Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
this is an ongoing issue and has been around for years. Pot does seem to help with the side effects of chemo, but whether it actually controls cancer in anyway it still totally unproven. Some people are more inclined to bvelieve anything that is an alternative to basic treatments, others follow what their doctors say is best. I would be inclined to take a study reported in the Beast or Bloomberg with a grain of salt and look for other publications that can back these studies up. That is just me, others feel differently.
this is an ongoing issue and has been around for years. Pot does seem to help with the side effects of chemo, but whether it actually controls cancer in anyway it still totally unproven. Some people are more inclined to bvelieve anything that is an alternative to basic treatments, others follow what their doctors say is best. I would be inclined to take a study reported in the Beast or Bloomberg with a grain of salt and look for other publications that can back these studies up. That is just me, others feel differently.
Yeah, the "other publications" should be the peer-reviewed journals where the original research was reported. I don't know if these are accessible online, but my guess is they're available through WORLDCAT. Probably this is true though: marijuana makes some people feel better, and shouldn't be criminilized. In a rational, non-puritain based culture, it wouldn't be.
Go beyond the headlines and actually read the study - seriously flawed - no lab work at all, only questionaires requiring people to remember back decades to their early use. No controls for environmental factors, alcohol, other drugs/chemical exposure. The control group and the affected group were not the same size, this alone would put any conclusions in doubt. Fortunately there are none in this study. Note how often that MAY is used in the text, basically this is just a speculation piece, at least the grant paid the bills.
She did the study in response to a grant, no bias there right? Follow the money...
I don't want minors to use drugs of any kind, legal or illegal, but if you use obviously biased "research", realy a flawed poll, the under 18 group will see right through it. You have to be honest witth them, or they will tune out.
This "study" serves no one on either side of the issue.
Studies, studies, studies??? ROFPML! Why am I not surprised to see one study stating 'this' and another study stating 'that'? Wait a while and you'll be able to read a study stating something in between 'this' and 'that'. When are people going to develop some intelligence of their own and start using some of their own brain cells instead of following whatever some study states like sheep. I thank my lucky stars I'm not one of those 'sheeple', but instead a dying breed of homo sapien who can still manage to think for themselves and understand studies suit whoever wrote the study, or whoever commissioned that study.
Given my interest in and reading books about, animal rights and animal experimentation, I think you guys are right, for the most part. Many "studies" are done just to garner the research funds, are not helpful to human development in any way, and are horrendous to animals. However, it does not follow that *all* studies are useless and contradictory.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.