Community | January 07, 2010 | 22 comments

Top Anti Drug Researcher Changes Mind, Says Legalize Marijuana

(original post includes video interview with Tashkin)

For 30 years, Donald Tashkin has studied the effects of marijuana on lung function. His work has been funded by the vehemently anti-marijuana National Institute on Drug Abuse, which has long sought to demonstrate that marijuana causes lung cancer. After 3 decades of anti-drug research, here’s what Tashkin has to say about marijuana laws:

“Early on, when our research appeared as if there would be a negative impact on lung health, I was opposed to legalization because I thought it would lead to increased use and that would lead to increased health effects,” Tashkin says. “But at this point, I’d be in favor of legalization.

UCLA’s Tashkin studied heavy marijuana smokers to determine whether the use led to increased risk of lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or COPD. He hypothesized that there would be a definitive link between cancer and marijuana smoking, but the results proved otherwise.

“What we found instead was no association and even a suggestion of some protective effect,” says Tashkin, whose research was the largest case-control study ever conducted.

Prejudice against marijuana and smoking in general runs so deep for many people that it just seems inconceivable that marijuana could actually reduce the risk of lung cancer.

But that’s what the data shows and it not only demolishes a major tenet of popular anti-pot propaganda, but also points towards a potentially groundbreaking opportunity to develop cancer cures through marijuana research.

Over and over again, all the bad things we’ve been told about marijuana are revealed to be not only false, but often the precise opposite of the truth.
  1. groups:
    Community,   Current Tonight,   Science,   US News,   7 more
  2. tags:
    Marijuana,  Cannabis,  marijuana legalization
  3.     
    |

22 comments // Top Anti Drug Researcher Changes Mind, Says Legalize Marijuana

  • N_Dank
  • hunzedog
  • juicie
    • 0
      juicie  

    • In order for NIDA to approve research, your hypothesis has to be trying to prove a negative effect of cannabis, and they are not approving much because even when looking for bad they can't and actually find the opposite if they truly abide the scientific method.

    • 2 years ago
  • underthebus
  • juicie
    • 0
      juicie  
    • juicie:

      You're right, underthebus, most researchers have integrity. It is the people who hype the research at NIDA, and ONDCP. Their attention is selective, and can't be taught something which their pay check depends on them not understanding. I think ONDCP is required by law to oppose legalization and anything that might make people think it feasible or a more appropriate control model--I'll have to try to find that out for sure (their actions certainly support that notion).

      I see a legitimate place for these organizations after cannabis is legalized; they could do a lot more good if only they would recognize all research, instead of ignoring any that might not fit their paradigm (the Shafer commision, for example). People would be much more responsible with their use if they had access to truthful and more complete information--and their health would benefit from access to unadulterated and unspoiled product.

      ONDCP and NIDA need to realize they are doing more harm by being complicit in cannabis (research) prohibition, than the drugs (and individuals who use them) would do on their own. Not only that, what has been shown with Ganja is that not only is it not as bad as they once thought, it is actually very good for you (in moderation of course).

      "A drug is not bad. A drug is a chemical compound. The problem comes in when people who take drugs treat them like a license to behave like an asshole."
      Frank Zappa, Senate hearing on Porn Rock and the PMRC (1985)

    • 2 years ago
  • davzap
  • danitassin
  • crashbangnoises
  • noxidereus
    • 0
      noxidereus  

    • "Early on, when our research appeared as if there would be a negative impact on lung health, I was opposed to legalization because I thought it would lead to increased use and that would lead to increased health effects"

      Even though Tashkin ultimately changed his mind, I just wanted to point out a flaw in his original reasoning. It ignores the fact that our punishments are inhumane and far exceed any negative effects of cannabis. Even if cannabis turned out to be as unhealthy as Tashkin originally suspected, maintaining a position that marijuana should remain illegal ignores the fact that the war on drugs is a failure. It has not stopped cannabis use. All it does is feed the prison industrial complex, as America is the largest jailer in the entire world (no other country imprisons more people per capita than we do). Also in maintaining a position that cannabis should remain illegal, it ignores the fact that its illegality is based on lies. Supporting cannabis prohibition is an endorsement for the government to continue to lie to us and subvert our freedoms.

      I would argue that our government should not be passing laws against and jailing people for doing things perceived as unhealthy. Can you imagine if they made Big Macs and french fries illegal? It makes sense to recommend that people responsibly moderate their intake of food and/or other substances that are unhealthy in large quantities, but it does not follow that in a 'free' country, our government should force us to comply with a healthy lifestyle under penalty of the law.

    • 2 years ago
  • martinesheen
  • underthebus
    • 0
      underthebus  
    • Image
    • noxidereus:

      In the video interview, you really get a good sense of how ultimately anti-marijuana he is - he IS the establishment (worked for NIDA), which is what makes this announcement so riveting. In the videos, he admits his research was entirely focused on the negative impacts of MJ, and he cites a lot of them. It was totally by accident that anything positive came of his research, but as a good scientist he readily admitted they were wrong.

      I've heard that in America, only studies looking for the negative impacts of marijuana get funded. Here is my source:
      http://patients4medicalmarijuana.wordpress.com/time-to-legalize-marijuana-judge-...

    • 2 years ago
  • rwahrens
    • 0
      rwahrens  
    • noxidereus:

      "Many police officers are asking the question: if prohibition didn’t work for alcohol, why are we in denial about it working for other things?"

      This says what I have been advocating for years now. The "war on drugs" is a dismal failure. We WASTE billions and billions of dollars on trying to stop the importation of various illegal drugs, including HUGE amounts of MJ, and only stop a small percentage of it. Just like we did with alcohol in Prohibition. The same arguments for ending Prohibition apply to this "war".

      Let's stop spending huge amounts looking for illegal drugs and start spending it on social programs to help those that actually need help in getting treatment for drug addiction and for ending the social reasons for why people get addicted.

    • 2 years ago
  • underthebus
    • 0
      underthebus  
    • noxidereus:

      I can't help but think that since 70% of the Mexican smuggling is marijuana, and since Tijuana just became the world's #1 most violent city, prohibition of MJ and those in power who lied to make it happen have a lot to answer for...

    • 2 years ago
  • Conniepae
  • rwahrens
    • 0
      rwahrens  
    • noxidereus:

      I didn't see that, even though I live in nearby Maryland, I dropped the Post a few weeks ago, cause their delivery service sucked. I never got my paper in time to get it before I left for work. Idiot delivery driver.

    • 2 years ago
  • samthesixth
  • underthebus
  • samthesixth
  • rwahrens
  • danitassin
    • 0
      danitassin  
    • rwahrens:

      Yes. The first thing we need to do is get those people out of jail and home to there families. Haven't studies shown that a child develops better with parents to guide them. Our children are our future.

    • 2 years ago
  • jubal
  • medHead
underthebus
more from Community:
from the community

top videos