U.S. Government Funding $1.86 Million Study In Attempt to Link Cannabis To Domestic Violence


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 Author

  • pkr8ch

    So glad my tax $ is being wasted on this! This reminds me of the Schaeffer commission report. I’m sure the results of this study will have the same fate.

  • Wendy

    So freaking dumb!! I can think of a bunch of better things they could spend that money on…. What about all the kids that have seizures & cant get the meds they need with all the BULL SHIT RED TAPE!!!

  • t. trask

    every time I watch COPS the domestic violence that’s portrayed always has alcohol involved , always

  • Chris Kelly

    I want a list of every politician that is supporting this blatant waste of tax payer money and I am going to post out every where. Vote these idiots out.

  • Tom Thomson

    An announcement like that is the only sort of thing that gives me a little flash of anger, waste of money is right and, as has been said by Johnny Green, increasing desperation by the prohibitionists – as an everyday consumer I know that cannabis has the entirely opposite effect

  • michael

    Marijuana only negative effect involves refrigerators and cabinets being cleaned out from the munchies.

    • Rick Kinnunen

      actually, marijuana reduces obesity and lowers the risk of diabetes by allowing the body to better regulate blood sugar. so no negative side effects.

  • Karisa Bennett

    Wow, how ridiculous. More of our taxes going to bullshit.

  • Mark Hollamon

    Total bullshit from the NIDA. I am 51 years old and have NEVER heard of or even actually seen one person in my life that was abusive or physically aggressive toward their partner or another human being that was just consuming cannabis. My drunken grandfather mentally tortured my grandmother until the day he died. I witnessed him break things of value when he couldn’t afford to replace them, run up bar tabs behind my grandmother’s back, and was just generally a really great example of the effects of long term alcohol abuse on a person, yet alcohol is still legal.

    Sorry NIDA, but your sorry attempt to vilify this plant does nothing but expose your douchebaggery. Give it up already.

  • Debo

    Thats funny and what a waist of money. Canabis is the best anger management remedy there is.

  • Jerrica

    A person who beats their spouse might smoke Marijuana, but not everyone who smokes Marijuana beats their spouse…..

    • Pat Cowdin

      My spouse beats me when I smoke her marijuana. Does that count?

  • Doc O’Zee

    it’s the same in any language … La marihuana es más segura que el alcohol

  • Pat Cowdin

    The synopsis for this study reads in part, “surveys consistently reveal positive associations between marijuana use
    and perpetration of intimate partner violence. However, it is not known
    whether on a proximal, event level marijuana use results in affective,
    cognitive, or behavioral effects consistent with partner aggression.” I’m guessing when they eliminate alcohol and all other “drugs” from the equation, the relationship between marijuana and partner violence will be nearly zero.

  • Shannon Freeman

    They will probably falsify results of the study?

  • 39ncounting

    Fuckin bullshit! There was a tiny bit of violence when my ex-husband ran out of weed, after smoking everyday for 39 years.

  • Michelle Williamson

    Tax dollars hard at work here, folks!!!!

    *facepalm* NIDA are fucking idiots.

  • Kimberly Glanz

    we sit here all day long and hear about how much in debt the country is in and they are now going to spend all that money to fund this stupid deal?! instead of scrambling around all over the place to come up with some little tiny “bad thing” about weed, why not just finally come out and say it, weed is not as bad as we have said it is all these years, legalize it, and call it a day

  • Ben Emery

    Implying that the NIDA has EVER had a legitimate argument against cannabis. Their ‘arguments’ are all either lists of intentionally manipulated statistics or outright lies

  • Ben Emery

    That’s kinda ironic considering that oftentimes weed is the only thing that keeps me from punching people who deserve it in the face

  • Morwyn Margaret Peeler

    If they conduct the experiment using legitimate scientific standards rather than cooking the books, I guarantee they’ll learn that it reduces all sorts of violence. Alcohol? Not so much.

  • Scott Danforth

    what a waste of money how bout studying alcohol instead idiots

  • MichaelLust

    They won’t complete or publish the study… just like the CHP/University of California efforts to demonstrate the purportedly deleterious effect of cannabis consumption on driving safety, when the preliminary data comes in showing effects opposite to the assumptions, they will pull the plug on it. That’s how the government does “science”.

  • Joshua Phelps

    What the fuck is going on. How does this lady have her ph.d for real.

  • John

    “Many studies have a found positive association between marijuana use and intimate-partner violence.”

    I’ll bet they can’t cite even one. How can this be unbiased with the kind of expectation bias already voiced by the lead researcher?

    Google finds nothing with regard to cannabis and domestic violence other than references to the study itself and some clown posts from a site called drug rehabber dot come. On that site marijuana is known to cause mental illness particularly when it is laced with something. It also has huge mid page ads for Cannitrol. As I said clown posts.

  • For 1.86 million I am sure it can be linked to anything their money desires. Objectivity suffers when you “buy a result”. I know some people who would fight, scream and yell to prove their point for a lot less.

    • ShaneJax

      And in 30 years it’s only got worse from the Federal side

  • Phanes Erichthoneus

    And who knows what else the person might be on in addition to cannabis. Maybe there are pharmaceutical prescription drugs, and also alcohol, cocaine, crystal meth, LSD, heroin, all at the same time. Hopefully the study they do (not that I think it’s necessary) will make sure the people involved aren’t taking any kind of medication, especially mood-altering prescription drugs.

    • bla

      I’m sure these people went to school for many years learning how to research, it’s very basic to make sure any study you are conducting has any confounding variables removed from the picture (you learn it in undergrad). I’m sure any sensible study that is rooted in science will be asking about their prior history including past and current medications to pick a good sample group.

      That being said…people can sway results one way or the other by purposefully ignoring these “rules” to a good, reliable study, which may be the case. Either way, a study’s results are pretty inconclusive/insignificant/laughable until more studies can replicate the results in an independent lab.

      All I see in this article is:
      “Government unknowingly spending a lot of money for their opponent’s cause: Disappointment to follow”

      Either they “prove there is a link” and are later disproved, and discredited, and activist shitstorm ensues
      Or they prove there is no link, and help the exact same side they were trying to hurt with their $2 million.

  • Steven Kloppenburg

    The conclusions will parrot whatever the Government’s position is no matter the real results show.

  • xxdr_zombiexx

    Reminds me of those “We’ll find Bigfoot any day now” programs…… plus ‘doing research’ beats working a real job, I suppose.

    I have a master’s degree in education as work in mental health/psychiatry so the researcher here can eat my shorts.

    And, to engage the resistance for the moment, so what if there is some link (I don’t believe there is but ‘fer instance) it’s still not alcohol, which is legal, tolerated and linked to tens of thousands of deaths each year.

    Oh… and NIDA, not unlike the DEA, is staring at layoffs as marijuana gets legalized in more and more states.

    They can always go hunt Bigfoot….


  • Kate

    The study is on marijuana use in VICTIMS of domestic violence. Just one more minute of reading and a little less paranoia and you might have figured it out. Now you’re just perpetrating your own misinformation.

    • wowFAD

      Ya know, I read the article, and I didn’t read that the study was on cannabis use in the victims of domestic violence. So I re-read it — still didn’t see what you’re seeing. Read it again — still nothing. Googled the “current projects” page of the principle investigator — and read in her own words, the study is not about VICTIMS of domestic violence.
      I think, maybe, you should be *sure* you’re leveling a legitimate criticism before you post things.

  • Bonzobean

    I think alcohol causes more violence between couples than marijuana. Yet it is still legal. America is so frustrating sometimes.

  • Vixxis

    Im flabbergasted, seriously. What genius thought this would be a good study to prove their ridiculous theory. It’s like conducting a study to link condom use to an increase in sexually tranmitted disease and unwanted pregnancy. Was this funded by the institute of dumb and dumber?

    • badmojo

      you are completely missing the point of this study lol.

  • jontomas

    NIDA has a long history of twisting statistics to suit their purposes. Don’t worry. They will amass tons of disparate data, then sift, compile and extrapolate until they can produce a “statistic” that shows marijuana causes violence.

    I imagine it will simply be built on some correlation that lower class people happen to smoke more pot, and they happen to be involved in more violence. The fact that one does not cause the other will not matter to them. They’ll have their “facts.”

  • Noah

    As a first hand victim to violence from Cannabis users, I’m glad they are finally going to get some formal statistics. It’s about time our stories were not only heard but taken seriously. Finally!

    • wowFAD

      Uhh — what? What happened?

    • wowFAD

      Wait, nevermind. I just sifted through your comments on other articles, and you’re obviously a prohibitionist. You’ve made at least 15 politically charged comments on several cannabis articles in the last month — none of them had anything to do with domestic violence. You think cannabis has no medical value and that Sanjay Gupta is a shill? And now, by coincidence, cannabis causes violence — but *only* anecdotally on the internet.
      Look, “Noah” — having a cute girl as your pic doesn’t mean you can say whatever you want to say without having it questioned.

      • Noah

        And you assume that only people with cute pics are entitled to an opinion? If I was ugly you’d use that against me..if I’m cute (which I am, sorry if you can’t handle that) you still find something to say? You’re pathetic. Since you like to assume I will assume you are a 300lb ugly jealous bitch who cries away her problems on a bong cloud.

        • wowFAD

          Sure thing, precious — people who are actually attractive don’t flaunt it online, because they get that attention legitimately in real life. Fuglies like yourself — they go online with photoshopped selfies (which often aren’t even themselves) for that attention, because they can’t get it in real life from real people. You can *assume* whatever you want about me, darling. I know what I look like — and I’m happy about it. I don’t know what you look like, for real — and I’m happy about that, too.
          Want to know what’s funny, though? Your reaction tells me two things. First, you didn’t accost me for saying your claim that you’re a victim of violence wasn’t true — which means you don’t care, which means, of course, that it *isn’t* true. If it were true, you’d be more upset about that, and not what you *are* upset about. That brings us to the 2nd thing — what you *are* upset about. What you’re upset about is that I’ve accurately called you out for being an online poser — a faker with fake pics and a fake life.
          Some people enjoy the internet for the anonimity — others, indulge identities that aren’t their own. You’re the latter. It makes me suspect you’re projecting your defects and shortcomings.
          But let’s not lose the important thread, here. You’re pretending to be a victim of violence when you’re not, simply to besmirch a harmless plant that makes people docile, not aggressive. I guess that makes sense, however — it appears you’ll say/do *anything* for attention.

          • Noah

            I didn’t flaunt it at all..you were the one who brought it up entirely. Trolls like you are the ones who zoom in on someone’s looks and disregard what they have to say because of it. The reason I didn’t reply to the first part of your comment was because you are entitled to your opinion whether you disagree with what I had to say or not, it was a valid response..what was NOT valid, what was shallow, was the second part..which is why I responded to that. I have already responded many times to comments like yours when it comes to Cannabis and I have answered them to exhaustion..but this is the FIRST time where someone attacks what I have to say based on my looks? Pretty subhuman if you ask me and only REALLY insecure people who have 0 leg to stand on when it comes to the main issue use tactics of distraction like that. It’s extremely kindergarten, in case you didn’t know. “I have a point to make” “What point can you possibly make, look at you”..that’s the summary of what you just did and you expect me NOT to call YOU out on it?

            Im sorry, again, that you don’t think I’m “real”..the internet is as you say anonymous. Even if I were to go rally up my buddies on facebook that know me in real life to come on here and say I’m “real” it would not make a difference because you have already IGNORANTLY not only made a judgment about my looks but you disregarded my comments entirely..so there is no point. Would you like me to take a picture of myself with a sign holding up your name or something? Will that finally prove Im real and cute, and then FINALLY we can focus on what I said? I mean really..how far does one have to go?

            And again I AM a victim of violence..and if I could prove it I absolutely would..but how to do that when all that is left of it is the memory of 3 years ago? Testimonies are just that..and you can take them or leave them. If you decide my testimony is not worth listening to..very well..but this is why I am on here because this article is about finding formal statistics and I know there are OTHERS out there who might share a similar experience to mine and THAT is what I am interested in knowing. Crime attributed to marijuana is NOT uncommon..just because you live in a dream world where it doesn’t happen, just the same as cute girls against Marijuana is also a real thing just because you want to make yourself feel better and pretend that’s not possible doesn’t make it fake.

          • wowFAD

            LOL — learn to read, precious. Actually, arrive at the fact of the matter, which is this is an INTERNET conversation. You may feel free to *recharacterize* what I said all you want. It doesn’t change what I *actually* said. Know how we know this? Because we can scroll up and see, darling. This is an internet conversation, not a spoken conversation confined to memory after the words leave your mouth. It boggles my mind that people like yourself — actual internet trolls — never figure that out, given how much time you spend online.
            The exact words I used *are right UP there* — your misbegotten summary is neither convincing or necessary. LOLOL
            Let’s review the facts, here — you seem to jump from one cannabis article to another saying nasty things about a harmless plant, hoping to provoke pot heads. Lo and behold, you’ve been successful, and you’re soaking it up. Most of the time, when people go after pot heads (like you have), it’s because those people believe the pot heads are easy targets who will not fight back. In your heart, you know that’s true. What’s pathetic is that you’re *still* too cowardly to do it in real life — you have to troll the internet semi-anonymously to troll harmless people!!! That’s just hilarious.
            Do us both a favor, and hold your breath for the results of this “study”, sweetness. I mean, do your best to hold your breath — I’ve seen how labored respiration can be for the clinically obese.

          • Trolling is the scapegoater’s way of handling things. You’re REALLY good at that. I read many articles and the ones I comment out on happen to be those where the majority of people are misguided. THAT is not trolling, that is called educating, just because you don’t agree with it doesn’t make it trolling. Trolling would be if I went on these articles and posted “420 faggetz blaze it!” like I see potheads do on prohibitionist articles. I don’t do that. I read an article where the majority of comments are sweepingly ignorant and I present my side of the issue so that people who are on the fence, lurking, unsure can see there is ANOTHER side to the subject. This is no different than wearing a gay pride shirt at a Westboro picket. Maybe the church fanatics will easily call that trolling or instigating, while the one wearing the shirt will call it presenting the other view and standing up for what’s right. YOU want to call me a troll..have at it. I’m simply presenting a valid opposing case.

            You keep side-tracking with your petty 2nd grade name calling..I know that’s the sort of thing libtards are used to doing. It’s boring. I’m going to stick to my original comment that YOU twisted into trolling and say I am all for this study. In the end it’s going to happen whether you approve of it or not, so swallow that. As for holding my breath..nah..I wouldn’t hold a candle to you smokers..show me how its done please, you first.

    • John

      Did you try to block someone from entering a dispensary? Somebody throw a roach at you? Were they also drinking alcohol? Your comment on this topic is a bunch of crap unless you can prove it. Anecdotal stories are not where the truth lies. A paid shill, sure.

      • Noah

        I didn’t know people had to prove personal experience. For your information it was former roommates who got violent with me when I told them police were staking out the apartment and that if they wanted to do their drugs they had to do them elsewhere..the neighbors were calling my place a party house. I didn’t know what was going on while I was off at work and they were supposed to be FINDING work (it was during the recession everyone was out of of a job, but I considered them friends and gave them chances). If not for the door in between us and my reminding them that Florida had castle laws, things would have been a lot worse for me. I didn’t learn my lesson, they apologized, that they just had a bad high, said they would take their habits elsewhere; Ok I thought everything would be alright, but when their funds got low near the end I literally had $200 stolen from my wallet and yet they had a fresh supply of weed and no rent money? That was the last straw for me. Violence AND crime all in one sitting and now I would like some formal statistics. Not a shill, just pure testimony and I know that means nothing to you all but I know Im not the only one to go through this sort of stuff.

        • John

          So you lied to your roommates about the cops staking out your place, the roommates were/are a bunch of assholes and violent to boot? They didn’t actually do anything because there was a door between you and them, BUT they would have if there wasn’t a door all because they had a “bad” high. So they weren’t actually smoking weed then? How do they get a “bad” high from weed? By itself?

          You use this story as your evidence that weed and violence are linked? Sounds like you should be conducting the study.

          The shill line was in reference to YOUR comment regarding Sanjay Gupta as noted below. Try to follow along in the thread please as to who is responding to who. You’re entitled to your opinion but made up shit isn’t an opinion.

          • Noah

            Who said I lied? I lived in a gated apartment complex and we had daily security patrols. That cops were allowed to come into the complex meant something was up and that they circled MY building and would park in the spaces out front, it became pretty obvious. There was no lie..where do you even assume a lie? They took their habits elsewhere, I didn’t want them practicing their shit in my house..that meant their friends or dealers or WHOEVER it was that was coming to my door while I was working STOPPED, So either that satisfied the cops to leave OR if they decided to raid at least they would no longer find anything in my apartment so I was no longer worried about it and allowed them to stay after they promised me they would no bring me trouble, until they decided to steal money from me.

            What they meant with bad high was their paranoia, apparently they said my “news” brought them over the tipping point and they lost their minds, they had been actively smoking when I said it..it was the smell of them burning up that brought me out to the living room to tell them to do it elsewhere because of the rumors from neighbors that they were inviting shady people to my house when I was gone. I had had enough at that point. One of them even went to far as to believe in that very moment that I had struck a deal with a cop or that I was working for them undercover and so they went into some strange survival mode where I became the enemy and came after me..I never quite got it myself but I chalk it up to extreme paranoia, that’s the easiest explanation I can give it.

            And I’m sorry but you have obviously never been in a situation like that and I hope you DO one day so you understand it because when someone throws shit and gets up to chase you, you THANK your lucky stars for the door between you. Banging on it..cussing and threatening, yelling “You cant tell me to stop! You can’t tell me what to do! I’ll make it so you never talk again!!”??? I had to lock the door, run to my closet and get my shotgun then yell back that I was armed and they needed to gtfo of my house or risk injury/death. They left and came back the next day apologizing, telling me it was an isolated incident, that maybe the smoked some bad weed, that they were paranoid, that they would change yadda yadda but to please not kick them out. I was stupid enough to believe them until my money went missing.

            And how the hell am I supposed to know who you are calling a shill? You didn’t even mention Gupta, I did. All you said was “a paid shill, sure”, no name, no reference nothing..maybe be more specific who you are talking about. I hear communication is hard for druggies.

    • Jessica Cielo

      you are really dumb! wow…..ummm all I have to say is maybe you’ve had a horrible experience with some laced stuff? Which by the way, if we decriminalize it we would see much less of that. oh, and just read below comment. I would like to say you are total scum for being against something that could help people like my son for his epilepsy and my fiance and daughter for their bipolar disorder. Not only that but I never saw a fight at a Marley concert or at an ICP concert, cept for the haters who start it in the first place.

      • Paula

        ICP followers are considered to be part of a large gang according to the FBI . . .

      • Noah

        I wasn’t smoking it..they were. I bet you’re the one who blames a rape victim for what she was wearing. Or hey maybe a battered wife..you blame here instead of the alcohol that turns her man violent, who without the stuff is normally the nice guy she married? Yeah..you pot heads always blame everything but the pot. Typical.

        • Say NO to Noah count

          Sure Noah count. And prohibitionists like you will blame only the pot. Typical

          • Noah

            What the hell is a Noah “count”..Im some kind of aristocrat now? Are you high? Should I blame your stupidity on your pot use or just on your low IQ..either one seems valid here.

        • Sean

          I’m sorry that you were a victim of DV. I say that not to be patronizing. But I’m going to be straight up with you. You are blaming cannabis as if it were the object that was abusing you, instead of the violent thug. You are taking responsibility away from the thug that battered you which is a form of Stockholm Syndrome. You are giving the violent thug a pass and lashing out at people like myself who sick and tired of people being jailed and persecuted for cannabis. You are aiding and abetting government persecution. That’s why you are getting the ridicule that you are receiving. I want to be sympathetic to your plight, but you slam the door on that when you call people like me juvenile names like “potheads”.

          • Noah

            Sorry I didn’t know I was here for sympathy. I just told my story and all I want is to see how many other people have suffered the same and get some formal statistics. I dont see how that is slamming the door on anything. You all talk about the “truth” all the time right? So why is it suddenly such a fascist thing to get some “truth” on the other side? The real truth is that you all can’t handle anything negative about your drug. Welcome to the real world..there are negatives and now they want to find out exactly how many have experienced this stuff. Don’t attempt to silence me and others like me just because you want to be comfortable.

          • Sean

            Noah, I’m not trying to silencing you. You don’t see me smashing your hands with a baseball bat so you can’t the stuff you are saying. So don’t be stupid, ok? Say your piece. But when you say your piece, you can expect to be called out on it ok. If that bothers you, then maybe you should go to some drug warrior forum and say your stuff. You’d obviously be in better company. Many of us on this forum are trying to fight the fascist war on cannabis, so if you spew your pro-government fascist nonsense about cannabis, then what the hell do you expect?

          • Sean

            *so you can’t post the stuff you are saying (sentence correction)

          • Noah

            I expect some sense and then, yes, I realize where I am and that sense among this lot is impossible. There is nothing fascist about gathering statistics. Again, this is just your attempts at keeping things one sided. I’m a prohibitionist but even I approve of more research being done on Cannabis because I’m not one to jump on the bandwagon and call something “safe” if there is no proof of it being safe (that’s what people, doctors included, did in the 1930s-50s jumpking the gun and calling cigarettes safe) especially after my own experience has told me it is anything BUT safe. If people claim it, they should prove it. So if my prohibitionist side wants data on marijuana’s link to violence..I am all for it. You all are not..but again that’s, by now, just typical behavior from you all. Not a single one of you can stand anyone saying anything negative about your plant. You all even jump like hyenas on your OWN KIND when they say they’ve had a bad experience or witnessed something negative. Vultures.

  • Timm

    I smoke . I am also married…. for 17 years . Not one time has the police been to my house . I would say Domestic violence Has alot more to do with the person not the drug it’s self . But Over using anything is unhealthy and has side effects . If you really want to look at Domestic Violence look at alcohol

  • Andy

    That depends on the person. Not marijuana. You know how many people have had fastfood before killing their spouse? Is there a link there? Technically yes. Because 40% of killers have eaten fastfood before going home to go kill their lover. But no, it has nothing to do with fastfood. Its the individual. The government just wants to find something against the marijuana cause, so they can continue to postpone doing something about it (legal wise) and to the comment a few spots below me; blame your husband and your bad choice in men. Not a natural drug. And Im sure he ate fastfood at some point before hitting you.

  • Connie Kuramoto

    hahahahaha goes to show how little they understand about weed

  • Lee

    In comparison to alcohol that is legal? I know it’s obvious, but I just wanted to throw that out there.

  • TK

    BINGO! I must admit, the comments I read, are right on board with my own thoughts. It’s the person, not the drug. Domestic violence is rampid as is. To utilize tax payers money, to fund a project based on this is well, lame. That’s $1.86 million over 4 years? Funds that could be diverted to a more worthy cause. This is stupid. Marijuana does not cause people to freak out to the point of killing etc. That’s the person. It’s not rocket science. I get my partner zapped for a reason. The sex is amazing. I use to get an appitite or to quelm pain that med’s can’t do. WE and our friends have never gotten violent! So this 4 year study? Humph, a waste of time and tax payers money. Perhaps the ones doing the research, should smoke one and scoff at how lame this is going to be.

  • jontomas

    Every year, the European soccer championships have been plagued by fan violence. Every year except for 2000. That was the year the games were held in Amsterdam. All observers noted the remarkable lack of violence and laid back atmosphere.

    Does anyone wonder why?

    • Gma Mrzlf

      Great point! W e need a board to confront,congress with all the positive facts and people like me to tell them it help control my anger and dealing with what has happen to my niece and stop this President.

  • alittlepeaceofmind

    I’d like one large fry with a side order of beat my wife, please.

  • jontomas

    This is an incredible stretch, even for NIDA. It makes me wonder if they have something else they are going to combine with this “study.”

    Perhaps the government is planning a huge crack-down on marijuana consumers. If so, many will not take it lying down. The natural violent reaction to such ugly oppression will be blamed on marijuana, “backed up” by this study.

    Hang on to your seats, folks!

  • Sean

    How about a study linking marijuana prohibition to domestic violence?

  • Jose Ramirez

    Actually, as the author wrote, they might find that smoking marijuana REDUCES domestic violence incidents in “at risk” families and that families that smoke marijuana are LESS LIKELY to abuse their spouse or children than families with alcohol or “hard” drugs like cocaine, meth, etc. which will FINALLY give us a GOVERNMENT FUNDED STUDY showing marijuana is NOT HARMFUL!!

  • Patrick Queen

    This is insane at best,they and everybody in the world knows that marijuana users ar for the most part docile and peacefull an do not get involved in domestic violence,marijuana doe’s not caue people to feel anger etc unless perhaps it’s laced with something like PCp or other bad drugs but by it’s s;ef it doe’s not sauce violence or domestic violence for that matter,Alcahol on the other hand is the leading drug as far as domestic violence in concerned,then comes the crack heads and cocaine addicts then comes the heroin addicts on last but not least the prescription pain killer abusers but marijuana?hell no it’s not even listed as a cause of domestic violence,all study’s and scientific research has all proven this not to be the case at all

  • Top Frog

    As a survivor of domestic violence I know this will be a GOOD study, helping get marijuana legalized and helping replace a lot of alcohol usage, which DOES cause domestic violence. The only problem I can see is if the partners fight over it before they use it, or one partner gets violent with the other because he/she doesn’t want the partner using it.

  • Terry2toes

    Everyone knows that peace and love are associated with Cannabis and that’s why the US government wants to put an end to it. Imagine the world full of peace and love, who would by US weapons systems?

  • Psycotropic

    2 $Million to check the police records to see how many cases of domestic violence there are directly associated to Cannabis use and then determine how many of those were intimate-partner violence.
    I can tell you the answer now = 0
    Send me $2Million for my service thanks!

  • denbee

    Millions of our dollars have been spent over the years trying to prove pot is dangerous and harmful to use. The feds have never spent a dime on trying to see what may be useful about the plant. All we have heard are made up lies and government induced hysteria…and we are ask to trust our elected officials. International studies of marijuana has produced wonderful data on the medicinal properties of pot yet our government just ignores it. We won’t fund research (unless the research is looking for negative associations link to pot) nor will we respect international research results that suggest pot can be very beneficial to use. Shall we go on forcing alcohol down our throats? Thousands die every year from booze…no one dies from pot. Pot has the incredible power to stop grand mal seizures, to relax spastic muscles, to calm raging minds. Using pot one can watch movies, read books, do hobbies, walk, run and even recite your ABC’s. Try any of that while your drunk! As Dr. Supta said, we have all been duped by our government. For 70 years we have been fed a line of shit by our good ole Uncle Sam. In the mean time I wonder how many people died from the use of booze and would they have died if they would have had a safer choice? Are we just collateral damage in big alcohol’s sales campaign? Do we really think that a slogan like “drink responsibly” should just let the alcohol industry off the hook for the millions of us they have killed over the years? We don’t have a choice, either drink booze or shut up. Don’t wait for our government’s permission to live a healthier life. I gave up alcohol and became a criminal 43 years ago when I smoked my first joint in Vietnam. It is the best thing that I have ever done. Wait for my clueless government’s permission? I would have died years ago, just more collateral damage, no big deal. Hell, if two kids fall off a gym set we all rally around, make laws and beat our chest saying this cannot happen again but what about the over 30 kids that died a college last year from alcohol overdose? No rally? No thumping our chest?. No ban on alcohol? Big booze runs this country. Let 20 kids die from bath salts and we write laws, ban the substance, but what about the thousands who die every year from booze? No bans? No rallies? Wonder why? Influence is for sale in Washington DC and guess who has the money to buy?

  • Peter Laine

    Check the link between legal alcohol and domestic violence. then tell me again why cannabis is illegal

  • Chris King

    I have to say I totally disagree with the “Hate Spin” angle of this article and it’s the completely wrong attitude to take. For decades marijuana advocates have making the point that the Government hasn’t been funding research on marijuana and now that the Government finally IS funding a study “specifically” about marijuana and it’s effects in correlation with one of the most important issues of the sociological impact of marijuana use, they spit in G’s face. The only thing I can say about the author and editors of the TheWeedblog.com is that they totally fumbled the ball on their way to the end zone. And judging by the comments on the article page, Stoners don’t have a clue either. smh

    • Vercingetorix

      Don’t you think they couldn’t have given money to research a better link other than cannabis and domestic violence? How about some type of medical benefit? No. The government is pushing the same agenda they’ve been pushing since the war on drugs started. You are the clueless one.

      • Chris King

        No, this should be taken as a “positive” and welcomed because the lead researcher has already made the mistake of making an implicit claim that there is a negative link between marijuana use and intimate relations violence. Now it is that specific claim to be or not be proven. It’s their chance to fail. Whoever wrote the press release messed up.

        • Chris King

          The quote is out of context, here’s the entire wording of the UB release;

          A $1.86 million grant was made by the National Institute on Drug
          Addiction (NIDA) to Maria Testa, RIA senior research scientist, for
          her study titled “Proximal Effects of Marijuana in
          Understanding Intimate Partner Violence.” The study will take
          place over four years.

          Testa says that despite the commonly held belief that marijuana
          suppresses aggression, many studies have found a positive
          association between marijuana use and intimate-partner

          “Although marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug
          in the United States—with increases in rates of usage over
          the past few years—there is a lack of research regarding
          marijuana use and aggression,” says Testa.
          “Understanding the contribution of marijuana to the
          occurrence of domestic violence has important public health

          Her research will address this gap in knowledge by examining the
          effects of marijuana use in couples and the consequences for their

          • John

            If “many studies have found a positive association” then how is there “a lack of research regarding use and aggression”? You don’t see those statements as contradictory? Where is the association from if not? The truth is there are not “many” studies or even “several”. Don’t you think if there was even a causal relationship we wouldn’t have already heard that smoking weed causes you to beat your partner? The Prohibs would love to crow about that.

            The reason it is a “commonly held belief” is because it’s true. Or is everybody that holds that common belief wrong?

            “Her research will address this gap in knowledge by examining the
            effects of marijuana use in couples and the consequences for their

            I am assuming this is your statement since there are no quotes.

            This isn’t a relationship study except peripherally and there really is no proximal effect of marijuana except what they will attempt to create in this “study”. This is a plain and simple attempt to link marijuana use with incidence of domestic violence. There is no positive outcome here in gaining whatever result is passed off as knowledge or evidence of. That isn’t how the NIDA works.

          • Johan Mathiesen

            @ John, Good point about the contradiction. But the last sentence about “Her relationship…” isn’t in quote marks because the entire quote was without quote marks. The quote marks from the previous paragraph were because Testa’a actual words were being quoted within the larger quote.

          • John

            OK thanks for clarifying that. Re-reading that it becomes clear that is the case.

          • Chris King

            Thanks for catching that, I edited and added lines to show that.

          • Gma Mrzlf

            lol better sex oh yeah see we already know!

          • warlordpres

            Try having Sex on L. S. D. Oh my good old Orange Sunshine. God
            I miss those days I am 73 year old biker still ridding my Harley until
            death due us part. What a life I had Sex, Drugs & Rock & Roll Oh Yea :)

          • Chroncat101

            Huh? Well that is quite a bit different than the headline reads.

          • warlordpres

            No shit bud.

    • jontomas

      If you believe NIDA conducts real, objective research, I’ve got a few bridges you may be interested in

      • Chris King

        So the Govt SHOULDN’T study marijuana? You know I’ve never been to Bizarro World,. Where do I buy tickets?

        • dillio12

          Chris you got it all wrong. The government been studying marijuana for a long time. But all the marijuana studies have been an attempt to prove it is harmful. For an example, when they forced monkeys to inhale pure marijuana smoke for 5 minutes without any oxygen. That is how they linked marijuana to brain damaged..

          • Ripped_Monkey

            Man that would have been a good day to be a monkey, for a day anyway = )

        • jontomas

          Of course, the government, and many other medical researchers, should study marijuana. In fact, there have already been several major government commissions on marijuana – including Nixon’s Shafer Commission of 1972. They all concluded marijuana is less addictive than coffee, is far less harmful than alcohol, and should be regulated as is alcohol. The reports of all these major commissions can be read here:


          But NIDA is not a research organization. They are a political organization – set up to generate scientific sounding excuses to keep waging the war on marijuana consumers.

          You do know that NIDA ONLY looks for harms of marijuana, right? They refuse to support any research of marijuana’s benefits.

          Doesn’t that seem a little suspect to you?

          • Chris King

            Thanks jontomas, you have cleared that up for me. I also want to thank everyone else involved in this discussion for their contributions. I still feel that a more positive and confident spin needs to be used by the “voices” of marijuana reform. If it were me writing about the NIDA grant to UB I would have deflected the negative and foretold the positive for us without insult to the organization, but compliment of their effort.

            “I welcome NIDA’s decision to grant funding for research into marijuana’s role in the breakdown of intimate relations and I’m confident that the results of this research will show that marijuana does not play any greater role than any other more commonly abused substances. As a Society, we should be concerned not with the specific substances of abuse, but the genetic predisposition of those who substances. It is wrong to deny the many who use marijuana in a responsible manner their freedom because of those few that have a problem.”

        • Johnny oneye

          Google Apoptosis
          Youtube Crycheck
          Rick simpson
          Now finish your koolaid
          Let real scientist conduct unbiased studies
          Bigger fish

      • warlordpres

        No shit buddy!!

      • Johnny oneye

        Just like the FDA is controlled by big
        pharma see (aspertame /RUmsfield)
        How did that poison get through fda approval?
        Follow the $$$$

    • Johnson

      Shake your head all you want, I bet your one of those binge drinking assholes, that go home and beat on the wife, or kick the dog cause it was in your way. That or your just fucking retarded, Get your facts together before you think your know what the hell your talking about. To our government all you old crusted intern fucking, fat fucking pigs. Your time is up our time is now, overthrow the government and start with a new one cause this one just keeps fucking up. Hey I’ve got an idea how about you tell us who really killed JFK……….no wait we know it was you fucks. To think that we’re dumb enough to say 3 shots did so much damage give me a fucking break. Fuck this country and anyone who thinks the government is doing a swell job.

      • Gma Mrzlf

        I with you Johnson, @chris you entired too but, I’ exsample: three black guys killed my niece execution,in the back of the head. It’s not a black thing with me it’s a punk thing if it was for mj I couldn’t write this because,my anger,starts me shaking,how could they little bitchs. Now their are alot of vet that are ill from a war we should of never been,mj has been used my ,Japanese,Mexican, Native Americans and are founding fathers before meds where invented. So what’s the big deal is Obama works for somebody else,he’s not for use,the administration and him need to where they keep spending my money,need them out now. Or a FEMA box with your name on is waiting because you’ll follow. The studies have been done it’s an excuse ,lies,and contro.

    • Valient

      No, you see, you’re the one who doesn’t have a clue. It’s well known that the government does fund studies about cannabis. However, the funding and distribution of the “legal government cannabis” has to go through the NIDA and they’ve stated before that they only want to fund studies that show abuse. There have also been multiple studies which they funded on cannabis which found results opposite of what they wanted, so they dropped funding on them.

    • MikeParent

      96% of govt research regarding marijuana is to look for a negative factor! This explains their tactic: “Narcotics police are an enormous, corrupt international bureaucracy … and now fund a coterie of researchers who provide them with ‘scientific support’ … fanatics who distort the legitimate research of others. … The anti-marijuana campaign is a cancerous tissue of lies, undermining law enforcement, aggravating the drug problem, depriving the sick of needed help, and suckering well-intentioned conservatives and countless frightened parents.”
      — William F. Buckley,
      Commentary in The National Review, April 29, 1983, p. 495

    • Johnny oneye

      Studies are bias
      Real studies should be neutral

      • warlordpres

        My name is Johnny and I have 7 party eyes to replace the one I lost. How about that.
        I watched ” MARIJUNA MADNESS ” when I was a kid back in1953 I believed that shit
        until I turned 23 I do not trust, believe, any fucking thing the government says about
        anything. I have a motto I live by ” do not believe anything you hear & only 1/2 of what
        you see” Good motto, but very hard to live by. Good Night people. me R. D.

    • Chroncat101

      I believe the reason that many people have a problem with the study is because NIDA will spend half of that 2 million to pay the scientists to skew the study, and in turn skew public opinion. Has there ever been a government study that proved pot to be safe and healthy? I believe there was one in the 70’s, but that information was squashed by government white-washers.

  • JAPentz

    So exactly *how* are they taking alcohol out of the equation to prove this? More tax dollars spent on stupidity by the moronic US government. As to the comment below mine, OF COURSE they fund studies . . to prove cannabis is bad, abused and addictive. The ONLY studies they fund are to show a wonderful god given plant is evil. I honestly don’t know why people don’t stop paying taxes for all the crap the government uses them for . . . .wars of aggression, the FDA and the DEA and useless unprovable studies like this one. Get alcohol out of the picture.

  • Tricky Ricky

    Someone needs to shut this bullshit down. So we’re going to borrow $1.86 mil from china to study whether or not cannabis causes domestic violence??? Are you fucking kidding me??? What will this psycho kraut come up with next?

  • jabberjaw101

    Who is allowing this? Here: Nora D. Volkow, M.D., became Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) at the National Institutes of Health in May 2003… Contact her, and ask her who is motivating her to allow this buffoonery! Now!

    • Darth_Vapor

      Better yet contact your local congress people and demand that she get canned and they get someone in there who is more fiscally responsible!

    • “Allowing this”? What is so wrong with getting two sides of subject? If users contest that the drug is non-violent..why is it wrong to test that? That’s the scientific method..to test a hypothesis from every angle..you only have irrefutable results if you have actively tried to defeat your own results and find that you can’t..mathematicians do this all the time when they think they have solved a problem. If you want to be fascist..by all means..allow only what YOU like and YOU think is right. A tree made of steel has no axe to fear..if you all are SO afraid of this study being done it’s be cause you know Cannabis has some dark little secrets you don’t want coming to light.

  • tits

    The only reason partners would argue about weed is because one of them is a bitch and thinks it’s not ok.

  • Will Cate

    As other commenters have pointed out, NIDA has no interest in objectivity. After all, this is the same group that claimed that pot is more toxic than alcohol. If their intention is to prove that there is a link between pot smoking and domestic violence, I’m sure that will be the end-result of their “study.”

    • Zak

      You said everything we were already thinking, now I don’t have to say it myself, thanks.

  • MikeParent

    Now, we’ll have to add another to this list!
    Ten studies that the Govt wished they hadn’t funded.

    • The government funded those on purpose. They don’t make mistakes, this is their agenda. Those are made public knowledge to rope you in. They are pulling a Tommy Hilfiger and you guys suck it up like idiots. If you dont think this is an agenda..ask them why the Feds are going to be hands off of Washington and Colorado when they should be all means be enforcing federal laws on those states? Sounds convenient but it’s not…these states are guinea pigs and you all are too blind celebrating it to notice!

  • David Trucks

    Looks like Marin Testa Ph.D has already decided to tant the study!

  • SomeObservantHuman

    Correlation isn’t causation. Relation of mine works in law on drug cases, purely on the defense side (if it’s a viable person to defend). Yes, stoned people can be violent, but they would be violent not stoned. Plenty of people have had cannabinoids in their system while committing violent crimes, but they had histories of violence already and/or other substances in their system. He had one case where the person he chose not to work with had done meth, coke, and drank a pile of whiskey over a weekend and assaulted somebody. The fact he was smoking weed along the way was irrelevant to his behavior. Anybody that would think otherwise is daft.

    • Johan Mathiesen

      The same can be said of marijuana and driving. Having cannabinoids in one’s system is not proof that those cannabinoids impaired ones driving. It appears that marijuana smokers are better drivers than non-smokers and that smoking marijuana improves many people’s driving; yet one can be arrested by improving their safety on the road by this method. I use it all the time.

      • BigGranpa

        While I agree with a vast majority of comments here, this one is just foolish. Your reaction time WILL be slowed under the influence of marijuana. So although you may think you are a better driver in normal situations, under emergency conditions your slow reaction time may just kill someone.

        • jontomas

          The preponderance of the research shows marijuana consumption is NOT a significant cause of auto accidents. Marijuana is less intoxicating than alcohol, but a large part of the reason is marijuana does not affect judgment as alcohol does.

          While an alcohol consumer thinks he is a better driver and drives more aggressively, marijuana consumers prefer NOT to drive when they are very high.

          As a rule, marijuana consumers simply don’t put themselves, or others, in harms way.

          From the Hartford Courant:

          >>>”States that legalized the medical use of marijuana have had a drop in deadly automobile crashes, suggesting that some people who would otherwise drive drunk and kill someone are smoking weed instead, according to research by three economists.”


          • Johan Mathiesen


        • Pat Cowdin

          Here’s a YouTube video you may find interesting:

          • Again those who are actively high DO NOT drive better than someone who is not. Even when they realized they should not be driving they could not physically compensate for their impairment and avoid mistakes on the road. Had this test been done in a real world setting with actual traffic lights, other cars, signs, music blasting, friends in the back seat, and pedestrians things would have turned out much worse. In these tests they only had cones to look out for..NOT realistic at all and even with these most basic of things the stoned drivers failed each time.

          • Johan Mathiesen

            You again. You’re a stubborn one. Anyway, the other folks are right; look it up on Google. Marijuana smokers are better drivers than non-smokers and drivers who’ve smoked dope are not more dangerous than those who haven’t. Having dope in one’s system is not a causal relationship any more than having fried chicken in one’s system. None of those news reports you mentioned have ever established any connection between the dope smoking and the accident.

            You’re basing your view on the fact that, when people smoke dope, their reaction time slows. That’s true. There is no direct connection, however, between reaction time and likelihood of causing or being in an accident. Take old people, for instance. Not only am I a dope smoker, but I’m an old person. The reaction times of old people are significantly reduced; that’s well established. Nonetheless, old people are safer drivers than young people; that’s a fact. Even with slowed reaction times. Why? Because they compensate. Ditto with pot smokers: they compensate. Watch the video that Guest posted. In order to get the drivers to have an accident, even under controlled circumstances, they had to get the participants much more stoned than they ever would have been and still drove, if it were their own choice. As they got more and more stoned, they slowed down more and more and became more careful. You know, of course, how they spot marijuana drivers, don’t you? They look for cars going slower than normal, not faster or crazier: slower.

            The most evident part of this dialogue is that you are, for some reason, hell bent on casting marijuana as a dangerous drug. I don’t know why you have that problem, but it’s clouding your ability to think clearly. If I were you, I’d look into your soul and see what’s troubling you. Something’s eating at you.

          • No they did not get them much more stoned than they ever would have been. If you watch the video the first two times they went out to test they had only had one or two pulls..Im sorry but I used to be a stoner and no one is going to tell me that ANYONE smokes just one or two pulls..you kidding? That’s like giving someone a can of beer, letting them take one sip and then testing them on the road..it’s stupid! That’s not how people “drink” at all..and that stoner test was NOT how people smoke realistically. When you wake n bake you make sure you’re getting a good enough high to last you til at least past breakfast! I promise you end up behind the wheel and it’s not on just one or two pulls in the morning. The third time they had them smoke their eyes got red and THAT is more typical of your average stoner and THAT is when you saw them making their mistakes on the road.

            You can’t compare the compensation an old person on a CLEAR MIND has for a stoner compensating on an impaired mind. If an old person and a stoned person are driving at the same speed and a kid jumps out in front of the car..who will have the best reaction time? I promise it’s not the stoned person and that’s been evident when you google those car accidents. Hell it’s not even just car accidents anymore it’s even just operating machinery:


            You going to tell me now he was better working stoned than not?

          • Johan Mathiesen

            You’re sweet, Noah, but you can’t read. First, look up the word “alleged.” Next, read the whole article and check out all the wrong shit this dude has been involved in. Now, they didn’t even say what he was allegedly high on, but it doesn’t make any difference; it wasn’t drugs that made this guy negligent; it was his personality, it’s who he is: he’s a fuck-up. It’s too bad that he turned out that way, but he did; but it wasn’t drugs that made him a fuck-up, it was bad genes, bad upbringing, bad environment, bad breaks.

            I’m sorry you couldn’t believe the video of the Washington State police testing marijuana smokers.

            You stated that all stoners were “losers,” if I quote you correctly, and that none of them amounted to a hill of beans. That would include, I presume, Carl Sagan, Steve Jobs, Louis Armstrong, Rick Steves, and countless other failures, washouts, and has-beens. Indeed, a scruffy lot that I wouldn’t have over for lunch, would you? Why, they might be inclined to light up right in front of me. Oh, the horrors.

            You write an imaginative view of stoners and I’m sure that one of them fucked you over in some way that you’ll never forget, and you’re going to blame the weed forever more and not the asshole that fucked you. That makes sense. That’s good thinking. I can see your defenses are up pretty high; whatever happened must have been traumatic. I’m sorry. Maybe you could find help.

          • wowFAD

            You hit the nail on the head, Johan. “Noah” probably trusted someone he/she shouldn’t have, who, incidentally, was a cannabis user. So, to shift the onus from her own judgement, she’d just assume blame a harmless plant. After all, if it was the *plant* that’s to blame, the person she was wrong to trust was only “that way” because of the plant — and without the plant, that person *is* trustworthy, and so Noah didn’t make a mistake.
            You should know that Noah surfs these cannabis boards to provoke cannabis law reform advocates into these trite, predictable arguments. That’s why “she” has been camped out on this article for almost a month, spewing the same tired tripe, over and over, in several different arguments with several different people.
            Basically, you’re being too polite with “her” — just skim the +170 comments, and you’ll see for yourself. She doesn’t care about proving a point or having an honest discussion — she wants the last word. Don’t stand on ceremony for someone like her, Johan. She reeeeaaally doesn’t deserve your good manners.

          • Johan Mathiesen

            Yeah, wowFAD, you’re right. I’m as much to blame as she is, I suppose. I’m addicted to my own mind, what can I say?

        • Johan Mathiesen

          Thanks, other responders, for coming to my defense.

          I think, BigGranpa, that you gave the standard reaction. Yes, people who are stoned have a slower reaction time; and, if they were to maintain the same driving speed while stoned as when straight, that slower reaction time could be fatal; but, as others have pointed out, stoned people slow their driving down to compensate for their slower reaction time. Apparently, they do it quite well as marijuana smokers have better driving records, on average, than non-smokers. In fact, a highway full of stoned drivers could well be safer than a highway full of straight drivers. Indeed, we’re in a paradox situation at present where people who show THC levels in their system are being busted for it; while, in truth, the THC probably made them a safer driver.

          Me? I think it comes down to mood. Happy drivers are safe drivers; angry drivers are dangerous drivers (drunks are not happy; they’re just drunk).

          • Where is your source for that? I have never seen a study done where someone who is actively high drove better than someone who is not

          • Dr. B
          • I’m sorry I fail to see what you are trying to show with that video? It only showed me that stoned drivers cause accidents..I did not see on there that they drove better than someone not under the influence? They only had cones to look out for and failed on even that. Imagine a real-time situation with traffic, signs, lights, pedestrians etc..not looking good there dude.

          • Dr. B

            I agree that under the influence in any way will never beat sober driving, just posted a study that proves your point. There are many. I should have explained that in the original post. Sorry about that!

          • No problem at all, I was genuinely confused because I had asked for studies to prove that sober driving was worse than impaired driving and your video showed the opposite. Thanks for that video though it is one of the only ones out there brave enough to show the reality of things.

          • Dr. B
        • JohnnycakeDrops

          You are assuming cannabis is a narcotic or depressant, when in actuality it can fall into either category, as well as stimulant, or a mix of all of them. I speak only from personal experience, but depending on the strain, my reaction time is actually increased during activities such as kickboxing, parkour, and rally driving.

      • Correlation does not equal causation but appearances can be used like facts??? “It appears that marijuana smokers are better drivers” appearances are nothing..read all the news articles about car crashes while actively high on pot..when taken to court many of the stoners admitted to smoking right before driving! That’s not an “appearance” any more. Start finding news articles where an actively stoned driver drove better than someone not on any substance?? Please do..I don’t think you will find it.

        • wowFAD

          You here trying to tell people about how cannabis users ran you over, now?
          Seriously — get a better hobby than internet trolling, buddy.

          • Did I say anything about being run over? I’m talking about bonafide articles on accidents while under the influence of intoxicants..this is not about me you prick. If you weren’t such a lazy stoner slob..you could, you know, click on over to google and do a very easy search on marijuana and driving accidents. Not too hard “buddy”.

          • wowFAD

            Good idea! I think I’ll start with the paper published last year, which showed how DUI’s (and DUI fatalities) drop by an average of 9% in states with medical cannabis. Why not put that into “The Google” and check it out, yourself? The first author’s name is Anderson.
            Just go slowly, sound out the big words.

  • Johnny oneye

    When the results show that it reduces violence they wont publish the study
    They tried to prove cannabis causes cancer, when they found it cures cancer they dont publish this. “Apoptosis’

    More wasted money.

  • Jct: Har har har. A couple of million trying to find out how laughing grass promotes violence! Har har har. Maybe if they’re paid enough, they’ll find something of concern we can’t prove marijuana “does not cause.”

  • Stewman

    So when are they going to start their research on prescription pain killers?

  • 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.

          • “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?

          • 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

          • 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

          • “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.

          • “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.

          • 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.

          • 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.

          • “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.

          • 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


          • Travis1989


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

          • 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.

          • 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.

          • 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.


    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