cognition evolves, sometimes in unexpected directions. While it’s natural to seek definitive answers and clear-cut conclusions, the reality is often messier and more ambiguous.
As consumers of scientific information, it’s crucial that we approach research findings with a critical eye, considering the strengths and limitations of each study and the broader context in which they exist. Only by embracing the inherent uncertainty and variability of scientific inquiry can we hope to make informed decisions and policies around contentious issues like cannabis use.
As we’ve seen through the examination of these two studies, the relationship between scientific research and public policy is far from straightforward. While science should ideally inform policy decisions, the reality is often more complex and politically charged.
The classification of cannabis as a Schedule I substance in the United States is a prime example of how scientific evidence can be overshadowed by historical, cultural, and political factors. Despite a growing body of research suggesting that cannabis has medical value and a lower potential for abuse than other Schedule I drugs, federal law continues to prohibit its use and severely restrict research efforts.
This disconnect between science and policy has far-reaching consequences. It perpetuates stigma and misinformation around cannabis use, hinders patients’ access to potentially beneficial treatments, and stifles scientific progress in understanding the plant’s complex effects on the human body and mind.
Moreover, it underscores the need for a more nuanced and evidence-based approach to drug policy. Rather than relying on simplistic categories and blanket prohibitions, policymakers should engage with the scientific community to develop regulations that prioritize public health, harm reduction, and social justice.
However, as the contrasting findings of the two studies we examined demonstrate, scientific evidence is rarely unequivocal or immune to bias. Researchers’ assumptions, methods, and interpretations can all shape the narrative around a particular topic, leading to conflicting conclusions and public confusion.
This is why it’s crucial for both policymakers and the general public to approach scientific findings with a critical eye. Rather than taking sensationalized headlines or cherry-picked results at face value, we must dig deeper into the methodology, sample sizes, limitations, and potential conflicts of interest behind each study.
We must also recognize that science is an iterative process, and that our understanding of complex issues like cannabis and cognition will continue to evolve as new evidence emerges. This means embracing uncertainty and nuance, rather than clinging to simplistic narratives or entrenched positions.
Ultimately, the sticky bottom line is that science and public policy are inextricably linked, but the relationship between them is often messy and contentious. As responsible consumers of scientific information and engaged citizens, we have a duty to approach research findings with a critical eye, to demand evidence-based policies from our leaders, and to advocate for a more transparent and accountable scientific enterprise.
Only by fostering a culture of informed skepticism and open-minded inquiry can we hope to untangle the complex web of science, politics, and public opinion surrounding issues like cannabis use. It’s a daunting task, but one that is essential for creating a more just, healthy, and evidence-based society.
THE CANNABIS COGNITIVE FUNCTION STUDY, READ ON…
CANNABIS SLOW COGNITIVE DECLINE AND DEMENTIA, READ THIS STUDY!
Cannabis News
Latest Trump Weed Rumor – Trump Will Federally Deschedule and Decriminalize Cannabis, but Not Legalize It
In a recent interview, former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie made headlines by asserting that President-elect Donald Trump will pursue significant reforms in federal policies regarding marijuana and cryptocurrency. As the nation grapples with evolving attitudes toward cannabis and the burgeoning digital currency market, Christie’s predictions have ignited discussions about the potential implications of such changes on both industries. This article delves into Christie’s insights, the current state of marijuana and cryptocurrency regulations, and the broader implications of these anticipated reforms.
The Current Landscape of Marijuana Legislation
Federal vs. State Laws
Marijuana remains classified as a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which places it in the same category as heroin and LSD. This classification has created a complex legal landscape where states have moved to legalize cannabis for medical and recreational use, while federal law continues to impose strict prohibitions. As of now, over 30 states have legalized marijuana in some form, leading to a burgeoning industry that generates billions in revenue.
Challenges Faced by the Cannabis Industry
Despite its legality in many states, the cannabis industry faces significant hurdles due to federal restrictions. These challenges include:
-
Banking Access: Many banks are hesitant to work with cannabis businesses due to fear of federal repercussions, forcing these businesses to operate largely in cash.
-
Taxation Issues: The IRS enforces Section 280E of the tax code, which prohibits businesses engaged in illegal activities from deducting normal business expenses, leading to disproportionately high tax burdens for cannabis companies.
-
Interstate Commerce: The lack of federal legalization prevents cannabis businesses from operating across state lines, limiting their growth potential.
Chris Christie’s Perspective on Marijuana Reform
Christie, a former presidential candidate known for his tough stance on drugs during his tenure as governor, has evolved his views on marijuana over the years. In his recent statements, he emphasized that Trump is likely to pursue descheduling cannabis, which would remove it from the Schedule I classification. This move would not only provide clarity for businesses operating in legal markets but also open avenues for banking and investment.
Christie highlighted that descheduling would allow for a more regulated market where safety standards could be established, thus protecting consumers. He believes that this approach aligns with a growing consensus among Americans who support legalization and recognize the potential benefits of cannabis use for both medical and recreational purposes.
The Future of Cryptocurrency Regulation = The Rise of Cryptocurrencies
Cryptocurrencies have surged in popularity over the past decade, with Bitcoin leading the charge as the first decentralized digital currency. The market has expanded to include thousands of alternative coins (altcoins), each with unique features and use cases. As cryptocurrencies gain traction among investors and consumers alike, regulatory scrutiny has intensified.
Current Regulatory Challenges
The cryptocurrency market faces several regulatory challenges that hinder its growth and adoption:
-
Lack of Clarity: Regulatory frameworks vary significantly across states and countries, creating confusion for investors and businesses.
-
Fraud and Scams: The rapid growth of cryptocurrencies has led to an increase in fraudulent schemes targeting unsuspecting investors.
-
Consumer Protection: Without clear regulations, consumers are often left vulnerable to risks associated with volatile markets.
Christie’s Vision for Crypto Regulation
Christie believes that under Trump’s leadership, there will be an effort to find a “sweet spot” for cryptocurrency regulation balancing innovation with consumer protection. He argues that overly stringent regulations could stifle growth in this emerging sector while too little oversight could expose consumers to significant risks.
In his view, a balanced regulatory framework would include:
1. Clear Definitions: Establishing clear definitions for different types of cryptocurrencies and tokens to differentiate between securities and utility tokens.
2. Consumer Protections: Implementing measures to protect investors from fraud while promoting transparency within the market.
3. Encouraging Innovation: Creating an environment conducive to innovation by allowing startups to thrive without excessive regulatory burdens.
Christie’s insights reflect a growing recognition among policymakers that cryptocurrencies are here to stay and that appropriate regulations are necessary to foster growth while safeguarding consumers.
Implications of Proposed Reforms
Economic Impact
The potential reforms proposed by Christie could have far-reaching economic implications:
-
Job Creation: Legalizing marijuana at the federal level could lead to significant job creation within the cannabis industry—from cultivation and production to retail sales.
-
Investment Opportunities: Descheduling cannabis would open up investment opportunities for institutional investors who have been hesitant due to federal restrictions.
-
Boosting Local Economies: Legal cannabis markets have proven beneficial for local economies through increased tax revenues and job creation.
Similarly, clear regulations around cryptocurrencies could stimulate investment in blockchain technology and related industries, fostering innovation and economic growth.
Social Justice Considerations
Both marijuana legalization and sensible cryptocurrency regulations have social justice implications:
-
Addressing Past Injustices: Legalizing marijuana could help rectify past injustices related to drug enforcement policies that disproportionately affected marginalized communities.
-
Financial Inclusion: Cryptocurrencies offer opportunities for financial inclusion for those underserved by traditional banking systems, particularly in low-income communities.
Political Landscape
The political landscape surrounding these issues is complex. While there is bipartisan support for marijuana reform among certain lawmakers, challenges remain in overcoming entrenched opposition. Similarly, cryptocurrency regulation has garnered attention from both sides of the aisle but requires collaboration to establish effective frameworks.
Conclusion
Chris Christie’s predictions about President-elect Donald Trump’s approach to federal marijuana descheduling and cryptocurrency regulation suggest a potential shift in U.S. policy that could significantly reshape both industries. As public opinion evolves on these issues, lawmakers have an opportunity to enact meaningful reforms that promote economic growth while ensuring consumer protection. The anticipated changes could foster a more robust cannabis industry that contributes positively to the economy and addresses social justice concerns, while clear regulatory frameworks for cryptocurrencies could encourage innovation and protect consumers in the digital economy. Stakeholders in both sectors are closely watching these developments, eager to see how potential reforms might impact their futures. While the realization of Christie’s predictions remains uncertain, it’s clear that the conversation around marijuana and cryptocurrency regulation is ongoing and far from settled.
TRUMP 2.0 ON CANNABIS REFORM, READ ON…
TRUMP 2.0 ON FEDERAL CANNABIS REFORM – WHAT DO WE KNOW?
“How Long Does One Puff of Weed Stay in Your System?”… This topic can be difficult to answer since it is dependent on elements such as the size of the hit and what constitutes a “one hit.” If you take a large bong pull then cough, it might linger in your system for 5-7 days. A moderate dose from a joint can last 3-5 days, whereas a few hits from a vaporizer may last 1-3 days.
The length of time that marijuana stays in the body varies based on a number of factors, including metabolism, THC levels, frequency of use, and hydration.
Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, is the primary psychoactive component of cannabis. THC and its metabolites, which remain in your body long after the effects have subsided, are detected by drug tests.
Since these metabolites are fat-soluble, they cling to bodily fat molecules. They could thus take a while to fully pass through your system, particularly if your body fat percentage is higher.
THC is absorbed by tissues and organs (including the brain, heart, and fat) and converted by the liver into chemicals such as 11-hydroxy-THC and carboxy-THC. Cannabis is eliminated in feces at a rate of around 65%, while urine accounts for 20%. The leftover amount might be kept within the body.
THC deposited in bodily tissues ultimately re-enters the circulation and is processed by the liver. For frequent users, THC accumulates in fatty tissues quicker than it can be removed, thus it may be detectable in drug tests for days or weeks following consumption.
The detection time varies according to the amount and frequency of cannabis usage. Higher dosages and regular usage result in longer detection times.
The type of drug test also affects detection windows. Blood and saliva tests typically detect cannabis metabolites for shorter periods, while urine and hair samples can reveal use for weeks or even months. In some cases, hair tests have detected cannabis use over 90 days after consumption.
Detection Windows for Various Cannabis Drug Tests
Urine Tests
Among all drug tests, urine testing is the most commonly used method for screening for drug use in an individual.
Detection times vary, but a 2017 review suggests the following windows for cannabis in urine after last use:
– Single-use (e.g., one joint): up to 3 days
– Moderate use (around 4 times a week): 5–7 days
– Chronic use (daily): 10–15 days
– Chronic heavy use (multiple times daily): over 30 days
Blood Tests
Blood tests generally detect recent cannabis use, typically within 2–12 hours after consumption. However, in cases of heavy use, cannabis has been detected up to 30 days later. Chronic heavy use can extend the detection period in the bloodstream.
Saliva Tests
THC can enter saliva through secondhand cannabis smoke, but THC metabolites are only present if you’ve personally smoked or ingested cannabis.
Saliva testing has a short detection window and can sometimes identify cannabis use on the same day. A 2020 review found that THC was detectable in the saliva of frequent users for up to 72 hours after use, and it may remain in saliva longer than in blood following recent use.
In areas where cannabis is illegal, saliva testing is often used for roadside screenings.
Hair Tests
Hair follicle tests can detect cannabis use for up to 90 days. After use, cannabinoids reach the hair follicles through small blood vessels and from sebum and sweat surrounding the hair.
Hair grows at approximately 0.5 inches per month, so a 1.5-inch segment of hair close to the scalp can reveal cannabis use over the past three months.
Factors Affecting THC and Metabolite Retention
The length of time THC and its metabolites stay in your system depends on various factors. Some, like body mass index (BMI) and metabolic rate, relate to individual body processing, not the drug itself.
Other factors are specific to cannabis use, including:
– Dosage: How much you consume
– Frequency: How often you use cannabis
– Method of consumption: Smoking, dabbing, edibles, or sublingual
– THC potency: Higher potency can extend detection time
Higher doses and more frequent use generally extend THC retention. Cannabis consumed orally may remain in the system slightly longer than smoked cannabis, and stronger cannabis strains, higher in THC, may also stay detectable for a longer period.
How Quickly Do the Effects of Cannabis Set In?
When smoking cannabis, effects appear almost immediately, while ingested cannabis may take 1–3 hours to peak.
The psychoactive component THC produces a “high” with common effects such as:
– Altered senses, including perception of time
– Mood changes
– Difficulty with thinking and problem-solving
– Impaired memory
Other short-term effects can include:
– Anxiety and confusion
– Decreased coordination
– Dry mouth and eyes
– Nausea or lightheadedness
– Trouble focusing
– Increased appetite
– Rapid heart rate
– Restlessness and sleepiness
In rare cases, high doses may lead to hallucinations, delusions, or acute psychosis.
Regular cannabis use may have additional mental and physical effects. While research is ongoing, cannabis use may increase the risk of:
– Cognitive issues like memory loss
– Cardiovascular problems including heart disease and stroke
– Respiratory illnesses such as bronchitis or lung infections
– Mood disorders like depression and anxiety
Cannabis use during pregnancy can negatively impact fetal growth and development.
Duration of Effects
Short-term effects generally taper off within 1–3 hours, but for chronic users, some long-term effects may last days, weeks, or even months. Certain effects may even be permanent.
Bottom Line
The amount of time that cannabis remains in your system following a single use varies greatly depending on individual characteristics such as body fat, metabolism, frequency of use, and mode of intake. Frequent users may maintain traces of THC for weeks, whereas infrequent users may test positive for as little as a few days. Hair tests can disclose usage for up to 90 days, while blood and saliva tests identify more recent use. Urine tests are the most popular and have varying detection durations. The duration that THC and its metabolites are detectable will ultimately depend on a number of factors, including dose, strength, and individual body chemistry.
PEE IN A CUP COMING UP, READ ON..
Latest Trump Weed Rumor – Trump Will Federally Deschedule and Decriminalize Cannabis, but Not Legalize It
Webinar Replay: Post-Election Cannabis Wrap – Smoke ’em if You’ve Got ’em
I Had Just One Puff
Marijuana firms Eaze, Green Dragon find new life after $10 million capital infusion
Get some rest on Modified Grapes—November’s Leafly HighLight
Is Kratom Addictive? Understanding Dependence, Risks, and Safe Usage
New Rule, December 5: Oregon Cannabis Retailers, Processors and Labor Peace Agreements
The CBD Dog Treat Guide
Trippin’ Golf Balls – Can Magic Mushrooms Help Your Golf Game?
Australian Broadcasting Corp Alleges Military Veterans Have Been Targeted By Medicinal Cannabis Companies Via Social Media & Offered Free “Product”
Distressed Cannabis Business Takeaways – Canna Law Blog™
United States: Alex Malyshev And Melinda Fellner Discuss The Intersection Of Tax And Cannabis In New Video Series – Part VI: Licensing (Video)
What you Need to Know
Drug Testing for Marijuana – The Joint Blog
NCIA Write About Their Equity Scholarship Program
It has been a wild news week – here’s how CBD and weed can help you relax
Cannabis, alcohol firm SNDL loses CA$372.4 million in 2022
A new April 20 cannabis contest includes a $40,000 purse
Your Go-To Source for Cannabis Logos and Designs
UArizona launches online cannabis compliance online course
-
Cannabis News2 years agoDistressed Cannabis Business Takeaways – Canna Law Blog™
-
One-Hit Wonders2 years agoUnited States: Alex Malyshev And Melinda Fellner Discuss The Intersection Of Tax And Cannabis In New Video Series – Part VI: Licensing (Video)
-
Cannabis 1012 years agoWhat you Need to Know
-
drug testing11 months agoDrug Testing for Marijuana – The Joint Blog
-
Education2 years agoNCIA Write About Their Equity Scholarship Program
-
Cannabis2 years agoIt has been a wild news week – here’s how CBD and weed can help you relax
-
Marijuana Business Daily2 years agoCannabis, alcohol firm SNDL loses CA$372.4 million in 2022
-
California2 years agoA new April 20 cannabis contest includes a $40,000 purse