Aug 262013
 August 26, 2013

domestic violence marijuana study federal us governmentCourtesy of The Joint Blog

The National Institute on Drug Abuse is funding a nearly $2 million study in an attempt to find a link between cannabis consumption, and domestic violence: We have little doubt that it’s going to backfire, and conclude that cannabis reduces violence among partners.

For the study, the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) is granting the University of Buffalo$1.86 million to conduct 4 years of research; the study will be titled Proximal Effects of Marijuana in Understanding Intimate Partner Violence.

According to a university press release; “[Maria Testa, Ph.D, lead researcher for the study] says that despite the commonly held belief that marijuana suppresses aggression, many studies have found a positive association between marijuana use and intimate-partner violence.”

This statement has no legitimate science to back it up; in fact, a recent study published in the journal Neuropharmacology has found that cannabis reduces aggression (as well as improves social interactions).

All-in-all, this study – at least to us – is an indication of how desperate prohibitionists are becoming, as they attempt to find any negative effect that cannabis might have, in order to use when debating against legalization.

We hate to say it NIDA (actually, that’s a lie, we enjoy saying it), but you’re never going to be able to legitimately use the argument that cannabis causes domestic violence.

Source: TheJointBlog.Com

About Johnny Green

Johnny Green is a marijuana activist from Oregon. He has a Bachelor's Degree in Public Policy. Follow Johnny Green on Facebook and Twitter. Also, feel free to email any concerns.
  • JohnChase

    When I saw that headline I thought NIDA had lost its collective mind. They ain’t gonna find no correlation, much less causation. Just more taxpayer money pissed away trying to prove the unprovable. If anything, they’ll find that pot inhibits domestic violence, and when they do, they’ll hide the report.

  • Brett

    Domestic violence is a mental health issue, behavioural in nature. Generally relating to fear/power/control. Addiction can exacerbate the issue as can stress and any number of other factors. Really they should pump the millions into mental health screening. The problem with this study (on the surface at least) is that you can make the study look like there is a link, but to get an accurate picture you would need to have comparative data on alcohol, opiates etc. to see how significant addiction is across the study group. This is non-science. Or nonsense, whichever you prefer.

    • Noah

      Into mental health screening? For what? Just to pump people with more drugs? You all say drugs can’t cause behavior but that’s exactly what many pills are created and prescribed to do..why is it any less believable of any other drug? A drug can INDUCE behavior..we are ALL capable of ALL behaviors..whether they come out or not is all about our chemical balance and drugs definitely influence that!

  • Mary Jane Gudenhi

    Why bother when they’re just going to hide the results?

  • Mary Jane Gudenhi

    Here’s a 5 cent study on the effects of alcohol on domestic violence. Yup, not a cause but definitely a contributor.
    Now somebody give me my 5 cents.

  • Jamie Guest

    I suffered through battering when they ran out of pot not the other way around. Come on people! what a waste!

  • Rob

    What a waste of taxpayer’s money. I know many people that use Marijuana regularly. Everyone I know that does use it are the most laid back people I know who do not have a violent tendency in their being. I agree with many of the other posts below.

  • Mike

    Just get High for Free and find out for yourself. Fucking morons.

  • Johan Mathiesen

    No drug causes violence. Violent reactions while under the influence of a drug, including alcohol, are culturally determined and are not a property of the drug. Drugs don’t cause people to commit crimes. The use of some drugs might relax inhibitions, but none cause violence.

    • kool2handle

      that is b.s booze makes some people angry and some people happy. Coke crystal meth same thing. But pot is nothen but feeling good. not drunk out your mind. or even as high as some pills get you. just a slight buz and I do mean slight.

      • Johan Mathiesen

        Nice try, but you’re wrong. Booze makes no person angry or happy; it makes them drunk. How they react to being drunk depends on their personality and their culture. In many cultures, no one gets angry when drunk; it’s just how they do it. Americans often get angry when drunk; they use alcohol as an excuse to behave poorly; they believe they can blame the alcohol, like you’re doing; but it’s not the alcohol, it’s who they are. Ditto meth and all the other social drugs. It’s a fundamental error of understanding to think that the drug causes people to react in a certain way; that doesn’t happen to be true, sorry.

        • Jay Long

          Johan, you make some good points but may be painting with too broad of a brush. Alcohol definitely intensifies one’s feelings, thus you act out in a greater fashion than without. The need for a physically addictive drug can certainly cause someone to commit a crime in order to get it; thus to say drugs don’t cause people to commit crimes could be somewhat naive. And just out of curiosity, when is meth considered a social drug?

          • Johan Mathiesen

            Hi, Jay,

            I’m not sure that alcohol intensifies one’s feelings so much as distorts them, but regardless, it certainly has an effect. Nonetheless, the response to that effect is culturally determined. For example, there is a South American tribe whose practice it is to get together on Friday nights, in a big circle, and drink until each person falls over backwards. They never fight; they never run off with women; they just fall over dead drunk. It’s how they handle it. Another example: Italians in Italy drink as much as Italians in America, but American Italians are much more prone to violence; different cultures.

            The need to commit a crime to obtain a drug is a fault of the legal and distribution system, not a function of the drug. The lack of a drug might make one commit a crime, but the drug itself won’t. The crimes committed to obtain drugs are due to the price, which is due to their illegality, not how they work. The laws make the crime, not the drug.

            When is meth considered “social”? You’d rather call it “recreational’? Or you have another pet term? They’re social drugs because the users form a social group that interacts with itself; versus medicinal drugs; although they, too, can be social under the proper circumstances. “Recreational” as a word doesn’t begin to cover the uses to which this class of drugs belong. Recreation is only a part of the zeitgeist of drugs. “Social” is a more comprehensive term encompassing the great range to which drugs are put. The term “recreational” implies that the speaker hasn’t thought about the social implications of drug use.

            But it’s a darn good question.

          • https://www.facebook.com/akuma.ciel Noah

            “The laws make the crime, not the drug”..cool so if in the future someone murders your whole family while he was cracked up..we’ll blame the law for his crime. Or if someone stoned out of his mind decides to steal your car because a ride in it looks like the thing to do..we’ll just blame that on the law too and not on his behavior Good to know. I missed the memo when we stopped taking responsibility for our choices..but this has been truly enlightening!! /sarcasm

          • Johan Mathiesen

            If someone murders your whole family while on crack, you’re going to blame the crack and not the person? Jeez, buddy, what planet do you live on? Ditto that car thief. Stoned on what? Smoking a joint made him (or her) steal that car? I don’t think so. But if someone steals your wallet to buy drugs, that’s a law induced crime. See the difference? I repeat, drugs don’t make anyone commit any crime. Lack of drugs, maybe, but drugs, no. Think this through a little more carefully before you get sarcastic, eh?

          • https://www.facebook.com/akuma.ciel Noah

            Drugs cause chemical reactions in your brain, things you wouldn’t normally think of doing, you end up doing. Thoughts, emotions, and actions all have heavy ties to each other and drugs can affect any one of these. Have you ever seen someone tripping? When they finally come to, half the time they don’t know what they did or they DO know what they did but it was out of their control. Just like drugs can cause physical reactions they can cause psychological ones. Just look at what legal psychotrops do..they literally, inhibit or promote a behavior, something that the person normally is unable to do on their own and you don’t think illicit drugs have the same capability?

          • wowFAD

            Look, fatty — stick to what you’re good at, which is pretending that you were beat up by cannabis users. Leave neuroscience to neuroscientists. Though before I leave the office, I’m going to show your comment around so we can all have a good laugh over what you think LITERALLY happens in the brain. LOL

          • https://www.facebook.com/akuma.ciel Noah

            Hahaha “Fatty” again..says the one who wont even show his/her face..ok keyboard warrior you go ahead and leave your “office” if that’s what you call your mom’s basement and show my comments to your “people” if that’s what you call your mom and you all can have a nice drug-induced laugh over your own ignorance.

            Please..look up how psychotropic drugs work..google it. It is a FACT they affect your CNS and manipulate the chemicals in your brain. Not my fault if your 2nd grade reading level can’t comprehend that.

          • wowFAD

            No no, I’m not denying that chemicals influence neurology. I’m saying your vague, nebulous description of those processes is so comically over-simplified, that it’s almost sad. We *do* study those things, you know. Which means we can use the words that directly correspond to those “chemicals” and those “nervous signals”. For example, we understand that suicide rates for men between the ages of 20 and 29 decrease by 11% in states with medical cannabis because cannabinoid agonists that bond with CB1 receptors decrease depression and anxiety. We’ve even proven it clinically (by accident).
            Because of your morbid obesity, I’m sure you’ve heard of the failed diet drug, Rimonabant. This drug was designed to block CB1 receptors, preventing agonists from activating them. The rationale was that, if cannabis gives people the munchies, preventing the activation of those receptors in the brain should suppress apetite. Lo and behold! The clinical trials had to be halted because of the DISASTEROUS psychiatric side-effects which resulted in four SUICIDES. The surviving test subjects described experiencing extreme depression and anxiety until the antagonists finally wore off — simply because their CB1 receptors were prevented from doing their jobs.
            See how I used all those words to describe, precisely, what’s going on in your brain? That’s why my colleagues and I laughed at you, yesterday — because of the haughty bluster with which you demonstrated your complete lack of understanding of basic neuroscience. NERVOUS SIGNALS, really? LOL

          • https://www.facebook.com/akuma.ciel Noah

            “is so comically over-simplified,” Why complicate it? You think because you start naming receptors it makes the argument any more right or wrong? There’s nothing wrong with “nervous signals”..as in signals passed from nerve to nerve which is exactly how it works in simple terms? Do you NEED me to name chemicals and synapses too? Don’t be an idiot. We’re on a weedblog where half the people here are too baked to understand anything above the words “that’s good” or “that’s bad”. I’d like even the most retarded of stoners to understand me. I’m not writing this for “you” I’m writing this for “them” so the lightbulb will go off in their heads and they might wake up. You..you’re a lost cause, it’s obvious.

            In the end all you did was prove my point to debunk what Johan said: “The clinical trials had to be halted because of the DISASTEROUS psychiatric side-effects which resulted in four SUICIDES”

            Chemical changes, tweaking them, CAUSE behaviors, moods, thoughts (that normally would not happen if not for their explicit manipulation) etc which CAN lead to actions. Keep dancing around the subject by pointing out needless things though..you are SO good at that!

            By the way..while talking about cannabinoids and their affect on lowering anxiety/depression..do you ignore the research that THC promotes and exacerbates anxiety and mania? Because I don’t think Skunk and Chronic is helping anyone.

          • wowFAD

            LOLOL — first, you decry my being specific because “the stoners” won’t understand it. You didn’t understand it. I explained in no uncertain terms what happens when cannabinoid receptors are blocked and what happens when they’re activated… …and yet, you off-hand mention “the research” which claims it causes mania and anxiety — no specifics, no reference, no abstract excerpts, not even a year of publication. That’s just HILARIOUS.
            To answer your question, YES, I would like you to be more specific. If you haven’t noticed, what we’re discussing pertains to what I do for a living. So when you spout buzzwords from neuroscience, I honestly can’t decide if I’m flattered or perturbed that you’re pretending you have my education.
            But for your personal edification, shall I explain it again without the big words? Fine.
            Blocking CB1 receptors prevents them from being activated, normally. Doing so makes people CRAZY. Unblocked CB1 receptors can be activated by, ehem, cannabis molecules — sorry, cannabis *thingies* — reduce anxiety and depression when activated — sorry, cuts down sad and ups the happy when they’re turned on.
            BTW — I’ve discussed the endocannabinoid system on these boards before. The “stoners” never struggle to understand it. Perhaps you’re unjustified in elevating your intelligence above theirs.

          • https://www.facebook.com/akuma.ciel Noah

            “If you haven’t noticed, what we’re discussing pertains to what I do for a living” Yes..because you say it on the internet it must be true. In that case Im the president of the United states..ok. Truth is what you do for a living is troll. You’re one of those people with a Google degree..in other words you read a few studies and papers on the interwebz and suddenly you’re an expert. Please…just please..

            All you are doing is putting yourself on a pedestal while you keep drifting away from the original topic all the while accusing me of not understanding what you are talking about.

            This is what I understand, no one mentioned anything about cannabinoid receptors, you just randomly started into that. This article was about domestic violence statistics, which went on to the theory “This is a valid study to ascertain the link between violence and cannabis as, like any other psychoactive drug, cannabis does have ability to impair judgment, exacerbate thoughts and moods, cause anxiety and paranoia, all of which are traits that have been described with other drugs that have lead to domestic violence.” That simple.

            Then Johan entered with his “drugs dont force you to do anything” while I contended that while some things are a choice, there are inevitable choices often made DUE to the influence of drugs. He wants to allude that with or without drugs, all choices are cognitive and I very much state the opposite, that the presence of drugs turns what would normally be a very willful choice into actions driven by impairment and brutal instinct. This is what makes the guy on, say PcP, take a leap off a building thinking he’s superman, or what makes someone on shrooms think the cat is talking to him. Most recently are the articles of people smoking synthetic marijuana and then attacking people or even eating dogs alive. None of that were choices made on a clear mind. You can’t attribute that to natural personality “well if he ate the dog it’s because he was born, pre-programmed, with a hankering for dog meat and the drug just helped him realize his craving”..no.. just no. They are actions resulting from moments of insanity or psychosis induced by the drugs.

            Then here comes wowFAG throwing in CBs and claiming I dont understand. Ok, for the sake of argument, I go along with it but when I bring up THC he glosses it over completely. There are many cannabinoids in that plant and they dont all do the same things. CBDs can inhibit anxiety but THC has been shown to promote it. When we are talking about the kinds of strains stoners go for, they wont be high in CBDs..quite the opposite they want high THC concentrations. This is what is leading to these cases of domestic violence. Argue all you want for all the other cannabinoids..your weed-induced aggressor was not smoking Industrial hemp (with its low THC) he was smoking Skunk.

            Since you are so in love with cannabinoid receptors, you do know the body produces it’s own kind of cannabinoids right? You dont need to run to cannabis to get cannabinoids. CB1 and CB2 receptors weren’t MADE for “Cannabis molecules” they were made naturally on their own for our own existing endocannabinoid system, for our endogenous cannabinoids. We had a functioning endocannabinoid system before cannabis was ever even discovered! Just as we have opioid receptors without EVER needing to touch a poppy plant. These things are inside of us, working naturally, evolved from our own process..we DO NOT need an external plant for them to work properly. Or do you think the Sea Squirts are out smoking blunts? They react to Cannabis too but they sure as HELL never came in contact with it naturally. Cannabis evolved to react with our already existing system..we did NOT evolve to react with IT.

          • wowFAD

            Ehem — again, here’s what you said three days ago, which prompted me to get specific: and I quote:

            “Drugs cause chemical reactions in your brain, things you wouldn’t normally think of doing, you end up doing. Thoughts, emotions, and actions all have heavy ties to each other and drugs can affect any one of these. Have you ever seen someone tripping? When they finally come to, half the time they don’t know what they did or they DO know what they did but it was out of their control. Just like drugs can cause physical reactions they can cause psychological ones. Just look at what legal psychotrops do..they literally, inhibit or promote a behavior, something that the person normally is unable to do on their own and you don’t think illicit drugs have the same capability?”

            Lo and behold, after *YOU* brought this up, someone stepped in to correct your blasé ingorance. With facts! Facts I learned in grad school, though I admit, Google Scholar is easier to use than jstor — so no, my degrees aren’t from Google, but the Information Age was good for my education, and indispensible for my research.
            So again — I will ask you to GRASP THE CONCEPT of an internet conversation in which the full transcript of what has been said by who and when IS READILY ACCESSIBLE to everyone. Your inability to do so is testimony to how much every teacher you’ve ever had failed you, miserably.

          • https://www.facebook.com/akuma.ciel Noah

            And that little paragraph you picked out was in response to Johan..you have a hard time following chronological events..but it’s ok since you pretty much admitted you’re a basement keyboard warrior.

            While you are busy picking and choosing what you want to argue with..I’m busy debunking a pro-marijuana paper. Sorry. My original statement still stands and I will be anxious to find out what these statistics are. You can bitch and moan all you want..but it’s going to happen regardless of what you say here and I’ll be sure to put the results on blast. Boohoo about it all you want.

          • wowFAD

            Since when is “I was talking to Johan” having anything to do with the time-stamps of comments? Doesn’t change the fact that the *first* person on this entire thread to bring up neuroscience was *you*, does it? Yes, you — who spoke so poorly on the subject that I had the privilege of taking the time to correct you. But it wasn’t without it’s rewards. I mean, like we’ve established twice now — this is an internet conversation. Which means I, like Johan (and everyone else — especially you) can come back here anytime the mood strikes to review how painfully fact-free your little soap box rants were, as well as all the juicy corrections from several people you’re *still* trying to ignore, and especially the lovely shaming you’ve been subjected to. Honestly, the simple fact that I’m not on your end of this conversation brings me great joy.

          • https://www.facebook.com/akuma.ciel Noah

            How was I the first person to bring up neuroscience? The first person to bring up drugs and changes in mood was Kool2handle with his comparison about booze. You must be blind on top of stupid. You didn’t correct a thing, all you did was lead the topic astray and nitpick on certain words and you’re STILL doing it. You have a sad life..I feel sorry for you :( I think I can understand now why you run to the marijuana for comfort. It must be sad living in your mom’s basement, pretending to “do this for a living” whatever that means. But you go ahead, if it keeps you happy :) I will just smile and nod. Like it or not this study is going to happen. I will make sure to post on here what the results are. Don’t cry too hard when I do.

          • wowFAD

            LOLOL — sure thing, sweetness. Keep posturing as if you’ve accomplished something.

          • painkills2

            Hey Noah, you seem to really dislike the idea that your brain can make your body do things against your will (isn’t that sort of how disease works sometimes?). As if you argue hard enough, loud enough, and long enough, your beliefs will be correct. Who, exactly, are you trying to convince?
            Although you make some good points in this debate, you really can’t argue against what we know so far about the brain. I would suggest you watch Charlie Rose’s Brain Series from this year. I don’t pretend to be a scientist, or to understand everything that was discussed here or on Charlie Rose about how the brain works, but as a 25-year intractable pain patient, I have done my research into how pain works in the brain and your overall argument just doesn’t make sense.
            And if you think everyone who posts to this comments section is too stoned to know what ya’ll are talking about in this thread, I don’t think your argument about enlightening us really holds weight. In the end, it seems your reasons (and views) are really more political than scientific.

          • https://www.facebook.com/akuma.ciel Noah

            “Hey Noah, you seem to really dislike the idea that your brain can make your body do things against your will”

            You lack comprehension skills. I have been arguing exactly that. That chemical changes in the brain can cause you to do things outside of cognitive thought and process. Johan and wowFAD are the two saying everything is a choice and Im saying not all choices are willful and voluntary, they can be drug induced and outside the normal range of behavior.

          • ridiculous

            Now your an expert on neuro science and evolution. Riddle me this bit of logical sequential thought process: Why would a plant that it’s not being used by humans evolve to better suit it’s human consumers (as in the animal that consumes the plant most, not to be confused with an economical consumer) so that it can insure it’s survival. See how that is an endless loop of illogical craziness. Plants evolve to ensure their own survival. They don’t do this on a whimsical guess. They do this because of real input from their environment. Therefore cannabis did not evolve to better suit us unless we were already using the plant. So there it’s no definitive logical way to know which evolved first. The thing about evolution means we didn’t have to begin existence with our complex system of cannabinoid receptors. We very well could have.. well “evolved” this part of our brains. Nice try though.

          • https://www.facebook.com/akuma.ciel Noah

            It didn’t evolve to better suit humans. In its raw form THC is a deterrent. It’s bitter and bad tasting. The plant developed it to keep hungry herbivores from eating it, thus saving it from being destroyed. If the animal persisted in eating it, it would become impaired by the psychoactive effects, a secondary weapon to safeguard the plant..if the taste did not keep the animal away the impairment would hopefully put it off as NO herbivore wants to willingly be off his rocker..that would make him easy prey..and so the animal would think twice about eating the plant.

            It is humans who tried it, unclear of who was the first or how, but since we have naturally evolved to supersede our natural predators..they could sit back and enjoy the high without fear of the impairment leading to death. The plant’s natural defenses became our happy good-time drug of the year. It didn’t evolve with humans on its mind, it evolved defenses we happened to like.

            Again this has nothing to do with the original topic but whatever..

          • Travis1989

            interesting..

          • Travis1989

            Noah,

            Not all stoners are retards, I am stoned as i am typing this, And i understood everything that was said between everyone.

          • https://www.facebook.com/akuma.ciel Noah

            That would explain why you capitalize the wrong words at the wrong time too eh? “typing this, And i understood” …rest that case.

          • wowFAD

            Generalizing from one sentence — that’s why you’re not a scientist, precious.

          • wowFAD

            Generalizing from one sentence — that’s why you’re not a scientist, precious.

          • wowFAD

            No no, I’m not denying that chemicals influence neurology. I’m saying your vague, nebulous description of those processes is so comically over-simplified, that it’s almost sad. We *do* study those things, you know. Which means we can use the words that directly correspond to those “chemicals” and those “nervous signals”. For example, we understand that suicide rates for men between the ages of 20 and 29 decrease by 11% in states with medical cannabis because cannabinoid agonists that bond with CB1 receptors decrease depression and anxiety. We’ve even proven it clinically (by accident).
            Because of your morbid obesity, I’m sure you’ve heard of the failed diet drug, Rimonabant. This drug was designed to block CB1 receptors, preventing agonists from activating them. The rationale was that, if cannabis gives people the munchies, preventing the activation of those receptors in the brain should suppress apetite. Lo and behold! The clinical trials had to be halted because of the DISASTEROUS psychiatric side-effects which resulted in four SUICIDES. The surviving test subjects described experiencing extreme depression and anxiety until the antagonists finally wore off — simply because their CB1 receptors were prevented from doing their jobs.
            See how I used all those words to describe, precisely, what’s going on in your brain? That’s why my colleagues and I laughed at you, yesterday — because of the haughty bluster with which you demonstrated your complete lack of understanding of basic neuroscience. NERVOUS SIGNALS, really? LOL

          • Johan Mathiesen

            No they don’t. They don’t cause you to think of things to do that you wouldn’t otherwise do. Where did you get that idea? Have you taken these drugs? Not only have I seen someone tripping, I’ve done it myself many times and I have no idea what you’re talking about. And nothing was “out of their control.” If they said so, it was a cop-out, and if you believed them, you were naive. What psychotropic drugs are you talking about? You run into different ones that I do. I know drugs which dull behavior, but I don’t know of ones which promote behavior. (Okay, I take that back; ecstasy tend to make one love people, but it doesn’t make you leap at them.) Which were you thinking of? And what behaviors do they get people to do that one normally wouldn’t think morally acceptable? From where do you get your information? Not, apparently, from experience.

          • https://www.facebook.com/akuma.ciel Noah

            You have obviously never even read the labels on those pills..yes they DO cause you to think/feel things you normally would not. I am against prescription drugs because of that very fact. How are you going to give someone who is suicidal a drug that may deepen their suicidal thoughts? All our psychological processes are born from chemical reactions and nervous signals. Your personality, your thoughts, your memories and dreams are all wired in your system and YES outside forces can influence that entirely. They are created to do just that!

          • Johan Mathiesen

            It seems, Noah, you’re suffering from a little knowledge, which, as we all know, can be a dangerous thing. You’re reaching for straws here. You apparently don’t understand what the labels are telling you. Sure, there are a number of drugs which can deepen depression. Sure, there are drugs which can elevate one’s mood. Nonetheless, those drugs don’t make a person do anything; that decision is theirs alone, not the drug’s. There are not little commands hidden in the drugs telling you to go out and steal a car or murder someone. There just isn’t. They can affect mood, but not provide directions. You have only a vague understanding of how drugs work. That’s okay, most people are confused.

          • Johan Mathiesen

            Oh hell; next time someone kills your whole family after eating at McDonald’s, blame McDonald’s, eh? I’m not being sarcastic; I’m following your logic: that what one ingests forces one to do something (other than throw up). You seem sure that you know that a drug can cause someone to commit a crime; it’s just as logical that anything one ingests can cause them to commit a crime. “Good God, what did I just smell? Let’s go rob an old lady.”

          • ridiculous

            Yep I completely disagree. In my youth I did a lot of different drugs. All different kinds. Not a single one ever made me feel like robbing our killing anyone. I in fact never committed those crimes either. I kept a steady job and good grades even. The person determines the actions- How far they are comfortable letting themselves go and how much they are willing to allow themselves to use drugs as a crutch and an excuse for their behavior.

          • Daniel

            “Good to know. I missed the memo when we stopped taking responsibility for our choices”

            This line breaks your own point – a criminal who kills or injuries someone on drugs is just as guilty as someone who wasn’t on drugs. It’s a matter of choice and consequence and as long as we treat addicts like criminals, your only gonna see more addicts that end up fucking up others lives.

            Anyone who hurts or injures someone while on drugs choose to take those drugs and involve themselves in the wrong situation, whether the results are by choice or accident, the person made the choice to worsen the situation with drugs. The drugs didn’t just appear on their own. Controlling the substances are key, not controlling the people who are victims of it.

          • https://www.facebook.com/akuma.ciel Noah

            No, controlling the substance is only half the battle..no one is talking about controlling people, that’s fascist and that never leads down a good road. What needs to happen is re-education and reevaluation of how and why we make bad choices. We need actual ethical studies..a nice “how to” for living decently within a society where you have your choices to make but you maximize making the right ones. If we are not putting criminals in jail (stoned or otherwise) all we are doing is giving them a little slap on the wrist instead. That doesn’t help anything. Our judicial system as it is, is a joke. No one respects it. Just like you they cry victim instead of owning up to their choices.

            Easy analogy. You have a kid who is constantly putting his hands on the stove. You have told him a million times he will get burned one day if he keeps doing it. If you set the stove on low, the kid is going to touch it several times before he gets burned IF he even gets burned and he wont believe your warnings, like ever. If you set the stove on high..I promise you..that kid touches it once and he will NEVER touch it again. Did he have choice? He certainly did..100% free choice..but he ALSO had consequences, appropriate ones, when talking sense isn’t enough. Cannabis is like the stove..it’s here..you can’t get rid of it. Our laws are like the stove set on low..people keep playing with it, they don’t get burned (apparently not enough). Set the consequences for these laws higher and people wont mess with it. Do they still have a choice? Absolutely, 100%…and the whole time you can talk reason all you want..whether they get burned by the law or not..is on them.

  • Gman

    I live in Southern Cali, Ive got the Real Jack Herer, Northern Lights, Alien oG, & OG Kush Nfvv@ymail.com email me and maybe ill give you my number.

  • Keith Bryan

    LMFAO……any studies linking alcohol use to domestic violence? Pot mellows almost all users out, doesn’t make them violent. Except when they read crap such as this article.

  • Rick

    Alcohol is the drug that has a corealation with aggression and physical abuse

  • wttexas

    what a waste of our money,,,and the politicians ?? they will see what they want to see…

    • Jay Long

      swansong19, right…there was something I was supposed to do…oh well. Don’t forget about the people that get drunk from alcohol and participate in “intimate partner violence.” No 2-million-dollar study for that though. Makes me scratch my head sometimes.

      • Outlaws_RIP_Makevelli

        Hey people I say contact your representative, demand the head of this government department get axed. She has been there since 2003, badmouthing pot the entire time!!!! Her name is in the paragraphs above, come on people its easy to send an email, get on it.

      • Styxwash

        But you forget, alcoholism is a sign of manliness and american spirit.

  • swansong19

    Nobody’s ever gotten high and beat their spouse…but I bet many have gotten high and forgot to beat their spouse.

  • kool2handle

    Makes me want to love my spouse more. and I can put up with 3 times the stress as a normal person. 40 years later and im still a lover not a fighter. In fact. Its been 17 years sence ive even been in a fight. But people that drink will fight you at the drop of a pen. even though they cant even walk. lol weed ain’t shit just a very slight buzz just make one feel happy goofy sleepy hungry. that is all.

  • Chino915

    This is just another desperate attempt by the conservative right to find anything and I mean anything, to paint marijuana in a bad light. Got to keep spending an excess of $25 billion a year on keeping it illegal so the gestapo, I mean federal & state cops, have jobs!

    • Jay Long

      Chino, great points. I wonder where the “National Institute of Drug Abuse” gets its funds? $2 million? One can do a lot of good with 2 million dollars. I hope it’s not tax payer money.

    • knotweed

      Follow the money. It is a great revenue stream for the government and when they get a stream, they don’t release it easily.

  • mike g

    its ok everybody since the stupid government aint gunna do shit just make un-smokers into smokers and gurenteed we’ll have more people on our side cuz we all know what marijuana does but its the non smokers who don’t know shit but what the government tells them so just get people into peer presher its the only way to win this dumb meaningless fight to keep it illegal viva la revulucion !!

    • adnarime

      Please don’t talk or hurt yourself trying

  • Bill M

    the only way it is going to cause Domestic Violence is if the partner takes my shit and sells it, or smokes it without me, or just gets rid of it

  • Bill M

    the only way it is going to cause Domestic Violence is if the partner takes my shit and sells it, or smokes it without me, or just gets rid of it

  • G

    Yo i live in Imperial Beach California i have my MMC and everything! …. If you think its a scam hit my email and ill prove it to you. Moneyruleserrthang@yahoo.com

  • paulvonhartmann

    “Essential civilian demand” for the “strategic resource” “hemp” and “every herb bearing seed” supersedes treasonous, fraudulent scheduling of an unique and essential god-given “green herb” “of first necessity to the wealth and protection of our country.” See Executive Order 13603 to see the conflicting valuation that confounds Schedule I. “Hemp” is identified as a “strategic resource” so it can’t be a “Schedule One” drug because the former is critical to national security and the latter is of no use and great danger.

    http://youtu.be/Fra4q_qepZA

    See this short film to understand why this tax money needs to be re-directed by “essential civilian demand” to the implementation of a federal protocol for harvesting feral hemp seed in the midwest. Since the hemp that’s producing viable seeds this fall weathered last year’s drought, those seeds have adapted to atmospheric conditions (temperatures and UV-B) that will surely get even worse in the future.

    Cannabis isn’t illegal. It’s essential. Our failure to recognize that fact will be suffered by our children unless we act immediately to collect the so-called”ditchweed” seeds in the midwest. We don’t have two million to waste, nor another growing season.

    Time is the limiting factor in the equation of survival.

    • knotweed

      Better yet, use aerial disbursement of male seeds over the entire non commercial crop growing areas of the state and keep the weed swat force busy forever.

      • Tha Jonster

        Aerial would be too easily noticed and documented. Same concept but stealthier application?

        • painkills2

          Re-task military drones and personnel. Problem solved.

      • painkills2

        If someone were to aerially disburse hemp seeds over a landfill, would the hemp find a way to grow? And then evolve into a plant that is supercharged by pollution, somehow gaining the ability to soak up all the toxic chemicals in the air and miraculously solve our global warming problem? Is this some good stuff I’m smoking, or what?

  • Tha Jonster

    The fun part will be when they try to cover up the results which bear out no resemblance to what they are hoping for. This is going to be funny! 2 million dollars to prove that prohibition should be immediately repealed.

    • knotweed

      Been there, done that.

  • Jasun Thor

    the point you are missing is this. that kind of money can buy any poor ass researcher… all the money doesn’t go to investigation cause it has already been proven that there is less violence anywhere weed is legal… that kind of money is to pay off people so they will say what you want them to…

  • painkills2

    I hope I am not the only woman here who thinks that any research done on domestic violence would be helpful. No one believes that, in general, marijuana use has anything to do with violence, especially since it is not addictive (for most people). But as cannabis lovers, we should not readily discount information about any possible side effects for the general public. We do not know enough about the brain yet to determine if cannabis is good for everybody. And this is just one study. Surely it will be peer reviewed, and blogged about, whether the study’s authors like it or not.

  • painkills2

    I hope I am not the only woman here who thinks that any research done on domestic violence would be helpful. No one believes that, in general, marijuana use has anything to do with violence, especially since it is not addictive (for most people). But as cannabis lovers, we should not readily discount information about any possible side effects for the general public. We do not know enough about the brain yet to determine if cannabis is good for everybody. And this is just one study. Surely it will be peer reviewed, and blogged about, whether the study’s authors like it or not.

    • jmdoorsman

      well I knew a WOMAN that became sinister when she smoked and one that got so paranoid she would act like a crazy person. Most men I know get really laid back and some really close friends of mine man and woman literally gotr into a fist fight on ALCOHOL, haven’t had a fight in like 5 yrs after they eliminated alcohol and started smoking the WEED

      • painkills2

        Cannabis can cure domestic violence, call Kevin Sabet!

  • knotweed

    They would be better off funding a snack food industry study to determine the items stoners eat when they smoke. This would shift the items available at the corner grocery.

  • Hydroponixs

    THE ONLY LEGIT CONNECTION IVE SEEN ChulaVistaCA2013@yahoo.com He’s got both Sativas, and Hybrids. Good for Medicinal or Recreational use.

    • painkills2

      Unless it’s free, don’t bug me.

  • Stonedteacher

    DUDE WEED INCREASES CHILDREN IQ AND MAKES THEM SMARTER

    VOTE FOR WEED SUBSIDYS FOR ALL MAN KIND YO