Five Things You May ‘Know’ About Marijuana That Aren’t True

by Elsewhere 69 Replies latest social current

  • Elsewhere
    Elsewhere

    Five Things You May ‘Know’ About Marijuana That Aren’t True

    Posted By Guest Columnist On February 27, 2010 @ 2:19 am In US News | 35 Comments

    By Steve Elliott

    [1]

    The bulk of my writing is done for a pot-savvy audience, so it usually goes without saying that certain “cultural perceptions” about cannabis are wrong. To correct these marijuana myths to a crowd of potheads would be a classic case of singing to (an albeit higher) choir.

    As editor of a pot website, I live and breathe marijuana (see what I did there?) every day, and have a great chance to fully inform myself.

    But when speaking to members of the general public, I’m often struck (and stop that! It hurts) with the wide prevalence of beliefs about marijuana that have been scientifically disproven for years.

    How many of these myths have you trusted lately?

    1. One joint equals a pack of cigarettes.

    This hoary old favorite comes back again and again, seemingly impervious to the onslaught of the real world.

    Prohibitionists earnestly tell us that smoking just one joint “equals a pack of cigarettes.” Or maybe it’s 16, or maybe just four cigarettes; they seem a little unclear on the exact number.

    This fallacious conclusion is derived from a study by Dr. Donald Tashkin in which the UCLA researcher examined airflow resistance in the lungs of tobacco smokers compared to that in the lungs of marijuana smokers. Dr. Tashkin did find that daily pot smokers experience a “mild but significant” increase in airflow resistance in the large airways, greater than that seen in persons smoking 16 cigarettes per day.

    But what they don’t tell you is that, ironically, Dr. Tashkin also found – in the largest study ever of its kind – other, more important markers of lung health, in which marijuana smokers did much better than tobacco smokers. In the four years since Dr. Tashkin’s latest study results were announced, I’ve never heard a single anti-marijuana speaker mention this.

    They also never seem to have time to mention that Dr. Tashkin’s study unexpectedly found that smoking marijuana – even regularly and heavily! – does not lead to lung cancer [2] .

    Dr. Tashkin said these results “were against our expectations.”

    “We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use,” Dr. Tashkin said. “What we found instead was no assication at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect.”

    2. Medical marijuana has been a huge problem in states where it is legalized.

    The mass media narrative seems to be “Maybe there are a few patients who need medical marijuana, but legalizing cannabis for medicinal use has led to huge problems in California. Do we really want those here?”

    When pressed on exactly what those “huge problems” are, anti-marijuana zealots will usually offer up the “more pot dispensaries than Starbucks in Los Angeles” argument, saying something about dispensary proliferation being “out of control.”

    What they don’t mention is that the situation in Los Angeles is entirely due to a lackadaisical city council that took more than two years to draw up an ordinance regulating the dispensaries, thus opening the door to their uncontrolled proliferation.

    Neither to they mention that in cities such as San Francisco and Oakland, where city governments have been on top of the developing marijuana dispensary scene for years, there haven’t been any such problems.

    Not only do these cities have orderly, well-run, reputable marijuana dispensaries, but in the case of Oakland at least, the city is now reaping millions of tax dollars from the shops – which, in what may be a first for American business, asked to be taxed.

    Remember, there are 13 other states besides California that have legalized medical marijuana. Have you heard about nightmare scenarios occurring in those?

    States such as New Mexico, Rhode Island, and Maine have set up systems of state-authorized marijuana dispensaries to carry out the will of the voters in giving patients safe and legal access to medical marijuana. The system hasn’t produced major problems, and is working as intended.

    The other favorite argument of pot prohibitionists is that marijuana dispensaries are supposed to somehow “attract crime.

    This one seems to be particularly near and dear to the hearts of small town police chiefs, as evidenced over and over by their apparently earnest (but completely inaccurate) testimony at city council meetings.

    Dispensaries, in fact, have lower crime rates [3] than either banks or liquor stores, according to the Denver Police Department, which certainly should know, since they have 300 of them in town.

    The police chief of Los Angeles agrees. “Banks are more likely to get robbed than medical marijuana dispensaries,” L.A. Police Chief Charlie Beck told the Los Angeles Daily News [4] .

    A look at the facts quickly tells us that all types of crime are, in fact, down [5] in states with marijuana dispensaries.

    3. Legalization is a slippery slope. If we legalize pot, what’s next? Cocaine? Heroin? Meth?

    The evergreen popularity of this baseless bugaboo is a bit puzzling.

    The answer is easy and obvious. While the legalization of marijuana now enjoys majority support [6] , according to recent polls, support drops precipitously for relaxing the laws around any other drugs.

    Pot’s closest competitors, ecstasy and cocaine, each have only 8 percent support for legalization. Heroin and meth are even lower at 6 percent each, according to Angus Reid Public Opinion.

    Legalizing pot won’t open the floodgates; in fact, the increased visibility of marijuana in American society only serves to highlight the stark differences between cannabis and most other illicit substances.

    The American people know the difference between marijuana and hard drugs. Most Americans know someone who uses marijuana without it destroying their life. It’s not hard to see the chasm that separates pot, and its users, from the desperately addicted scenario that goes with substances like heroin and methamphetamine.

    4. If we legalize pot, there will be carnage on our highways. Look at what we’re already facing with alcohol. Do we really want MORE impaired drivers?

    The simple truth of it is, there are already millions of marijuana smokers using our roads and highways every day.

    With estimates of current marijuana users in the United States running between 40 and 100 million, you can bet that if weed really caused wrecks, it would be a national tragedy on the level of drunk driving.

    If marijuana resulted in motor impairment anywhere near the level produced by alcohol, those gory findings would have made banner headlines across the land – as has been the case with alcohol.

    Many of us have, hopefully in our younger years, discovered on a very personal level that driving under the influence of alcohol is an extremely bad idea. But think about it: How many in your circle of friends have a “I was so high I totaled my car” story?

    While I’m not encouraging anyone to take bong hits then rush out onto the freeway, a growing body of evidence indicates that marijuana is, on balance, far less a road hazard than is alcohol.

    The tendency for stoners to overcompensate for whatever slight impairment occurs is one reason that marijuana-related car crashes aren’t in the headlines every day.

    Even the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), which in its understandable quest for respectability is very cautious around the stoned driving issue, grants: “…Emerging scientific research indicates that cannabis actually has far less impact on the psychomotor skills needed for driving than alcohol does, and is seldom a causal factor in automobile accidents.”

    5. If we legalize it, everybody and his brother will become a flaming pothead.

    Some of the pot prohibitionists have an interesting view of human nature. They think that as humans we are mostly seething cauldrons of pent-up desires just waiting to express themselves, if only legal repercussions weren’t in the way.

    Now, I’m willing to grant this may be a reasonably accurate self-assessment for some of these guys, but for the rest of us, it’s just not so, when it comes to the pot laws.

    The laws against marijuana been a spectacular failure in preventing its use. Since pot was made illegal more than 70 years ago, its popularity has risen almost every single year – even as the laws against it became more and more draconian in many locales.

    The most extensive study ever taken on U.S. marijuana arrests and penalties, released last November, found that marijuana arrests have no impact on usage rates.

    Meanwhile, another approach has been tried in places like the Netherlands, which relaxed its pot laws in the 1970s and has since seen teen and overall marijuana use at a level half that of the United States [7] .

    Those of us who make marijuana policy reform our work welcome an open, serious debate on the issues surrounding cannabis re-legalization.

    All we ask is that in that debate, everyone should at least stick to the facts and not cling to outdated, shop-worn superstitions from the 20th Century.

    URL to article: http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/02/27/five-things-you-may-%e2%80%98know%e2%80%99-about-marijuana%e2%80%a6-that-aren%e2%80%99t-true/

    URLs in this post:

    [1] Image: http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/02/27/five-things-you-may-%e2%80%98know%e2%80%99-about-marijuana%e2%80%a6-that-aren%e2%80%99t-true/medical-marijuana-smoke/

    [2] does not lead to lung cancer: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729_pf.html

    [3] lower crime rates: http://www.denverpost.com/ci_14275637

    [4] Los Angeles Daily News: http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_14206441

    [5] down: http://www.examiner.com/x-17593-NORML-Examiner~y2009m8d26-Crime-down-in-states-with-medical-marijuana-dispensaries

    [6] majority support: http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/34651/most_americans_support_legalizing_marijuana

    [7] half that of the United States: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/node/67

    [8] Image: http://www.addtoany.com/share_save?linkurl=http%3A%2F%2Fnewsjunkiepost.com%2F2010%2F02%2F27%2Ffive-things-you-may-%25e2%2580%2598know%25e2%2580%2599-about-marijuana%25e2%2580%25a6-that-aren%25e2%2580%2599t-true%2F&linkname=Five%20Things%20You%20May%20%E2%80%98Know%E2%80%99%20About%20Marijuana%20That%20Aren%E2%80%99t%20True

    [9] Four Things Not To Say To A Medical Marijuana Patient: http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/02/13/four-things-not-to-say-to-a-medical-marijuana-patient/

    [10] When 70 Percent Support Marijuana Legalization, Starbucks Gets The Message: http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/02/06/when-70-support-marijuana-legalization-starbucks-gets-message/

    [11] Progressives Seize 2.0 Meme on Twitter: http://newsjunkiepost.com/2009/11/13/progressives-seize-2-0-meme-on-twitter/

    [12] Weird Science: The Bootstrap Hypothesis: http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/02/19/weird-science-the-bootstrap-hypothesis/

    [13] Progressive Unity Project on News Junkie Post : http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/01/31/progressive-unity-project-on-newsjunkiepost/

    [14] Joe Kennedy Says Death Threats Came From Scott Brown Camp : http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/01/19/joe-kennedy-says-death-threats-came-from-scott-brown-camp/

    [15] Poll of Republican Beliefs Shows Vulnerability : http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/01/18/poll-of-republican-beliefs-shows-vulnerability/

    [16] Moderate Charlie Crist To Quit GOP, Run For Senate As Independent, Sources Say: http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/02/26/moderate-charlie-crist-to-quit-gop-run-for-senate-as-independent-sources-say/

    [17] The Party Of No Morphs Into The Party Of “No Way Jose”: http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/02/25/the-party-of-no-morphs-into-the-party-of-no-way-jose/

    [18] Climate Change: Not A Matter Of Faith: http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/02/22/climate-change-not-a-matter-of-faith/

  • recovering
    recovering

    I will address one of the claims made by the previous author. He claims that..

    "This fallacious conclusion is derived from a study by Dr. Donald Tashkin in which the UCLA researcher examined airflow resistance in the lungs of tobacco smokers compared to that in the lungs of marijuana smokers. Dr. Tashkin did find that daily pot smokers experience a “mild but significant” increase in airflow resistance in the large airways, greater than that seen in persons smoking 16 cigarettes per day."

    This is not true. There have been many studies that arive at the same conclusion . Here is the latest one that i am aware of.

    ScienceDaily (June 15, 2009) — Using a highly sensitive new test, scientists in Europe are reporting "convincing evidence" that marijuana smoke damages the genetic material DNA in ways that could increase the risk of cancer.

    The researchers add that the ability of cannabis smoke to damage DNA has significant human health implications especially as users tend to inhale more deeply than cigarette smokers, which increases respiratory burden. "The smoking of 3-4 cannabis cigarettes a day is associated with the same degree of damage to bronchial mucus membranes as 20 or more tobacco cigarettes a day," the team adds.

    "In conclusion, these results provide evidence for the DNA damaging potential of cannabis [marijuana] smoke, implying that the consumption of cannabis cigarettes may be detrimental to human health with the possibility to initiate cancer development," the article states. "The data obtained from this study suggesting the DNA damaging potential of cannabis smoke highlight the need for stringent regulation of the consumption of cannabis cigarettes, thus limiting the development of adverse health effects such as cancer."

    Singh et al. Evaluation of the DNA Damaging Potential of Cannabis Cigarette Smoke by the Determination of Acetaldehyde Derived N 2 -Ethyl-2′-deoxyguanosine Adducts. Chemical Research in Toxicology, 2009; 22 (6): 1181 DOI: 10.1021/tx900106y

  • purplesofa
  • Snoozy
    Snoozy

    1998 yes Marijuana is harmful and can cause cancer

    2006 no it is not harmful and cannot cause cancer (By itself)

    2010 Yes it is harmful, has more tar than a regular cigarette and since it is inhaled deeper and stays in the lungs longer can indeed cause lung cancer.

    ******************************************************

    The article you quoted from the Washington post was from 2006. It is outdated according to new information. It seems to be the only legit news source for the safty of marijuana, the rest are for legalizing it or saying it does not cause crime in the neighborhood etc.

    A new article posted on yahoo today said that Marijuana can lead to increased risk of developing halluciinations, delusions and psychosis (Schizophrenia)

    The reasons they changed their view is because it has up till now been hard to study.

    Here it is shown to be a cause of lung cancer..2009

    http://lungcancer.about.com/od/causesoflungcance1/f/marijuana.htm

    Snoozy..

  • recovering
    recovering

    Thank you snoozy, It is of note that the author ( Steve Elliott an editor of a pot website) of the article is an avowed proponent of pot use , and is financially rewarded by supporting it. In all studies of a medical nature it is important to follow the money. In other words it is important to know who funded the study.

  • Snoozy
    Snoozy

    One more link (If I can get it right lol) about how it can cause psychosis...(including Schizophrenia)

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/marijuanausecanuppsychosisrisk

    Snoozy

  • SixofNine
    SixofNine

    Top 10 Cannabis Studies the Government Wished it Had Never Funded


    Type of Content: Article

    10) MARIJUANA USE HAS NO EFFECT ON MORTALITY:
    A massive study of California HMO members funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) found marijuana use caused no significant increase in mortality. Tobacco use was associated with increased risk of death. Sidney, S et al. Marijuana Use and Mortality. American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 87 No. 4, April 1997. p. 585-590. Sept. 2002.

    9) HEAVY MARIJUANA USE AS A YOUNG ADULT WON'T RUIN YOUR LIFE:
    Veterans Affairs scientists looked at whether heavy marijuana use as a young adult caused long-term problems later, studying identical twins in which one twin had been a heavy marijuana user for a year or longer but had stopped at least one month before the study, while the second twin had used marijuana no more than five times ever. Marijuana use had no significant impact on physical or mental health care utilization, health-related quality of life, or current socio-demographic characteristics. Eisen SE et al. Does Marijuana Use Have Residual Adverse Effects on Self-Reported Health Measures, Socio-Demographics or Quality of Life? A Monozygotic Co-Twin Control Study in Men. Addiction. Vol. 97 No. 9. p.1083-1086. Sept.
    1997

    8) THE "GATEWAY EFFECT" MAY BE A MIRAGE:
    Marijuana is often called a "gateway drug" by supporters of prohibition, who point to statistical "associations" indicating that persons who use marijuana are more likely to eventually try hard drugs than those who never use marijuana - implying that marijuana use somehow causes hard drug use. But a model developed by RAND Corp. researcher Andrew Morral demonstrates that these associations can be explained "without requiring a gateway effect." More likely, this federally funded study suggests, some people simply have an underlying propensity to try drugs, and start with what's most readily available. Morral AR, McCaffrey D and Paddock S. Reassessing the Marijuana Gateway Effect. Addiction. December 2002. p. 1493-1504.

    7) PROHIBITION DOESN'T WORK (PART I):
    The White House had the National Research Council examine the data being gathered about drug use and the effects of U.S. drug policies. NRC concluded, "the nation possesses little information about the effectiveness of current drug policy, especially of drug law enforcement." And what data exist show "little apparent relationship between severity of sanctions prescribed for drug use and prevalence or frequency of use." In other words, there is no proof that prohibition - the cornerstone of U.S. drug policy for a century - reduces drug use. National Research Council. Informing America's Policy on Illegal Drugs: What We Don't Know Keeps Hurting Us. National Academy Press, 2001. p. 193.

    6) PROHIBITION DOESN'T WORK (PART II):
    DOES PROHIBITION CAUSE THE "GATEWAY EFFECT"?): U.S. and Dutch researchers, supported in part by NIDA, compared marijuana users in San Francisco, where non-medical use remains illegal, to Amsterdam, where adults may possess and purchase small amounts of marijuana from regulated businesses. Looking at such parameters as frequency and quantity of use and age at onset of use, they found no differences except one: Lifetime use of hard drugs was significantly lower in Amsterdam, with its "tolerant" marijuana policies. For example, lifetime crack cocaine use was 4.5 times higher in San Francisco than Amsterdam. Reinarman, C, Cohen, PDA, and Kaal, HL. The Limited Relevance of Drug Policy: Cannabis in Amsterdam and San Francisco. American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 94, No. 5. May 2004. p. 836-842.

    5) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART I):
    Federal researchers implanted several types of cancer, including leukemia and lung cancers, in mice, then treated them with cannabinoids (unique, active components found in marijuana). THC and other cannabinoids shrank tumors and increased the mice's lifespans. Munson, AE et al. Antineoplastic Activity of Cannabinoids. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Sept. 1975. p. 597-602.

    4) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER, (PART II):
    In a 1994 study the government tried to suppress, federal researchers gave mice and rats massive doses of THC, looking for cancers or other signs of toxicity. The rodents given THC lived longer and had fewer cancers, "in a dose-dependent manner" (i.e. the more THC they got, the fewer tumors). NTP Technical Report On The Toxicology And Carcinogenesis Studies Of 1-Trans- Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol, CAS No. 1972-08-3, In F344/N Rats And B6C3F Mice, Gavage Studies. See also, "Medical Marijuana: Unpublished Federal Study Found THC-Treated Rats Lived Longer, Had Less Cancer," AIDS Treatment News no. 263, Jan. 17, 1997.

    3) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART III):
    Researchers at the Kaiser-Permanente HMO, funded by NIDA, followed 65,000 patients for nearly a decade, comparing cancer rates among non-smokers, tobacco smokers, and marijuana smokers. Tobacco smokers had massively higher rates of lung cancer and other cancers. Marijuana smokers who didn't also use tobacco had no increase in risk of tobacco-related cancers or of cancer risk overall. In fact their rates of lung and most other cancers were slightly lower than non-smokers, though the difference did not reach statistical significance. Sidney, S. et al. Marijuana Use and Cancer Incidence (California, United States). Cancer Causes and Control. Vol. 8. Sept. 1997, p. 722-728.

    2) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART IV):
    Donald Tashkin, a UCLA researcher whose work is funded by NIDA, did a case-control study comparing 1,200 patients with lung, head and neck cancers to a matched group with no cancer. Even the heaviest marijuana smokers had no increased risk of cancer, and had somewhat lower cancer risk than non-smokers (tobacco smokers had a 20-fold increased lung cancer risk). Tashkin D. Marijuana Use and Lung Cancer: Results of a Case-Control Study. American Thoracic Society International Conference. May 23, 2006.

    1) MARIJUANA DOES HAVE MEDICAL VALUE:
    In response to passage of California's medical marijuana law, the White House had the Institute of Medicine (IOM) review the data on marijuana's medical benefits and risks. The IOM concluded, "Nausea, appetite loss, pain and anxiety are all afflictions of wasting, and all can be mitigated by marijuana." While noting potential risks of smoking, the report added, "we acknowledge that there is no clear alternative for people suffering from chronic conditions that might be relieved by smoking marijuana, such as pain or AIDS wasting." The government's refusal to acknowledge this finding caused co-author John A. Benson to tell the New York Times that the government "loves to ignore our report … they would rather it never happened." Joy, JE, Watson, SJ, and Benson, JA. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. National Academy Press. 1999. p. 159. See also, Harris, G. FDA Dismisses Medical Benefit From Marijuana. New York Times. Apr.
    21, 2006

  • FreudianSlip
    FreudianSlip

    Boooo to marijuana!!!

  • SixofNine
  • Elsewhere
    Elsewhere

    You don't fool me Freudian Slip! You're a toker!

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit