Title |
Harm reduction-the cannabis paradox
|
---|---|
Published in |
Harm Reduction Journal, September 2005
|
DOI | 10.1186/1477-7517-2-17 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Robert Melamede |
Abstract |
This article examines harm reduction from a novel perspective. Its central thesis is that harm reduction is not only a social concept, but also a biological one. More specifically, evolution does not make moral distinctions in the selection process, but utilizes a cannabis-based approach to harm reduction in order to promote survival of the fittest. Evidence will be provided from peer-reviewed scientific literature that supports the hypothesis that humans, and all animals, make and use internally produced cannabis-like products (endocannabinoids) as part of the evolutionary harm reduction program. More specifically, endocannabinoids homeostatically regulate all body systems (cardiovascular, digestive, endocrine, excretory, immune, nervous, musculo-skeletal, reproductive). Therefore, the health of each individual is dependent on this system working appropriately. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 8 | 19% |
Japan | 6 | 14% |
Portugal | 1 | 2% |
New Zealand | 1 | 2% |
France | 1 | 2% |
Canada | 1 | 2% |
South Africa | 1 | 2% |
Spain | 1 | 2% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
Other | 0 | 0% |
Unknown | 21 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 37 | 88% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 7% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Scientists | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 2 | 2% |
United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
India | 1 | <1% |
Chile | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 115 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Bachelor | 24 | 20% |
Student > Master | 18 | 15% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 13% |
Researcher | 10 | 8% |
Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 8% |
Other | 24 | 20% |
Unknown | 19 | 16% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 20% |
Psychology | 15 | 13% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 14 | 12% |
Social Sciences | 11 | 9% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 6% |
Other | 28 | 23% |
Unknown | 21 | 18% |