NIH "research" on Medical Marijuana : objectivity or kangaroo court?
holson at california.com
Thu Jan 30 04:35:31 EST 1997
stephan at ucla.edu (Stephan Anagnostaras) wrote:
>In article <moo-0102971106520001 at sl16.midtown.net>, moo at midtown.net (Bryan
>> In article <32f38144.0 at seashell.california.com>, holson at california.com
>> (Howard Olson) wrote:
>> > The recent New England Journal of Medicine article supporting
>> > Marijuana has forced the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to offer
>> > at least a pretense of openness to investigating the use of marijuana
>> > objectively. It remains to be seen whether that is possible for the
>> > Statist ideologues at NIH.
>> Have you noticed that all requests for research into medical marijuana,
>> even by private institutions using federal funding, are either refused or
>> not funded? And then the feds have the chutzpah to say there's *not enough
>> evidence* to support legalizing marijuana for medical use. Further proof
>> that the state is the enemy of personal freedom.
>I know someone who is funded to do THC research. Then again, it's because
>he's working with THC antagonists :)
Actually, a clear understanding of antagonist action, objectively
interpreted would tell more about cannibinoid receptors than do
agonists. The biggest thing the anti-pot Feds have hanging over their
heads is the fact of the natural cannibinoid ligand in the CNS,
More information about the Neur-sci