Quote:
Originally Posted by undercoverbrother
As I mentioned earlier I am undecided, but I would apprecaite a source for that statement.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by undercoverbrother
Can you please provide examples of where "the governments" have had to "change their own studies to make their point"?
|
I'll post this as soon as you ask me to answer it in the other thread. I know the only reason you brought this up again was because of that. I ignored the first time because I've been over this many, many times in the past.
Take a look at The Shafer Report 1972 (National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse) and what Nixon did with it, that's all that needs to be said on this front and how the government ignores, changes, etc. to make it fit their narrative. It's no secret why they use the cannabis leaf in all drug campaigns, this isn't about cannabis being bad for the population, it's about it being bad for their personal interests.
The 1999 Institute of Medicine report on cannabis which was another government funded study where they had to use terms like "may" or "should" cause lung cancer. It was a report looking to reschedule for medical purposes, the report said "...except for the harms associated with smoking, the adverse effects of marijuana use are within the range of effects tolerated for other medications.". The government ignored that, kept it a schedule I, and also uses parts of it in misleading ways like ignoring vaporizing, eating, and all the other ways you can use cannabis without smoking it and get medical relief.
Unfortunately there aren't many examples of this because the government won't allow studies outside their arms reach. The two times they have it's come back with the opposite of what they have been selling to the public for the past 100 years.