Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The truth about marijuana.
Me

Posted on 11/21/2004 9:15:23 PM PST by april15Bendovr

The truth about marijuana.   Me

Posted on 11/21/2004 9:00:46 PM PST by april15Bendovr

I was asked to write this for my hospital newsletter. I hope it will help people here to understand a little bit better.

The truth about marijuana   As a psychiatric counselor, many clients report to me that at an early age they suffered from anxiety, stress, agitation and depression. In an effort to avoid or treat their problems, many decided to medicate themselves with alcohol, marijuana or other street drugs. And while the problems of alcohol addiction are well-known, there is a popular myth that marijuana is an innocuous and harmless drug. Unfortunately, marijuana's addictive repercussions can be just as devastating as alcohol.

The Hazelden Foundation, which runs treatment centers for chemical dependency, has produced an educational documentary videotape titled "Marijuana, the Escape to Nowhere," about addictive issues, side effects and marijuana's use as a mood altering substance. Participants in the video report resorting to acts of desperation, such as scraping bongs and pot pipes and pulling their bedroom dresser out from the wall, to retrieve just enough marijuana to give them their next high. Many of my clients as a psychiatric counselor have recounted the same kinds of behavior.  

I believe it's imperative that our society understand the addictive nature of marijuana and its harmful side effects. The drug has gained support from people with various ailments who praise the drug for its potential use in treating pain and nausea medically. Although there's a synthetic prescription pill developed for this purpose (Marinol), advocates for smoking the leaf continue to push for marijuana cigarette legalization. Advocates also argue that pot has few and short-term--side effects, if any. I believe such a claim is dangerously wrong.  

In Oldsmobile car ads, the slogan was: "It's not your father's Oldsmobile." Well, the same can be said for marijuana today. Hazelden reports the amount of THC (the main active chemical) in marijuana has increased 5 times since 1974, with the typical strength today being 15 percent. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration Intelligence Division December Report 2000 states that a form of marijuana called BC Bud (British Columbia), with Canadian growers using sophisticated cultivating techniques, has increased THC levels from 15 percent to 25 percent, compared with 2 percent in 1970.  

There's evidence to support claims of long-term damage. Studies referenced in the Hazelden booklet "Marijuana: Current Facts, Figures and Information," by Brent Q. Hafen, Ph.D., and David Soulier, show long-term and permanent damage. This book cites research using instruments to trace brain waves, showing slight changes in the brain's electrical activity from marijuana use.  Other studies cited in the book, using electrodes placed deep inside the brain stem, showed that the effects of marijuana use lingered.  Researchers at Tulane University studied long-term effects, revealing damage to brain cells and nerve synapses in monkeys. A 2-month to 5-year study at the University of California Davis revealed, via CAT scan, damage to the brains of monkeys from long-term use.  

Visual signs of long-term pot smoking are poor motor coordination, uncontrolled laughter, a lag or hesitation between thoughts, and unsteady hands. At one time, these were all thought to be short-term side effects--now known in many cases to be long-term with frequent use, according to a 1968 study by researchers W.H. McGlothin and L.J. West, published in the Hazelden booklet mentioned above. Other linked side effects include a symptom called amotivational syndrome, in which people become passive, apathetic, unmotivated, hedonistic, unconcerned about the future, unable to make plans and increasingly introverted.  

A marijuana information fact sheet from the National Institute on Drug Abuse states that THC kicks off a series of cellular reactions that lead to the high after smoking. It rapidly passes from the lungs into the bloodstream, which carries the chemical to organs throughout the body, including the brain. THC travels inside the brain, where it connects with THC receptors on nerve cells. The areas of the brain with the most THC receptors are the cerebellum, the cerebral cortex, and the limbic system, which includes the hippocampus. This is why marijuana affects thinking, problem solving, sensory perception, movement, balance and memory. (For a more detailed image of the brain and acute side effects of marijuana, visit www.drugabuse.gov/ResearchReports/marijuana/marijuana3.html.  

In 2001, 12 million Americans aged 12 and older used marijuana at least once in the month prior to being surveyed by the National Institute on Drug Abuse in its 2001 Monitoring the Future Surveys.   Students who smoke pot get lower grades and are less likely to graduate from high school compared with their non-smoking peers. Researchers studying the survey compared test results of marijuana-smoking 12th graders and non-smokers; in standardized tests of verbal and mathematical skills, the pot smokers scored significantly lower. The same NIDA Monitoring the Future survey of 129 college students found that someone who smokes pot once daily may be functioning at a reduced intellectual level all of the time.  

Other Hazelden-reported side effects include damage to the lungs: Marijuana cigarettes have 15 times more tar content than tobacco cigarettes and 50 percent more cancer-causing hydrocarbons than cigarettes. Liver biopsies of long-term marijuana users show significant damage. It effects the heart due to reduced oxygen to the blood stream. It causes cell damage--tests on animals show changes in gene structure. These effects are becoming more apparent to the public. Information in the National Institute on Drug Abuse marijuana fact sheet shows that marijuana-related hospital emergency department visits in the United States recently experienced  a 15 percent increase.  

If all these negatives are not enough, I recently discovered more: On Nov. 23, 2002, The British Journal of Medicine published a study linking frequent marijuana use at a young age to an increased risk of depression and schizophrenia later in life.  

Without knowledge, education, and an understanding of the problems and myths of marijuana, it is dangerous to advocate for such a drug. If we do not discourage vulnerable young people from using marijuana, the future could be very grim for our country. With the increase of THC levels and the apathy about marijuana, I unfortunately see a preview of that future and fear more mental health and overall health problems as a result.  

 


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: marijuana; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 281-292 next last
To: Ken H
Do you include social drinkers in that group?

Yes, if they are doing mind altering drugs to escape reality. I apologize in advance for not being a hypocrite on the issue. Sorry to disappoint...

141 posted on 11/22/2004 12:11:03 PM PST by 69ConvertibleFirebird (Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Recovering Ex-hippie

Good stuff here.


142 posted on 11/22/2004 12:16:18 PM PST by Chieftain (Thank you Swift Boat Veterans/POWs/Vietnam Veterans for Truth - you did it for ALL your brothers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

How many other 30+ year old studies are on government websites?


143 posted on 11/22/2004 12:18:22 PM PST by WildTurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: newcats
Doesn't matter if it is a .gov site or not, I am sure there are tons of decades old studies and reports that aren't hosted on government servers

There are indeed. But as far as I know, this is the only research done on the subject by the federal government directly. Doesn't it seem the least bit odd that of all the information published on all the websites maintained by the Justice Department, the DEA, and the ONDCP, ostensibly for "public education", there is no mention of it anywhere?

144 posted on 11/22/2004 12:21:47 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: 69ConvertibleFirebird
Yes, if they are doing mind altering drugs to escape reality. I apologize in advance for not being a hypocrite on the issue. Sorry to disappoint...

"Never apologize and never explain."
--Captain Nathan Brittles in "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon"

And my other question as to whether you consume alcohol?

145 posted on 11/22/2004 12:22:43 PM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey

I'll bet I can find published census data back that far.


146 posted on 11/22/2004 12:25:12 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Not at all.
Still a matter of available storage space.
147 posted on 11/22/2004 12:28:06 PM PST by newcats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
But as far as I know, this is the only research done on the subject by the federal government directly.

Uh, don't bother us with the facts, we will spin our report as the democrats that funded us want it spun.

"The Commission decided early in its deliberations to write a Report that was complete but not overly technical so that the reader could understand the points discussed without analyzing detailed studies."

148 posted on 11/22/2004 12:37:49 PM PST by WildTurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: newcats; tacticalogic

I don't understand it. According to the pro-druggies, government funded research is always suspect since they always have an agenda. Does this mean that government funding is good and we can trust the government positions on drugs?


149 posted on 11/22/2004 12:41:38 PM PST by WildTurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: newcats
Not at all.

Still a matter of available storage space.

Maybe. But I was around when the report came out and saw the firestorm and reaction it created. I also know what disk space costs. I have good reason to believe not.

150 posted on 11/22/2004 12:42:21 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: 69ConvertibleFirebird
cbkaty - I just do not understand the hostility associated with the quest for treatment of cancer.....

69ConvertibleFirebird - Oh, this is so, so, silly! I don't understand the hostility towards people who don't want their children enticed into using mind altering drugs for fun and pleasure. These casual drug users are often times so angry and hostile. I do hope that they get the help that they need.....

Wow...I rest my case....This forum seems to have atracted those that would rather shout down and demeam and yell "fire" in a crowded theater than debate the facts... BTW..I was not debating the casual user or his/her anger...I am talking people that puke their guts out and scream in pain..... I believe that the difference would mean more to you had you ever taken care of a cancer patient....Mother, Father, Wife, or Child......

151 posted on 11/22/2004 12:46:30 PM PST by cbkaty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
I don't understand it. According to the pro-druggies, government funded research is always suspect since they always have an agenda. Does this mean that government funding is good and we can trust the government positions on drugs?

According to those who support the current status quo, and contribute to the propaganda effort by referring perjoratively to anyone who disagrees with them, we can't trust anything published on "pro-drug" web sites that advocate changing the law. Does this mean that since they published government funded research we can't trust that research?

152 posted on 11/22/2004 12:49:28 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

I noticed that you ducked the question.


153 posted on 11/22/2004 12:52:00 PM PST by WildTurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
I noticed that you ducked the question.

The only rational response to a loaded question is "tag and bag". I've been around way too long to fall for that crap.

154 posted on 11/22/2004 12:59:06 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
The only rational response to a loaded question is "tag and bag". I've been around way too long to fall for that crap.

But you seem to find it credible with an article that supports the Federal WOD's. Thank you.

155 posted on 11/22/2004 1:01:54 PM PST by WildTurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
But you seem to find it credible with an article that supports the Federal WOD's. Thank you.

For what? Your perceptions are your responsibility. I don't have anything to do with rationalizing them to suit you.

156 posted on 11/22/2004 1:06:17 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
For what? Your perceptions are your responsibility. I don't have anything to do with rationalizing them to suit you.

Not perception. Fact. Your "reference" supports the Federal WOD's. I didn't think you would find such a document credible.

157 posted on 11/22/2004 1:08:31 PM PST by WildTurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

Yes, when taking cough medicine.


158 posted on 11/22/2004 1:32:56 PM PST by 69ConvertibleFirebird (Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: 69ConvertibleFirebird
And my question as to whether you consume alcohol?

Yes, when taking cough medicine.

Other than cough medicine, do you consume alcohol?

159 posted on 11/22/2004 1:40:13 PM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: cbkaty
LOL!!! You are funny!

Thanks for leaving off the beginning of the discussion. LOL!!! If you would have kept it you would have seen that the person changing the discussion to cancer treatment was trying to side track the things rather than discuss the issue at hand. But, that's what one does when he/she has no argument. Reference John Jerry and Al Gore for further material on this lesson.

If you don't understand this concept, let me give you an example.
Person A: "I want people judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin." Person B responds "You are a racist. You are a hate monger. Woo Hoo!!! I won the discussion. I rest my case."

Tiresome...

Feel free to rant all you want. I'm done responding.

160 posted on 11/22/2004 1:41:30 PM PST by 69ConvertibleFirebird (Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 281-292 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson