I quite often compare anti-tobacco ‘science’ with global warming ‘science’. Today on WUWT I came across a similar comparison, this time exploring how global warming research is like pot research.
One of the reasons given for making marijuana a schedule 1 felony class drug [in 1970] was that we didn’t know about the harm it might cause, and there was no known medical benefit. Yes, it had been used as a medicine for centuries, the founding fathers literally “mandated” the growing of hemp on American farms because it was so useful a plant both industrially and medicinally, but we had entered the era of double blind placebo controlled drug trials, and there were now enormous pharmaceutical companies whose billion-dollar products were at risk, dwarfing even the Duponts’ complaint back in the 30′s. Its risks were similarly unstudied.
A period of research then ensued. If you wanted to study pot, you had to both get funded and get the experimental marijuana from a single, small farm in Mississippi that grew “legal” pot for this purpose. The government itself was in complete control, in other words of what research got conducted, because even if you could find outside funding, you couldn’t get legal pot to do the research with without approval.
…96% of all funded research was to look for negative effects of marijuana,…
In well over thirty years of intensive examination, all of the examination was literally preselected to find problems, almost none to find benefits…
Many similarities with tobacco, which is also medicinally useful. And pretty much all the research that has been carried out has been looking for negative effects.
emerging, still anecdotal, evidence from the states that had legalized medical marijuana … showed that — again unsurprisingly — marijuana is a rich pharmacopeia with multiple legitimate medical uses that could survived double blind placebo controlled investigation, while at the same time having minimal side effects and no known lethal dose.
This situation almost perfectly matches the evolution of “climate science”. Nobody cared about it for decades, but suddenly a group of individuals emerged that all benefited from the demonization of carbon. This included environmental groups, that hated civilization itself and the burning of anything (as long, of course, as their own lifestyle was preserved), energy producers that saw in this the opportunity to triple or quadruple their profits by creating artificial scarcity of a plentiful resource, politicians that saw in this the opportunity to raise taxes, get elected on a world-saving “issue”, and perhaps line their own pockets along the way, and a United Nations that saw an opportunity to transform it into a way to tax the rich nations and transfer money to developing nations (while again lining various pockets along the way).
And suddenly a group of individuals emerged that all benefited from the demonization of tobacco. This included environmental groups, that hated civilization itself and the burning of anything, pharma companies that saw an opportunity to double or triple profits by providing NRT products, politicians that saw an opportunity to raise taxes, and get elected on a “life-saving” issue, and line their own pockets along the way, and a UN World Health Organisation that saw it as a way to tax everyone and become rich and powerful.
There were even, according to one comment, animal experiments to prove how harmful cannabis was:
I remember the laughable experiments on monkeys to prove that smoking joints were lethal – they were made to smoke using an adapted gas mask of sorts and died of carbon dioxide poisoning. That didn’t stop the “scientists” proclaiming lethality of cannabis though.
Perhaps this is how all research is done these days? Climate research, cannabis research, tobacco research, everything. The conclusion is foregone, and just like with the Downing Street Memo, in which “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”
Back in the 1960s, dope-smoking hippies could see through crude anti-marijuana propaganda. But they believed everything they were told by the US Surgeon General about tobacco – because doctors don’t lie, do they?
They believed it then, and they still believe it today.
P.S. From the comments, another foregone conclusion:
The grant summary makes it clear that the researchers have already reached their conclusion, before having even initiated the “investigation.” They state that the results of their work ”will”serve as ”the” evidence for ”enforcing policies prohibiting smoking in homes.”