NIH Calling for Studies to Prove Drugs are BAD, m'kay-Apply for your grant now

Nixon did that and the results were a huge tome on Marijuana -- that proved the opposite of what he wanted. Is this a time loop?

One day Nixon's saying "I am not a crook" and hunkering down in the oval office with his cronies and the next Soetero is saying "I am not a dictator" and ....

They are already getting the "wrong" results (the ones that don't fit their agenda) with drugged driving

[link to washingtonindependent.com]

A study released last week by the University of Colorado Denver indicates that the legalization of medical marijuana reduces alcohol consumption and, as a result, alcohol-related traffic deaths without a corresponding increase in deaths caused by stoned drivers.

and infant mortality

[link to www.salem-news.com]

total of 2,964 babies were drug-tested at birth to see if they were positive for drugs - cocaine, opioids or cannabis were studied. 44% of the infants tested positive for all varieties of drugs, including the 3 being studied. During the first two years of their lives, 44 babies from the original group died. Since statistics are a drag to slog through, I'll cut right to the chase - the deaths per thousand live births - the numbers tell the story.

"No drugs at birth" deaths....... 15.7 deaths per 1000 live births

"Cocaine positive" deaths.......17.7 deaths per 1000 live births

"Opiate positive" deaths.......18.4 deaths per 1000 live births

"Cannabis positive" deaths.... 8.9 deaths per 1000 live births [5]

The cocaine and opiate babies have a higher death rate than the "No drugs" babies - that was to be expected. But look at the "cannabis" babies! Having extra cannabinoids in their bodies at birth (and likely later, from 2nd-hand exposure, or breast milk) seems to have some sort of a protective effect. The "cannabis" infants have a mortality rate almost half of what the "No drugs" infants have!

Check carefully, you may qualify for this grant. You just have to hate weed, and, according to polls, a whopping 2% of GLPers hate weed. So start drawing up those proposals guys, the money is flowing.

Does anyone who belongs to, say, the Church of the Subgenius, need $250.000 to buy weed?

Do you think you are an Indian? Have you ever just dressed up like one and sung old disco hits?

What is a "regional organization", exactly? Can a bike gang apply? They could tell us how weed is bad and Meth is good.

Its an opportunity. Below is a tiny sample of the groups who qualify for your taxpayers dollars, to help keep the taxpayers in question from doing something they have voted that they wish to be allowed to do:

[link to grants.nih.gov]
Other
Independent School Districts
Public Housing Authorities/Indian Housing Authorities
Native American Tribal Organizations (other than Federally recognized tribal governments)
Faith-based or Community-based Organizations
Regional Organizations


Wait, could GLP itself get a grant?
I seriously want somebody here to apply for this.