Posted on 07/02/2002 8:56:30 AM PDT by 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".
They, as any 'business' would do, found another 'product'.
Is that really true? Alcohol is a drug. "Social drinkers" are "recreational drug users", yet very few of them go on to become full-fledged alcoholics, forever in search of a better drunk.
"The posters on this thread seem to be quite a crack team at dispelling propaganda and lies."
"crack...that's a joke, son. ;^)"
More like a bunch of idiots (like yourself) that won't listen to the truth, or learn from the experiences of others. Excuse me for interfering with your having a good time!
As for the "sociological thumbsucking." Come talk to me about again in a few years- when you're in rehab! That's where most of you hardcore potheads end up. I'll try to resist the temptation to say, "I told you so."
That's because most people eventually grow up! Unlike your average pothead.
I think I am safe in assuming that you dont want to be on the road with drunk drivers yet I dont see your support for returning to Prohibition.
Seriously, in specifics, what are your reasons for your support of continuing the prohibition on MJ and what are your constitutional arguments for supporting the Federal Governments prohibition on MJ.
It's illegal because you don't need Phillip Morris or Anheuser Busch to produce it. It can be produced for "free" with little technical know how. It's an economy killer. It's also a good bogeyman for law enforcement budgets and testing labs. That said, I wish people didn't need any of this stuff to feel "happy" in their lives.
Do you really know enough "potheads" to be able to characterize what the "average" pothead is like?
That's just from having Alcohol as a legal drug. Do you really want to compound these problems by making drugs legal?
I did a one time in my life, and guess what? You haven't changed.
I was able to quit for about 3 months with the help of nicotine gum. However, my heart just wasn't into it.
It's too bad nicotine gum isn't cheaper, or I would be chewing that all the time. It tends not to gross out women like my Skoal does.
Oh, so you can dish it out, but not take it, huh? If you can't take the rough and tumble of the debate, then go to the Disney site.
EBUCK
You aren't part of the debate. All you've offered so far is dogma - personal opinion asserted as self evident truth and requiring agreement with it as a litmus test of rationality. It has no place in debate or the free exchange of ideas because it's purpose is to prevent it.
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.