↓ Skip to main content

Harm reduction-the cannabis paradox

Overview of attention for article published in Harm Reduction Journal, September 2005
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
42 X users
facebook
35 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
12 Google+ users
reddit
5 Redditors
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
120 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
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

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 42 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

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%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 84. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 October 2023.
All research outputs
#509,252
of 25,576,275 outputs
Outputs from Harm Reduction Journal
#84
of 1,129 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#590
of 70,469 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Harm Reduction Journal
#2
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,576,275 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,129 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 70,469 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 7 of them.