The BBC, CNN and The Washington Times all have had stories on a new report from the National Institute on Drug Abuse concerning marijuana. The BBC sub-headline reads, “Marijuana has a long-term effect on blood flow to the brain, potentially increasing the risk of memory damage and stroke, research finds.” However, in the body of the article we find that, “The researchers tested 54 marijuana users, who smoked between two and 350 joints a week, and 18 non-smokers.” We also learn that, “Marijuana smokers had a faster blood flow, both at the start of the study, and after they had refrained from their habit for four weeks.” This last piece of information forms the basis for the frightening headline.

The first question that leaps to mind is, who smokes 350 joints in a week, that’s 50 per day? Secondly, with such a small and obviously non-random sample what have the researchers really demonstrated? If the marijuana users in the study had faster blood flow for reasons other than marijuana use why would the blood flow slow down just because they stopped using marijuana? The news stories do not mention any controls for other factors. Just off the top of my head, what was the average weight of the pot smokers vs. the non-smokers? What about tobacco or caffine use? Lastly, if your subjects are wolfing down 50 joints a day, what does any of this have to do with the way people use marijuana in the real world?

In addition we must consider the source of this study, the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Their mission is and always has been to provide a scientific veneer for a failed policy, the war on people who use certain kinds of drugs. Government science always gives the answer that government wants and especially right now the government wants reasons, no matter how contrived, to keep persecuting users of marijuana.

I am very confident that shortly I will be reading information generated by people in this field of research exposing this study as flawed beyond usefulness. When I do I will pass it on to the readers of this BLOG. I am also confident that the BBC, CNN, and The Washington Times will not do the same for their viewers and readers.