<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Bad Science &#187; Search Results  &#187;  cannabis</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.badscience.net/search/cannabis/feed/rss2/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.badscience.net</link>
	<description>Ben Goldacre&#039;s Bad Science column from the Guardian and more...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:39:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>The Nutt Sack Affair (part 493)</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2009/11/the-nutt-sack-affair-part-493/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2009/11/the-nutt-sack-affair-part-493/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drurrrgs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evidence based policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2009/11/the-nutt-sack-affair-part-493/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, Saturday 7 November 2009, The Guardian Obviously it’s pleasing to see, in the storm of commentary over Professor Nutt’s sacking, that everyone outside of politics now recognises the importance of scientific evidence in devising laws. But a strange reasoning twitch has appeared, in the arguments of politicians and right wing commentators. Science can [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2009/11/the-nutt-sack-affair-part-493/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>74</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>This is my column. This is my column on drugs. Any questions?</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/this-is-my-column-this-is-my-column-on-drugs-any-questions/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/this-is-my-column-this-is-my-column-on-drugs-any-questions/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2009 23:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drurrrgs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evidence based policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social policy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/this-is-my-column-this-is-my-column-on-drugs-any-questions/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre Saturday 13 June 2009 The Guardian In areas of moral and political conflict people will always behave badly with evidence, so the war on drugs is a consistent source of entertainment. We have already seen how cannabis being “25 times stronger” was a fantasy, how drugs-related deaths were quietly dropped from the outcome [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/this-is-my-column-this-is-my-column-on-drugs-any-questions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>66</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Experts say new scientific evidence helpfully justifies massive pre-existing moral prejudice.</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2009/04/experts-say-new-scientific-evidence-helpfully-justifies-massive-pre-existing-moral-prejudice/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2009/04/experts-say-new-scientific-evidence-helpfully-justifies-massive-pre-existing-moral-prejudice/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Apr 2009 04:45:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[dodgy academic press releases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[medicalisation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MMR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scare stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[telegraph]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2009/04/experts-say-new-scientific-evidence-helpfully-justifies-massive-pre-existing-moral-prejudice/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre Saturday April 18, 2009 The Guardian Is it somehow possible – and I know I’m going out on a limb here – that journalists wilfully misinterpret and ignore scientific evidence, simply in order to generate stories that reflect their own political and cultural prejudices? Because my friend Martin, from the excellent layscience blog, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2009/04/experts-say-new-scientific-evidence-helpfully-justifies-massive-pre-existing-moral-prejudice/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>72</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How Aric Sigman distorts the scientific evidence to mislead you.</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/the-evidence-aric-sigman-ignored/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/the-evidence-aric-sigman-ignored/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:43:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[aric sigman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[onanism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[references]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=1001</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I was on newsnight a second ago, debating the rather indulgent claims of Baroness Professor Susan Greenfield and Dr Aric Sigman about Facebook and Twitter. It&#8217;s 40 minutes in to the show, which can be seen here as a wmv/rm file or here on iPlayer or here: I promised references. These can be found below. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/the-evidence-aric-sigman-ignored/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>150</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sorry I can&#8217;t make Glasters</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2008/06/sorry-i-cant-make-glasters/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2008/06/sorry-i-cant-make-glasters/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:18:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[onanism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2008/06/sorry-i-cant-make-glasters/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Just a very brief note to say I’m sorry I have to work this weekend, so I can’t make my talk in the Green tent at Glastonbury with my old friend Shane Collins from the Green Party. It’s a shame, I was going to do the usual fun festy pack of (a) how the media [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2008/06/sorry-i-cant-make-glasters/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>12</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Cheap lolz</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2008/06/daily-mail-goes-for-the-win/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2008/06/daily-mail-goes-for-the-win/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Jun 2008 01:12:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2008/06/daily-mail-goes-for-the-win/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Presumably, when a story involves both drugs and terrorism, some kind of fuse blows in the collective Mail brane and the hysteria overpowers them. This time they&#8217;ve got the Taleban turning cannabis into heroin. RAF Harrier jump jets have blown up the world&#8217;s biggest drug haul in Afghanistan by dropping three 1,000lb bombs on a [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2008/06/daily-mail-goes-for-the-win/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>25</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trivial Disputes</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2008/02/trivial-disputes-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2008/02/trivial-disputes-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Feb 2008 04:14:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[badscience]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bbc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[climate change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drurrrgs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[independent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[telegraph]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=610</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There are no difficult ideas in this column. Like, for example, when I tell you about the Daily Telegraph front page headline which says &#8220;Abuse of cannabis puts 500 a week in hospital&#8221;, and it turns out they&#8217;re actually quoting a figure from a report on the number of people having contact with any drug [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2008/02/trivial-disputes-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>48</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Self-indulgent retrospective &#8211; 2007</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2007/12/the-year-in-bad-science-2007/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2007/12/the-year-in-bad-science-2007/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:59:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=601</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre The Guardian, Saturday December 29 2007 Nobody listens to a word I say: I’ve been saying it for so long now that I think I’d be sorry if they did. Scaremongering season kicked off with the Panorama WiFi special. Among its many crimes against sense, this program featured “independent testing” by &#8211; oh, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2007/12/the-year-in-bad-science-2007/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>27</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Blah blah cannabis blah blah blah</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2007/07/blah-blah-cannabis-blah-blah-blah/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2007/07/blah-blah-cannabis-blah-blah-blah/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Jul 2007 01:24:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[drurrrgs]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=476</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Guardian Saturday July 28 2007 You know when cannabis hits the news you&#8217;re in for a bit of fun, and this week&#8217;s story about cannabis causing psychosis was no exception. The paper was a systematic review and then a &#8220;meta-analysis&#8221; of the data which has already been collected, looking at whether people who smoke [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2007/07/blah-blah-cannabis-blah-blah-blah/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>67</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Cannabis and privileged access</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2007/07/cannabis-and-privileged-access/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2007/07/cannabis-and-privileged-access/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:22:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=471</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#8217;ve just been asked rather at the last minute to knock something out on cannabis and psychosis, and since I like to keep the news desk very happy these days, even though I have absolutely nothing interesting to say on the subject, I&#8217;m going to charge through reading the Lancet study over a sandwich: but [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2007/07/cannabis-and-privileged-access/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>50</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Reefer Badness</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2007/03/reefer-badness/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2007/03/reefer-badness/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Mar 2007 01:09:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drurrrgs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[references]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statistics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=389</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre Saturday March 24, 2007 The Guardian The more I see of the world [looks pensively out of window] the more it strikes me that people seem to want more science, rather than less, and to deploy it in odd ways: to abrogate responsibility; to validate a hunch; to render a political or cultural [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2007/03/reefer-badness/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>51</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Heroin On Prescription</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2006/11/methadone-and-heroin/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2006/11/methadone-and-heroin/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Nov 2006 00:06:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drurrrgs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[onanism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=327</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Suddenly heroin prescription is back in the news, so here&#8217;s an archaeological find from the hard-drive: an essay I wrote in praise of heroin prescription, for the &#8220;Roger Hole Essay Prize in Medical Scepticism&#8221;, as a young undergraduate in medicine, in 1998. The prize was judged by Lewis Wolpert, and winning it netted me the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2006/11/methadone-and-heroin/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>32</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Prohibition Vs the Gold Standard</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2006/08/prohibition-vs-the-gold-standard/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2006/08/prohibition-vs-the-gold-standard/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Aug 2006 01:01:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dangers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drurrrgs]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=273</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre Saturday August 5, 2006 The Guardian Certain areas of human conduct lend themselves so readily to bad science that you have to wonder if there is a pattern emerging. Last week the parliamentary science and technology committee looked into the ABC classification of illegal drugs, and found it was rubbish. This is not [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2006/08/prohibition-vs-the-gold-standard/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>68</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;Cocaine Floods The Playground&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2006/03/cocaine-floods-the-playground/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2006/03/cocaine-floods-the-playground/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Mar 2006 23:45:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drurrrgs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mirror]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scare stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statistics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[telegraph]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[times]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=230</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre Saturday April 1, 2006 The Guardian Nothing comes for free: if you can cope with 400 words on statistics, we can trash a front page news story together. &#8220;Cocaine floods the playground,&#8221; roared the front page of the Times last Friday. &#8220;Use of the addictive drug by children doubles in a year.&#8221; Doubles? [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2006/03/cocaine-floods-the-playground/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>123</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Phony pharmaceuticals</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2003/05/phony-pharmaceuticals/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2003/05/phony-pharmaceuticals/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 May 2003 02:34:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[alternative medicine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=28</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Phony pharmaceuticals Ben Goldacre Thursday May 8, 2003 The Guardian Â· Jim Gobert writes from Australia with the news that Pan Pharmaceuticals, the country&#8217;s largest contract manufacturer of alternative medicines, is having to recall what could amount to 70% of all complementary medicines sold there. It all began in January when a complementary travel sickness [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2003/05/phony-pharmaceuticals/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

