5 ms·

Medical effects of marijuana derivatives are so convenient for recreational marijuana advocates that I'm instantly suspicious that anything like this is overhyp

by Jiro 5y ago

Medical effects of marijuana derivatives are so convenient for recreational marijuana advocates that I'm instantly suspicious that anything like this is overhyped or selectively reported. If it was discovered that the marijuana derivative turned out to be useless in six months, would we even hear about it? Also, notice that we have an article also on the first page titled "Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?"

draw_down 5y ago
Come on
eurasiantiger 5y ago
> Medical effects of marijuana derivatives are so convenient for recreational marijuana advocates That is a non-argument. Of course advocates of a good thing will defend their thing on its good merits. But overhyped? Do you understand cannabis has been very actively studied for decades, with the majority of fraudulent studies being heavily against cannabis?
- playpause 5y ago
  The majority of fraudulent studies have been against cannabis? How do you know that?
  - eurasiantiger 5y ago
    Think for a moment about the incentives. We are no longer making ”science” where animals are suffocated by forcing them to inhale smoke for extended periods just to make the results look like marijuana causes brain damage. That particular study was pure bullshit, yet official doctrine was based on the results for decades. These kinds of studies were typically funded by government or public anti-drug entities like NIDA and DARE.
    - playpause 5y ago
      That's an example, I was asking how you know it's a majority. I'm not saying it is or it isn't, but you stated it as an obvious fact so I'm just asking how you know.
      - eurasiantiger 5y ago
        I’m extrapolating this advanced hunch from the fact that cannabis-related studies have for a long time been funded primarily by the century-old anti-cannabis lobby. The relatively young pro-cannabis lobby has much less prestige, money and power behind it, and thus the incentives to intentionally produce bunk science lay mostly on the anti-cannabis side. Then there’s the matter of public perception: even obvious falsehoods against cannabis are tolerated in the press when the source is ”scientists”. This is likely due to the falsehoods being in support of opinions entrenched by decades of similar falsehoods being passed as shocking truths. Obviously, pro-cannabis publications suffer the reverse: any falsehoods would get picked apart by the public; hell, even the truths regarding cannabis often get trainwrecked by people who just know better because someone told them a story. It is absolutely implausible that falsified pro-cannabis articles would outnumber falsified anti-cannabis articles. The monetary incentives and intellectual lenience are not there.
        playpause 5y ago
        I suspect there probably have been more falsified anti-cannabis articles than pro- ones. But you referenced this as a hard statistic, and you don’t seem to have any evidence, just lots of theory and “it’s obvious” rhetoric. I’m not convinced you would be open to changing your mind even if you were presented evidence to the contrary.
      - adminscoffee 5y ago
        Anyone who is old enough has seen the misinformation surrounding cannabis and the damage that has caused against people of color.
- autoexec 5y ago
  > That is a non-argument. You're right, but it's still a good idea to maintain a healthy dose of skepticism when something comes out that would benefit a industry/special interest group. There's a lot of activity/attention in the cannabis industry right now and a lot of money at stake. I'd agree that it's not a real argument against any particular study or paper, but it is a pretty good reason to be cautious and pay a little extra attention since there's a long and continuing trend of using research (often very flawed research) in order to promote a product or an industry. It's unfortunate, but until there are adequate protections against those kinds of abuses it's not unreasonable to be a bit pessimistic/skeptical initially.
the-dude 5y ago
Are you equally suspicious about supposed positive effects of alcohol?
- Jiro 5y ago
  If we were during Prohibition and journals started publishing articles about the positive effects of alcohol at the time there was a movement to legalize alcohol, sure.
dr-detroit 5y ago
You put a drop of inexpensive tincture on your tongue and it cures cancer how is it possible to overhype that?

by Jiro 5y ago

draw_down 5y ago

Come on

eurasiantiger 5y ago

> Medical effects of marijuana derivatives are so convenient for recreational marijuana advocates That is a non-argument. Of course advocates of a good thing will defend their thing on its good merits. But overhyped? Do you understand cannabis has been very actively studied for decades, with the majority of fraudulent studies being heavily against cannabis?

playpause 5y ago
The majority of fraudulent studies have been against cannabis? How do you know that?
- eurasiantiger 5y ago
  Think for a moment about the incentives. We are no longer making ”science” where animals are suffocated by forcing them to inhale smoke for extended periods just to make the results look like marijuana causes brain damage. That particular study was pure bullshit, yet official doctrine was based on the results for decades. These kinds of studies were typically funded by government or public anti-drug entities like NIDA and DARE.
  - playpause 5y ago
    That's an example, I was asking how you know it's a majority. I'm not saying it is or it isn't, but you stated it as an obvious fact so I'm just asking how you know.
    - eurasiantiger 5y ago
      I’m extrapolating this advanced hunch from the fact that cannabis-related studies have for a long time been funded primarily by the century-old anti-cannabis lobby. The relatively young pro-cannabis lobby has much less prestige, money and power behind it, and thus the incentives to intentionally produce bunk science lay mostly on the anti-cannabis side. Then there’s the matter of public perception: even obvious falsehoods against cannabis are tolerated in the press when the source is ”scientists”. This is likely due to the falsehoods being in support of opinions entrenched by decades of similar falsehoods being passed as shocking truths. Obviously, pro-cannabis publications suffer the reverse: any falsehoods would get picked apart by the public; hell, even the truths regarding cannabis often get trainwrecked by people who just know better because someone told them a story. It is absolutely implausible that falsified pro-cannabis articles would outnumber falsified anti-cannabis articles. The monetary incentives and intellectual lenience are not there.
      - playpause 5y ago
        I suspect there probably have been more falsified anti-cannabis articles than pro- ones. But you referenced this as a hard statistic, and you don’t seem to have any evidence, just lots of theory and “it’s obvious” rhetoric. I’m not convinced you would be open to changing your mind even if you were presented evidence to the contrary.
    - adminscoffee 5y ago
      Anyone who is old enough has seen the misinformation surrounding cannabis and the damage that has caused against people of color.
autoexec 5y ago
> That is a non-argument. You're right, but it's still a good idea to maintain a healthy dose of skepticism when something comes out that would benefit a industry/special interest group. There's a lot of activity/attention in the cannabis industry right now and a lot of money at stake. I'd agree that it's not a real argument against any particular study or paper, but it is a pretty good reason to be cautious and pay a little extra attention since there's a long and continuing trend of using research (often very flawed research) in order to promote a product or an industry. It's unfortunate, but until there are adequate protections against those kinds of abuses it's not unreasonable to be a bit pessimistic/skeptical initially.

the-dude 5y ago

Are you equally suspicious about supposed positive effects of alcohol?

Jiro 5y ago
If we were during Prohibition and journals started publishing articles about the positive effects of alcohol at the time there was a movement to legalize alcohol, sure.

dr-detroit 5y ago

You put a drop of inexpensive tincture on your tongue and it cures cancer how is it possible to overhype that?