Just found this in a 2010 issue of The Economist. It is based upon a survey of drug-harm experts. Be sure to read the brief article, which contains the usual caveats.
In a related vein, I heard Dr. Sanjay Gupta of CNN, promoting his upcoming special 'Weed' (11 August 8 PM EDT), explain that he has done an about-face when it comes to medical marijuana:
Over the last year, I have been working on a new documentary called "Weed." The title "Weed" may sound cavalier, but the content is not.
I traveled around the world to interview medical leaders, experts, growers and patients. I spoke candidly to them, asking tough questions. What I found was stunning.
Long before I began this project, I had steadily reviewed the scientific literature on medical marijuana from the United States and thought it was fairly unimpressive. Reading these papers five years ago, it was hard to make a case for medicinal marijuana. I even wrote about this in a TIME magazine article, back in 2009, titled "Why I would Vote No on Pot."
Well, I am here to apologize.
I apologize because I didn't look hard enough, until now. I didn't look far enough. I didn't review papers from smaller labs in other countries doing some remarkable research, and I was too dismissive of the loud chorus of legitimate patients whose symptoms improved on cannabis.
Read the entire article here. In it, he says
We have been terribly and systematically misled for nearly 70 years in the United States, and I apologize for my own role in that.
Good enough for me!
Speaking of cavalier,
"Reality is for people who can't face drugs." - Laurence J. Peter (and others)
Comments