High anxieties : What the WHO doesn't want you to know about cannabis

New Scientist ^

[WindMinstrel]

Health officials in Geneva have suppressed the publication of a politically sensitive analysis that confirms what ageing hippies have known for decades: cannabis is safer than alcohol or tobacco.

According to a document leaked to New Scientist, the analysis concludes not only that the amount of dope smoked worldwide does less harm to public health than drink and cigarettes, but that the same is likely to hold true even if people consumed dope on the same scale as these legal substances.

The comparison was due to appear in a report on the harmful effects of cannabis published last December by the WHO. But it was ditched at the last minute following a long and intense dispute between WHO officials, the cannabis experts who drafted the report and a group of external advisers.

s As the WHO's first report on cannabis for 15 years, the document had been eagerly awaited by doctors and specialists in drug abuse. The official explanation for excluding the comparison of dope with legal substances is that "the reliability and public health significance of such comparisons are doubtful". However, insiders say the comparison was scientifically sound and that the WHO caved in to political pressure. It is understood that advisers from the US National Institute on Drug Abuse and the UN International Drug Control Programme warned the WHO that it would play into the hands of groups campaigning to legalise marijuana.

One member of the expert panel which drafted the report, says: "In the eyes of some, any such comparison is tantamount to an argument for marijuana legalisation." Another member, Billy Martin of the Medical College of Virginia in Richmond, says that some WHO officials "went nuts" when they saw the draft report.

The leaked version of the excluded section states that the reason for making the comparisons was "not to promote one drug over another but rather to minimise the double standards that have operated in appraising the health effects of cannabis". Nevertheless, in most of the comparisons it makes between cannabis and alcohol, the illegal drug comes out better--or at least on a par--with the legal one.

The report concludes, for example, that "in developed societies cannabis appears to play little role in injuries caused by violence, as does alcohol". It also says that while the evidence for fetal alcohol syndrome is "good", the evidence that cannabis can harm fetal development is "far from conclusive".

Cannabis also fared better in five out of seven comparisons of long-term damage to health. For example, the report says that while heavy consumption of either drug can lead to dependence, only alcohol produces a "well defined withdrawal syndrome". And while heavy drinking leads to cirrhosis, severe brain injury and a much increased risk of accidents and suicide, the report concludes that there is only "suggestive evidence that chronic cannabis use may produce subtle defects in cognitive functioning".

Two comparisons were more equivocal. The report says that both heavy drinking and marijuana smoking can produce symptoms of psychosis in susceptible people. And, it says, there is evidence that chronic cannabis smoking "may be a contributory cause of cancers of the aerodigestive tract".

[William Terrell]

No I'm not for legalizing cannabis, but I know that people are going to use it anyway. I can't sit around and worry about all of the fools that want to destroy themselves with drugs. Just stay out of your car. Don't make some innocent person pay for your stupid decision.

But you said:

I don't. You can feel free to destroy yourself just don't take me, or mine with you! You stoners refuse to stay off the damned roads! You seem to think that you have a Constitutional Right to get stoned, and drive stoned. No such Right exists on both counts.

This was in response to my post to you asking, "So long as the person raises his children, works his job, takes care of his family, respects the rights of others and minds his own business, why should you care?"

Then why would you want cannabis to remain illegal? Because it causes a "psychological addiction"? Again, why do you care? There are both government funded studies and independent research that shows driving while stoned is actually safer.

What do these studies do you your objection that you just don't want people stoned to drive and threaten "you and yours"? Even if it could be shown people who drive stoned are dangerous (which it can't) how specifically is use of cannabis different from driving drunk under the law?

I think you ashamed to say that cannabis should remain illegal because using it is immoral, which is what we have left after stripping your argument down to basic essentials. You may not even know you think that, which is usual in cases where the convictions are placed in you by conditioning and programing using emotional appeals. The first indication of that is an inability to articulate just why you object.

You are caught by the fact that there are no credible research that shows pot is dangerous, at least to the point of destroying all the protections we have under the Bill of Rights to reduce it (which even that hasn't).

[vin-one]

Yowza! Where do I get me one a them jumpsuits?

Xena, you are killing me, just the thought of that jump suit and you, I have to go take a walk now.

[iconoclast]

If you folks want marijuana to be legal, you are going to have to wait until the current generation of old folks become ex-social security recipients.

You'd certainly have to wait until this old f@rt expires. I guess I'm just too personally close to a feller who is a pothead on "disability". He does manage however to recover a couple of evenings a week enough to get off his fat @ss and get over to a local pub to play his drums.

Go ahead and legalize it, his name will be legion.

[Phantom Lord]

So, pot should remain illegal because you know one user who is on disability.

Thats an outstanding legal and constitutional argument.

[vin-one]

just like with your one disabled friend how many Otis the town drunks do you know. I bet you know a lot more town drunks, than this one guy who is on disablity. I know many people who are weekend warriors, nightly tokers, who work hard raise families, pay taxes, but are breaking the law.

Weed, pot, Ganja, MJ, whatever you want to call it, should be legal, taxed, and regulated just like booze. Mainly because it is much less harmful than booze. Read the entire thread, people are saying they would rather have a "stoner" than a drunk show up for work

[justshutupandtakeit]

None of that has any bearing upon your incomprehension of the reference to Orwell.

[tacticalogic]

Thats an outstanding legal and constitutional argument.

Sara Brady makes much the same arguments, for much the same reasons, about handguns.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I stand corrected. More demonstrations follow.

[Destructor]

How did you get that out of what I said? Are you stoned right now? I said nothing about favoring Cannais being legal? I realize that you have chosen not to obey that law, and I would hope that you would have sense enough to stay off the road when you're in that condition!

What does all of that crap about paying your taxes, and raising your kids have to do with anything? You think that your drug use doesn't have any impact on the world around you, and you're wrong. Drugs finance, or contribute to Terrorism, Organized Crime, Prostitution, Pornography, Murder, Rape, Street Crime just to name a few things.

[Destructor]

I picked up on the reference, but I don't see how it applies to this discussion.

[iconoclast]

p.s.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I don't give a hang what y'all smoke, drink, or stuff up you orifices. None of it, a free country, should be illegal. but please get your priorities in order. First, the welfare state must go.

[Destructor]

"While we're on different sides as far as decrim/legalization are concerned, I don't see making absolute assertions in either direction as constructive. As far as driving impairment goes, they're just now looking at the impairment levels caused by under-DUI levels of alcohol in combination with many OTC drugs and finding that the impairment level may be as bad as that from DWI levels of alcohol. IMHO, someone trying to talk on a cell phone in a car full of screaming kids can be just as dangerous as a drunk."

You make a very good point here Tac. A distracted driver is every bit as dangerous as an impaired driver!

[justshutupandtakeit]

The point is the willingness of some to swallow government propaganda and the creation of false enemies. Thus, the hated enemy of yesterday is now the ally of today and vice versa based on nothing but governmental pronouncements. Pot was never illegal until a racist propaganda campaign was ginned up against it in the 30s. "Eastasia is the enemy and always has been the enemy." Why? Why did a plant never shown to do ANY social harm become the enemy? Because the feds say so and the gullible lap it up.

The war on reefer is equally dubious since the evidence of its lack of horrible effects is overwhelming. Particularly in comparision to booze. Yet, the mere governmental announcement that it is equivalent to heroin and cocaine brings out the amen chorus ready for war. MEGoodies little tale of the guy who hanged himself because of pot is swamped by the tales of self destruction because of booze as I can verify from my own family. In fact, I have never heard of anyone destroying himself because of pot useage alone yet know of dozens who have done so with booze.

[vin-one]

Drugs finance, or contribute to Terrorism, Organized Crime, Prostitution, Pornography, Murder, Rape, Street Crime just to name a few things.

We are still talking about Pot, right. and if it were legal, it would not finance any of those crime areas you mention.
They only thing bad it would finance is bigger gov't.
Thankyou for making our case. legalize it now, and help end
Organized Crime, Prostitution, Prornography, Murder, Rape, Street Crime,
you also left off Jay walking

[tacticalogic]

The war on reefer is equally dubious since the evidence of its lack of horrible effects is overwhelming.

Amen to that! I think everyone agrees the ideal situation would be for public policy to be consistent with both available research and societal attitudes. The government's take on how to accomplish this seems to be to take the current legal status of marijuana as the baseline, and try and force societal attitudes and the conclusions of researchers into line with that, rather than the other way around.

[Phantom Lord]

Drugs finance, or contribute to Terrorism, Organized Crime, Prostitution, Pornography, Murder, Rape, Street Crime just to name a few things.

What was it again that caused the rise of and massive financial gain of the mafia in America? O-ya, Prohibition.

I have no evidence to back this up, but I think that if MJ were legal a very very large % of those who would smoke it would either grow their own, or get it from close friends and family who grew their own. Which would contribute ZERO to the above listed items.

Please do this for me. List the reasons you are opposed to MJ legaliztion, with specifics and then defend your not starting a "Bring back Prohibition" campaign.

[Destructor]

Legalizing drugs won't end any of those crimes, and it won't end Organized Crime either. One of the all time favorite arguments of the pro-Dope crowd is that if drugs were legal, then the government could control the strength of those drugs. If that were the case the government would make sure the drugs were low potency. Recreational drug users in their on-going quest for a better, and longer lasting high would go right back to the black market, or organized crime as it is more commonly known.

[WindMinstrel]

I could see someone making the same arguement the day before alcohol prohibition ended, too. You're making an assertion that's utterly baseless, prophesying doom because you fear the loss of the status quo.

[headsonpikes]

Oh, great, so you've backed off your 'I'm GLAD' campaign, and are reduced to sociological thumbsucking.

The posters on this thread seem to be quite a crack team at dispelling propaganda and lies.

crack...that's a joke, son. ;^)

[Destructor]

"In fact, I have never heard of anyone destroying himself because of pot useage alone yet know of dozens who have done so with booze."

I guess you are conveniently ignoring my earlier post about my friend that drove D.U.I., and drove his van into a telephone pole. Now you know of two cases of pot causing someone's death, so you can't say that you don't know of any cases. I'm sure if the truth were known some of those dozens of cases that you acknowledge were the result of a combination of pot and booze.

Ultimately, it comes down to this one fact. In a majority of individuals Marijuana is a gateway drug. Marijuana ultimately leads to harder drugs. This is how most people end up destroying theri lives with drugs, and the root cause of it is Marijuana. To say otherwise is to deny the truth.