xxxx,
Persuant to our exchange of notes, Dr. Lester Grinspoon from Harvard Medical School
contacted the Research Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences at the University
of Mississippi to ask if they were the source of the supposed 10,500 studies demonstrating
the harmfulness of marijuana, as alleged in a statement recently issued by the
California Narcotic Officers Association. As you will see in the attached response
from Ms. Beverly Urbanek, the institute takes pride in their 25-year collection
of technical marijuana research, but they claim no knowledge of where such a number
would have come from, unless it was a mistaken reference to the total number of
marijuana research projects contained in their entire bibliography. If CNOA was
referring to the U. Miss. collection of marijuana research, their claim is without
factual basis.
Regards,
Keith
Stroup
NORML
cc:
Dr. Lester Grinspoon
=====================================================
The University of Mississippi
Research Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences
Bibliographic Services
School of Pharmacy
University 38677
(601) 232-5914
FAX (601) 232-5116June 12, 1996
Dr. Lester Grinspoon
Harvard Medical School
74 Fenwood Rd.
Boston, MA 02115
Dear Dr. Grinspoon;
As
I indicated to you in our telephone conversation, we are totally in the dark as
to where the statement that there are 10,000 studies showing the negative impact
of marijuana could have originated.
For the past 25 years, we at the
Research Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences have been collecting national and
international technical research papers on marijuana and the Cannabis plant and
now have a bibliography which includes over 12,000 citations, I can only assume
that the 10,000 studies mentioned in this statement refer to the total number
of citations in our bibliography, but even that number must have been obtained
several years ago. Many of the studies cited in the bibliography are clinical,
but the total number also includes papers on the chemistry and botany of the Cannabis
plant, cultivation, epidemiological surveys, legal aspects, eradication studies,
detection, storage, economic aspects and a whole spectrum of others that do not
mention positive or negative effects. We are frequently contacted by various individuals
and groups requesting the current number of publications that we have listed in
the marijuana bibliography, and we readily give out that information. Apparently
it is used as a gauge to follow the amount of research being done. However, we
have never broken down that figure into positive/negative papers, and I would
not even venture a guess as to what that number would be. Your offer to help us
clarify our position in this matter is certainly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Beverly
Urbanek
Research Associate
(Research Institute of Pharmaceutical
Sciences
at the University of Mississippi)
