Marijuana Demystified: 5 Health Myths Debunked

Medical Daily ^ | Aug 20, 2014 | Anthony Rivas

[ConservingFreedom]

Like it or not, marijuana use has increased exponentially since President Nixon declared a war no drugs in 1971. Today, marijuana — or weed, pot, cannabis, Mary Jane — is the third most popular recreational drug in the United States, behind only alcohol and tobacco. Upward of 24 million people have used it, based on the latest estimates, with 14 million using it regularly. But despite a growing warmth toward the drug, and two states (Washington and Colorado) legalizing its recreational use, there are still some people on the fence about its safety and usefulness. So, to educate you nonbelievers out there, here are five marijuana myths debunked.

It’s a Gateway Drug

This may be the biggest farce cooked up by marijuana opponents, but it makes sense. People who have tried marijuana may eventually go on to try harder drugs in search of a stronger high, and their experimentation leads them down a dangerous path toward addiction. But the science behind whether or not this is true overwhelmingly shows that it’s not.

“Because it is the most widely used illicit drug, marijuana is predictably the first illicit drug most people encounter,” a report from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) said. “In the sense that marijuana use typically precedes rather than follows initiation of other illicit drug use, it is indeed a ‘gateway’ drug. But because underage smoking and alcohol use typically precede marijuana use, marijuana is not the most common and is rarely the first ‘gateway’ to illicit drug use. There is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs.”

So what is the cause of other illicit drug use? As the IOM report suggested, other studies have also implicated alcohol and tobacco use as gateway drugs. But an alternative gateway may just be the trials and tribulations some kids face while growing up. “Whether marijuana smokers go on to use other illicit drugs depends more on social factors like being exposed to stress and being unemployed — not so much whether they smoked a joint in the eighth grade,” Dr. Karen Van Gundy, an associate professor of sociology at the University of New Hampshire, told CBS News.  

It’s Harmless

Although smoking weed won’t mess with a person’s body too much, it can cause a couple of the same issues that tobacco smokers experience, with the most likely one being respiratory problems. Ailments like bronchitis may sometimes develop as users inhale the tars from the rolling papers in joints and blunts. Because of this, eating marijuana-infused foods or smoking from a vaporizer, which heats the weed up just enough to release the THC (its active ingredient), may be healthier.

Smoking weed and getting behind the wheel is also relatively dangerous, with a number of studies this year finding that teens who drove while high were likely to get in crashes. One of the studies found that the number of people who crashed their cars while high tripled over the past 10 years. A person who drives while high can be up to two times more likely to crash. When accounting for teens only, another study concluded that a teen’s lack of driving experience paired with marijuana’s (or alcohol’s) effects led many teens to drive recklessly, even when not impaired, thus increasing their risk of a crash.

When it comes to more serious illnesses, marijuana may have more benefits than harms (we’ll get into that later). Despite a controversial study earlier this year suggesting it causes brain damage, other studies have shown no correlation, let alone cause. “Results indicated no significant effect of cannabis use on global neurocognitive performance,” one 2012 study said. Other opponents argue it can cause lung cancer, a condition not one study has found a link to yet.

It’s Addictive

With the majority of drugs being addicting — alcohol, tobacco, heroin, cocaine, etc — it’s easy to go ahead and say that marijuana’s addicting, too. But it’s a little more complex than that, and no, it’s not addicting. But users can develop a dependence, or a bad habit of lighting up. According to a 1994 study on the topic, however, only four percent of users develop this dependence. Compared to weed, alcohol and tobacco dependence was found among 14 and 24 percent of study participants. In a more recent study from 2007, only about nine percent of users developed dependency to the drug, whereas 15 and 24 percent of cocaine and heroin users went back again and again.

Breaking any habit can be really difficult, a recent study showed, but it’s possible with some dedication.

It Makes Users Lazy

The stereotypical stoner is all too real, unfortunately. At 30 years old, he still lies in his parents’ home, unemployed, smoking weed in his room while playing video games. Although marijuana users may never get rid of the reputation of being lazy, some evidence points to it not affecting a person’s motivation at all.

But first, supporting evidence that it does get people lazy. A study from July looked at the brains of 19 users and measured concentrations of dopamine, the chemical linked to reward, pleasure, and motivation. They found that longtime and frequent users, who tended to have more THC in their bodies were also the ones who had lower levels of dopamine in their brains. The researchers suggested that marijuana could cause a controversial — and not entirely official condition — called “amotivational syndrome,” characterized by laziness.  

But amotivational syndrome may affect other non-marijuana users just as much. One study published in the journal Psychology of Addictive Behaviors found that the syndrome affected about five to six percent of the population, both users and nonusers. These findings were later supported by another study, which also found there was no difference in motivation.

What it comes down to is, if you’re lazy when you smoke weed, you were probably lazy before, too.  

It Has No Medicinal Purpose

To say marijuana has no possible health benefits is to deny hundreds, if not thousands, of pages' worth of proof. Simply looking at this Collective Evolution article will point you in the direction of 20 studies proving its cancer-fighting benefits. According to the National Cancer Institute, cannabinoids may inhibit tumor growth by causing cell death, blocking its growth, and blocking the development of blood vessels that aid in metastasis. These marijuana ingredients may also help reduce inflammation in the colon, reducing colon cancer risk, as well as killing some kinds of breast cancer cells. And that’s only cancer.

Marijuana has also been implicated in treating glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy, PTSD, anxiety, and a host of other conditions. Its medical use has already been approved in 23 states, even as leading politicians begrudgingly admit its benefits.

As more states sign on for medical marijuana and local governments notice the revenue pulled from recreational weed — sales in Colorado are expected to reach $1 billion during this fiscal year — it’s likely to become a slippery slope toward the end of prohibition.  

[DiogenesLamp]

This is a typical instance where absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. THEY DON’T COLLECT INFORMATION ON POT SMOKING when information is gathered on every cancer patient in the nation. (Did you know that? —it’s mandated by law.) If the pot smoking is not listed via an ICD-9 code, the information is not recorded for the patient, as that would be considered a violation of their privacy, and as drug use, it is covered even more strictly by the medical record privacy laws. I can guarantee you anecdotally after reviewing thousands and thousands of cases that regular pot smokers have a LOT of extra head and neck cancers. We are, however, forbidden to gather that information.

Did not know that. It makes sense though. To hear the Libertarians tell it, Marijuana is God's gift to mankind and will bring us World Peace, heal the sick and revive the dead.

[DiogenesLamp]

Sounds like 0bamian collectivism to me - how do these "harms to society" constitute an authorization of government coercion?

Because they are fatal to society when they are allowed to grow.

[The_Reader_David]

Did you read my post? Yes, we tried banning alcohol once, and it created the same problems that banning other psychoactive substances has: deaths due to impurities in the alcohol supply because it was being produced by unregulated criminals, rather than legitimate businesses regulated for product safety; the trade going into the hands of increasingly ruthless criminal gangs as the level of enforcement increased; eroding respect for the rule of law by making criminals of otherwise law-abiding citizens who frequented illegal establishments to get their drinks.

We were “without dope” in the 60’s? Which 60’s was that the 1660’s?

We’ve been trying “bann[ing] it for good”, and when the “ban” by Federal fiat didn’t work, we’ve shredded the Constitution to chase dealers with no-knock warrants, “criminal forfeiture” laws that seize even innocent people’s property without benefit of due process if its “associated with drugs”, made drug crimes into scarlet letters that prevent people from taking out student loans, instituted urine tests to toss even casual users out of jobs,...

“Ban if for good, get rid of it,” is the same sort of policy prescription the left usually makes: an idea that sounds good but depends on changing human nature or the laws of economics to have any chance of success.

[ConservingFreedom]

Sounds like 0bamian collectivism to me - how do these "harms to society" constitute an authorization of government coercion?

Because they are fatal to society when they are allowed to grow.

That's not what happened in the USA when drugs were legal.

[DiogenesLamp]

Yes, a dead end topic. Marijuana Prohibition is dying. You’ll get over it. Or not, I don’t care.

And yet here you are, expressing your absence of caring by continuously commenting on the topic.

As Shakespeare said: "Me thinks thou dost protest too much."

[Norseman]

When a website in the opening paragraph spells “war on drugs” as “war no drugs” and even links to the phrase without figuring it out, I’m sorry, I quit reading at that point.

[Christie at the beach]

>>> In a free country, the individual and not “society” is the measure. If the shoe fits ...

I don’t agree to live in a society where anything; as in any behavior is pressed/mandated as being ok to do. You are calling for protections by a government that you claim are far overreaching. Even the Founders mentioned God and mortality for a free society to exist i.e. a lasting foundation for a society’s populace comes by a standard. You are so busted. People as you are liberals through and through. You want it both ways and or by an extreme version.

[ConservingFreedom]

I appreciate you trying to talk sense into these nanny state drug warriors, but these brainwashed yahoos are immune to logic when it comes to this topic.

I'm actually talking over their heads to undecided FReepers. The nanny-statists almost make my case for me.

[DiogenesLamp]

Not to mention that people's poor diets and sleep habits are also paid for in healthcare - do these 'conservatives' want government monitoring our fridges and setting our bedtimes?

Yes, stopping dopers from being a burden on society is exactly like the government spying on people's eating habits.

I dare say eating has been around a lot longer than doping, but that's just my crazy view of history.

[ConservingFreedom]

I don’t agree to live in a society where anything; as in any behavior is pressed/mandated as being ok to do.

"Legal" is not "OK" - insulting one's family and cheating on one's fiancee are legal. Or do you want to ban those too?

You are calling for protections by a government that you claim are far overreaching.

I'm calling for government to leave pot sellers and users alone - and no more "protection" than a social drinker or non-burqa-wearer enjoys against a Muslim who would force his own moral code on her.

Even the Founders mentioned God and mortality for a free society to exist

But they never said government could make people moral.

[Christie at the beach]

When your little groupies, go to rehab, who pays for that.

[ConservingFreedom]

The unspoken question is, “yes, but we have to pay for it in healthcare.” Ask me that question and my answer will be that we should not have to pay for other people’s healthcare.

Not to mention that people's poor diets and sleep habits are also paid for in healthcare - do these 'conservatives' want government monitoring our fridges and setting our bedtimes?

Yes, stopping dopers from being a burden on society is exactly like the government spying on people's eating habits.

As far as the healthcare burden argument goes, it's the same one.

[ConservingFreedom]

When your little groupies, go to rehab, who pays for that.

I'm against taxpayer-funded rehab. If you are too, then fight that - or does it make sense to you to ban Big Gulps because of taxpayer-funded obesity treatment?

[A CA Guy]

Make people get a prescription (not a note) from a real doctor of record for a real condition and get the pot through a real pharmacy and you may be on to something.

Also make sure they can't get the crap for a headache, unprovable back injury or for minor health issues of the day.

I have zero problem with the 3-4% of legitimate use, the rest is all recreational drug abuse no matter what holes you think you are digging.

[DiogenesLamp]

Psychoactive recreational drugs are bad. Keeping them illegal makes them worse, not just for the users, but for society as a whole.

Yeah, except for the fact that history doesn't agree with your theory there. China did it your way, and it collapsed. A small scale experiment in Zurich Switzerland did it your way and also collapsed.

This is what it looked like before they re-criminalized it.

None of the dire things drug warriors predict would happen under legalization were true in the 19th century when the government didn’t prevent trade in or use of marijuana, peyote, cocaine or opiates, includ laudanum (tincture of opium) which was suprisingly popular.

And about this you do not know what you are talking about. You are simply repeating the endless Libertarian drivel on the subject. Drugs were neither widely known or widely available prior to the civil war. The ones that were known were rightly considered medicines and used for medicinal purposes.

During the civil war, there started to be greatly increased demand for Opiates and Cocanoids to be used as pain killers. After the civil war, the nation had 400,000 addicts on both sides. Shortly thereafter Pemberton started marketing his French Wine Coca which was becoming increasingly popular, and later he came out with Coca Cola which gave everyone a nice dose of cocaine in every drink.

The problems with drug addiction were just getting started by the 1890s when Doctors started writing about various addictions.

It is literally a bald faced lie to keep repeating that garbage about the stuff being legal and there were no problems. Yes, there were problems, and they were getting worse with each passing year, but the Drug legalizers simply keep repeating that same crap, and they have now got so many people believing it who ought to know better.

Just what the F*** do you think would have happened had Coca Cola continued to contain cocaine? Do you really think that we wouldn't have had a huge mass of the population addicted to the sh*t?

Un-Freakin-real what some people are willing to believe.

[ConservingFreedom]

Make people get a prescription (not a note) from a real doctor of record for a real condition and get the pot through a real pharmacy and you may be on to something.

I'm all for it - but the federal government won't allow it.

[DiogenesLamp]

The legality of pot would impose no requirements on anyone - anybody who doesn't want to smoke it could continue to not smoke it.

And here you misstate the consequences again. A big chunk of the smokers would become unemployable and the rest of us would have to pay for their food, shelter and upkeep.

We would also have to pay for their children as well.

And none of this addresses all the stealing that would occur as a result of having so many unemployed lazy bums.

[ConservingFreedom]

they were getting worse with each passing year

You told me there were no good records from that time - so what's your evidence for this claim?

[ConservingFreedom]

A big chunk of the smokers would become unemployable

Evidence? Seems to me that anyone who loves pot that much is already smoking it, making legalization a moot point.

[DiogenesLamp]

I concur too. For a pro liberty website, FR seems to have many anti-liberty opinions. I don’t see how Conservatives who are against government regulating everything, would approve of laws that criminalize ADULTS in the privacy of their homes from using marijuana.

I like the liberty of keeping my own money instead of paying it to the state to take care of worthless bums who smoke it in their own homes.

You want liberty to be a dope head? Get your f**king hand out of my pocket! And keep it out! And don't have any children who are going to end up in my pocket either!