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.
What are you trying to say anyway? If the THC doesn't fit you must acquit. I must say I am a little troubled by your argument even though my point should of sounded a little more like what I have already conceded in my past post.
This was the original Hazelden info combined with the DEA report on BC Bud.
http://www.hazelden.org/servlet/hazelden/cms/ptt/hazl_alive_and_free.html?sf=t&sh=t&page_id=25446
Increased potency. Marijuana today is much stronger. The average potency of marijuana, or the THC content (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) that produces the "high," has increased from an average of 1 percent in the 1960s to 3 percent today. Greater availability of even more potent marijuana, up to 15 percent THC, increases the risk of intoxication.
With the DEA report BC Bud and Canadian marijuana being smuggled across the border in large amounts how would either one of us now know what the accurate average is today?
If you are a lawyer then maybe you should develop a conscience and look at the overall content of my article.
I welcome criticism and without it the other freeper's wouldn't learn anything from the information "right or wrong."
You did a wonderful job using the average THC level and made that the focus of discrediting my entire outlook on the side effects and harm marijuana causes.
What other parts of my article did you find incorrect besides the THC?
You tell me you are not a marijuana advocate but you do seem to have a hair across your ass with one point that you seem not able to pass? You yourself have stated that the THC content is 5 times greater in your past posts? What gives if those days are over for you?
Correction you haven't stated it but you posted a % that represents it 5%.
Like to remind you of a previous post
I know people who still smoke pot who are very successful hard working people. I also know losers who smoke it, but I imagine most of them would have been losers whether they smoked pot or not. Overall, I think people would all be better off if they left things like pot and booze alone. But I don't really care if people use either as long as they don't cause big problems for me or our community through their use. The vast majority of those who use these substances in moderation don't cause us any problems, and if it makes them happy to smoke a couple of hits off a joint or drink a couple of beers, I say let them do it.
A lot of my posts show that there are big problems in communities already. Who has defined what moderate use is for marijuana anyway today? Have you any studies on how much use isn't harmful? Why don't you post it for me if you can find any please?
Did you question or research the veracity and accuracy of the information you based this article on at all? For instance, the claims of research done at Tulane showing brain damage appears to be a reference to the work of Dr. Heath. If it is, then that research failed peer review miserably.
1. Are you for or against the following position from the public policy section of Hazelden.org:
Medical professionals must make screening for alcohol and other drug problems a routine part of every primary care and emergency room visit.
2. Are you for or against the proposal by the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health to screen all public school kids for mental health?
The truth about marijuana is that as long as the libertarians continue to use its legalization as political fodder... they will still be the 1% party.
I hope they never figure it out.
Liberaltarian? Ha ha ha! Oh gosh that's funny! That's really funny! It's like you combined "liberal" and "libertarian." Do you write your own material? Do you? Because that is so fresh. You know, I've, I've never heard anyone make that joke before. Hmm. You're the first. I've never heard anyone reference that before. What a clever, smart person you must be, to come up with a joke like that all by yourself. That's so fresh too. God, you're so funny!
"You tell me you are not a marijuana advocate but you do seem to have a hair across your ass with one point that you seem not able to pass?"
If you had have just checked out what I was saying and admitted you were wrong when it became apparent that you were, This would have all been over a long time ago. As for being a marijuana advocate, I do not advocate the use of marijuana. I do advocate legalizing it and regulating the marijuana trade.
"You yourself have stated that the THC content is 5 times greater in your past posts?"
I don't know what you are talking about.
"A lot of my posts show that there are big problems in communities already."
Personally, I don't see marijuana use causing big problems in my community. For instance, I've probably handled somewhere in the neighborhood of a thousand criminal cases and except for the occasional DWI, I don't see marijuana behind a lot of crime that doesn't involve marijuana's legal status. Alcohol, the hard drugs and some of the addictive prescription drugs are behind an incredible amount of crime.
Now, it does cause problems, no doubt about that. It would be better if people didn't smoke it. But compared to alcohol and some of the other drugs it's not that big of a deal.
"Who has defined what moderate use is for marijuana anyway today?"
I don't know. I guess I would define it as use that doesn't interfere in a negative way with people's lives. I suppose occasional use, or use once a month or once a week or even using just a little bit every evening could be moderate use. Personally I don't care how much people use as long as they don't hurt other people or put other people at risk of serious harm through their use.
"Have you any studies on how much use isn't harmful? Why don't you post it for me if you can find any please?"
I don't know that any amount of use isn't harmful. I would imagine that the more people use the more harmful it could be for them. As far as the nature and degree of the harm, that's one of those areas where the research really is all over the place. Most people who smoke it though do not seemed to be harmed by it.
http://www.nida.nih.gov/WhatsNew/
Go to this NIDA URL and look up Marijuana Research and Dissemination Update - March 2004 [PDF format - 248 Kb] - posted March 12, 2004
You have to download it in PDF format
It has all the current research available you will ever need if you choose to read it.
I am also familiar with the RWJF, and frankly getting the "truth about marijuana" from an organization funded by them is about as likely as getting the "truth about nuclear energy" from an organization funded by Greenpeace.
My comparison is 100% valid. Perhaps you missed the point, so I'll break it down for you. Things are illegal because they are WRONG, not because making them illegal stops the activity. You try to apprehend and punish the wrong-doers, but you will never stop crime completely. Think of any illegal activity you want and ask yourself if that activity would increase or decrease if it were made legal. The answer should be obvious.
Yes, kids can get their hands on pot. And crack. And heroin. Etc., etc., etc. I suppose we should just make these drugs legal and easily available. And watch youth drug usage plunge? Gimme a break.
A NIDA site is your unimpeachable reference? What will happen to NIDA's staff if the naturally occuring recreational drugs are all legalized?
The DEA's own Young commission, in 1988, like NIXON's (NOT the democrats) 1972 commission on Marijuana, when they actually did head to head comparisons of scientific studies, (with the deck ludicrously stacked in favor of marijuana prohibition) were forced to conclude that marijuana, on it's track record, does less harm than almost everything on the grocery shelf.
the DEA's own numbers refute the gateway argument. The DEA places the number of marijuana users in the country at about 30 million. The DEA puts the combined number of heroin and cocaine addicts is about a million. For those paying attention, that's not even correlation, much less causality. This is a problem with much of your argument here. Correlation is not causality, and anecdotal evidence without statistics makes a feeble case, even if you are so convinced that you are willing to hold your breath until you turn blue. This is a common problem with cops and health workers--they see all the people too stupid to cope with their addictions crash and burn in public, and assume what they perceive is gospel about how the universe works.
These commisions were big news in their time, because they were headline-grabbers staffed by conservatives with the charter to put the kibosh on the anti-prohibition argument for all time. They drew on all the available evidence, and because they were adult scientists who know the difference between coorelation and causality, and because they were under public scrutiny, were forced to make a weighted, objective valuation of the available evidence. Squibs from NIDA, or any other special interest group are farting into a hurricane, unless they are willing to address the arguments and evidence of the Nixon and Young commissions.
Which, of course, no one ever does, because they are unanswerable. That's why civil authorities never call them to public attention. Prohibitionists like to take the stance that they are the responsible parties in this argument. They are sadly mistaken. They carefully avoid looking at the strongest arguments of their opponents, secure in the knowledge that ultimately, they win this argument at gunpoint.
Marijuana's harmfulness, as a matter of statistically verifiable evidence, is pitiful compared to hundreds of things we tolerate without notice. Putting children, or their parents, for that matter, in jail over it is like setting grandma on fire to clean a stain on her apron.
Marijuana is de-criminalized in Holland, and their statistics are better than ours. Odd, don't you think?
It's been a disaster there.
...according to the DEA...not according to Holland's health ministry, (and her teachers) who, unlike the DEA, has statistics to back up their claim. If it was disaster, you would think there would have been a change in the last 40 or so years, wouldn't you?
This might be a little off topic, but FYI Narconon is a $cientologist front organization.
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.