-
Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
-
Check Out IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex
Marijuana and Bodybuilding: The Truth
- Thread starter Deeznuts
- Start date
I think legalizing it for medical purposes is enough...
Makes ya wonder how things would turn out though if they legalized it. It would close the illegal sales and distribution doors, but open the legal sales. People would be growing weed everywhere. Imagine all convenient stores selling packs of twisted cigarettes.... It just seems like that would send the wrong message. I know weed smokers will always try to use the alcohol comparison though.
Makes ya wonder how things would turn out though if they legalized it. It would close the illegal sales and distribution doors, but open the legal sales. People would be growing weed everywhere. Imagine all convenient stores selling packs of twisted cigarettes.... It just seems like that would send the wrong message. I know weed smokers will always try to use the alcohol comparison though.
Yes, people will always push....But there is no question that cocaine, heroin and those other hard core drugs would never even be considered to be legalized... That would exist only in a drug users fantasy.
well, 99% of the kids from my town that did "hardcore drugs" (harder than weed) all started back in the day smoking weed when no one even knew what is was yet.
obviously i can't prove its a gateway drug, but i dont think one can disprove it either.
Probably 95% of people's 1st two "experiment" drugs in middle school or high school are alchohol and weed. they experiment, they like, they abuse. then when alcohol and weed dont do it anymore, they try other things....i.e. cocaine, x, painkillers, etc. if thats not a gateway drug i dont know what is.........
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2003
- Messages
- 6,315
- Reaction score
- 16
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Just below our civil disguise
weed does not lead to other drugs. If a person is a drug addict/alcoholic then they will do other drugs. There are plenty of other people that smoke weed and never do any thing else. There is no correlation between weed and doing other drugs. People move onto other drugs b/c they are alcoholics, not b/c weed is a gateway drug. There are so may misinformation in our society about addiction in general, but especially about drugs and the stigmas they have gathered in our society. MOST of them are just plain ridiculous and completely untrue. Most of it is just propaganda our government dispells as "scare tactics" so people will not try them. Believe me when I say that I have spent MOST of my adult life researching and learning the FACTS about addiction and drug use in general. I have always been very interested in the subject of addiction and everything concerning it, I have read literature and studies over and over and I can safely say that most people in this thread haven't the slightest clue what they are talking about and are merely just operating off the stigmas this country has provided to them. Think about it Flex, the stupid shit that most people think about steroids and what they think is true about them. Then think about what is actually the case. It is just the same if not more so about drugs in this country. I am gonna spend some time and type out a study about weed and the truths of it so give me some time and you will read it.
Ok, go back and reread my post. I didn't say disease was harmless to the body, I also didn't say that dirty needles were harmless.
I said Heroin is harmless to the body in terms of the actual damage that the drug ITSELF inflicts. Sharing a dirty needle? Well, that sounds like a personal problem to me... if you are sharing a dirty needle and you get a disease or you fuck up your vein because the tip is dull after a few uses, that is not caused by the Heroin ITSELF.
Overdose? Yes, an overdose is very harmful, but provided you don't overdose, which is quite a simple matter actually it causes NO harm to the body. Statisically most overdoses occur because someone is mixing drugs, or they don't test their stuff before they take a large amount. For example, if you get a new bag of smack and you just inject what amount you usually inject, you could end up dieing as the purity of the heroin is going to vary beacuse its not standardized.
You know ol Benjamin Franklin? Opium ADDICT, Sigmund Freud... COCAINE ADDICT... what did they die of? Not an overdose. I could name many other founding fathers that were addicted to Opium as well... in fact.. a large percentage of drugs available in that day contained opium.. so basically the medicine worked and relieved you of symptoms cause it done got your ass flying like a kite.
Hospitals don't use drugs on patients that are going to do severe harm to their bodies. At least not drugs that in many cases have to be administered constantly and frequently, i.e. painkillers.
You think a cancer patients needs any other harm done to his body? If Opiates caused direct harm to a cancer patients body, than I doubt they would use them.. and seek an alternative means of pain control. The only opiate that I can name off my head that is slightly toxic to the body is demerol. Its a synthetic opiod.
As for having seen people on Heroin? How do they function? That all depends on how much they do.. ever seen someone on Vicodin because of their wisdow teeth? or oxycontin because of a chronic illness? Its the same feeling, the drug interacts the same way. It just depends how much they do. I myself have also done heroin, and I can say that when I tried it, I could have attended class or watched a movie or pretty much anything else. I may have not been motivated, but I could have if I had to.
As far as weed being a gateway drug, this is absolute crap.. why do people always start off doing weed first? Because its the first god damn drug they come into contact with. Weed is by far the most accepted illicit drug out there! Even the DEA, or FDA can't remember which either it was both, or only one of them made a statement saying weed is not a gateway drug, at least their researchers did, this was published a few years ago.
weed is not a gateway drug..i smoked weed all through highschool and never wanted to do coke...plus look at amsterdam..they do fine for legal use of pot in the red light district..crime rate is actually better there than in the u.s. plus coke, heroin etc. is chemically changed, marijuana is natural..now poppy seeds are natural and so is cocoa but it is changed so, no it would not be pushed to become legal.
u are right randy........ i started drinking a lil bit when i was 17 u know just to kinda forget what kind of slaker i was in school... not that i was and complete idiot i didnt have the motivation for it no goal no plan nattin.... later on after the 2-3 beers came the 2-3 shots of vodka... not that i didnt enjoy gettin drunk with my buddies but..... didnt know how to stop.... so yea hahahah then came the unforgetible summer hahah my first 12 shots of vodka.... made me have a hangover for a week... and so on and so on but then finaly came a moment in my life when i look it the mirror and saw a f***in drunk looser........ so i decided to give it up forever because now im gonna be a f***in b-builder togther with the help of a good friend of mine screw the drugs and alcohol it aint worth it.... just gonna mess up everything
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2003
- Messages
- 6,315
- Reaction score
- 16
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Just below our civil disguise
An Article addressing the fallacies the marijuana Vs Tobacco argument
This article is an attempt to point out some of the absurdities in the marijuana-is-bad-for-you-like-cigarettes aruement, as well as to take a few cheap (but well aimed) shots at the tobacco industry. It is written from a pro-marijuana-relegalization perspective, and if you want a copy, mail us a self addressed stamped envelope. An address and some sources are at the end.
So, you thought it was the tar that caused cancer.....
Think again. Cigarette companies will have you believing anything just as long as you continue to buy their products. The fact is, although insoluable tars are a contributing factor to the lung cancer danger present in todays's cigarettes, the real danger is radioactivity. According to the U.S Surgeon General C. Everette Koop (on national Television, 1990) radioactivity, not tar, accounts for at least 90% of all smoking related lung cancer.
Tobacco crops grown in the United States are fertilized by law with phosphates rich in radium 226. In addition, many soils have a natural radium 226 content. Radium 226 breaks down into two long-lived ???daughter??? elements ??? lead 210 and polonium 210. These radioactive particles become airborne, and attach themselves to the fine hairs on the tobacco leaves.
Studies have shown that lead 210 and polonium 210 deposits accumulate in the bodies of people exposed to cigarettes smoke. Data collected in the late 1970???s shows that smokers have three times as much of these elements in their lower lungs as non-smokers. Smokers also show a greater accumulation of lead 210 and polonium 210 in their skeletons, though no studies have been conducted to link these deposits with bone cancer. Polonium 210 is the only component of cigarette smoke, which has produced tumors by itself in inhalation experiments with animals.
When a smoker inhales tobacco smoke, the lungs react by forming irritated area in the bronchi. Al smoke produces this effect. However, although these irritated spots are referred to as ???pre-cancerous; lesions, they are a perfectly natural defense system and usually go away with no adverse side effects. Insoluble tars in tobacco smoke can slow this healing process and adhering to the lesions and causing additional irritation. In addition, tobacco smoke causes the bronchi to constrict for long periods of time, which obstruct the lung???s ability to clear itself of these residues.
Polonium 210 and lead 210 in tobacco smoke show a tendency to accumulate at lesions in specific spots, called bifurcation, in the bronchi. When smoking is continued for an extended period of time, deposits of radioactivity turn into radioactive ???hot spots??? and remain at bifurcations for years. Polonium 210 emits highly localized alpha radiation, which has been shown to cause cancer. Since the polonium 210 has a half-life of 21.5 years (due to the presence of lead 210), it can be put in an ex-smoker at risk for years after he/she quits. Experiments measuring the level of polonium210 in victims of lung cancer found that the level of ???hot spot??? activity was virtually the same in smokers and ex-smokers even though the ex-smokers had quit five years prior to death.
Over half the radioactive materials emitted by a burning cigarette are released into the air, where they can be inhaled by non-smokers. In addition to lead 210 and polonium 210, it has been proven that tobacco smoke can cause airborne radioactive particles to collect in the lungs of both smokers and non-smokers exposed to second hand smoke. Original studies conducted on uranium miners which showed an increase risk of lung cancer due to exposure to radon in smokers have been re-run to evaluate the radioactive lung cancer risk from an indoor air radon. It turns out that tobaccos smoke works as a kind of ???magnet??? for airborne radioactive particles, causing them to deposit in your lungs instead of on furniture. (Smoking indoors increases lung cancer risks greatly.)
It has been estimated that the total accumulated alpha radiation exposure of a pack-a-day indoor smoker is 38 to 97 rad by age 60. (Two packs a day yields up to 143 rad, and non-smokers receive no more than 17 rad.) An exposure of 1 rad per year yields a 1% risk of lung cancer (at the lowest estimate.)
Don???t smoke. Or if you do, smoke lightly, outdoors, and engage frequently in activities which will clear your lungs. Imported India tobacco has less than half the radiation content of that grown in the U.S.
Kicking the nicotine habit is not easy, and nobody has the right to expect it of you. Often physical addictions are reinforced by emotional and psychological needs. Filling or coming to terms with those needs can give you the inspiration and added freedom to succeed.
Most of all inform yourself, even if the information is disturbing. You are a lot less likely to be taken in by tobacco advertising once you know the facts.
Nicotine, the highly active ingredient in tobacco smoke, has long been known to be highly addictive. In fact, doctors and pharmacologists are not in consensus as to which is more addictive, nicotine or heroin. Physical addiction occurs when a chemical becomes essential for the body or metabolism to function. In other words, a substance is said to be physically addictive if extended use results in a build up of tolerance in the body to the extent that discontinuing use of the substance results in negative side effects or withdrawal symptoms. These withdrawal symptoms can include anxiety, stress, trauma, depression and physical conditions such as shakes or nausea. It is to avoid these consequences that an addict will keep using their substance.
In addition to being extremely physically addictive, nicotine is also a toxin (i.e. lethal if ingested in sufficient quantities.) Nicotine has been shown to have negative effects on the heart and circulatory systems, causing a constriction in veins and arteries, which may lead to a stroke or heart attack. In fact nicotine is so poisonous that smokers who ignore their doctor???s advice and continue to smoke while using dermal nicotine patches have managed to overdose and die of heart seizure.
Many people think that smoking marijuana is just as harmful as smoking tobacco, but this is not true. Those who hold that marijuana is equivalent to tobacco are misinformed. Due to the efforts of various federal agencies to discourage use of marijuana in the 1970???s, the government, in a fit of ???reefer madness??? conducted several biased studies designed to return results that would equate marijuana smoking with tobacco smoking, or worse.
For example the Berkeley carcinogenic tar studies of the late 70???s concluded that ???marijuana is one and a half times as carcinogenic as tobacco.??? This finding was based solely on the tar content of cannabis leaves compared to that of tobacco, and did not take radioactivity into consideration.) Cannabis tars do not contain radioactive materials.) In addition, it was not considered that:
1) Most marijuana smokers smoke the bud, not the leaf, of the plant. The bud only contains 33% as much tar as tobacco.
2) Marijuana smokers do not smoke anywhere near as much as tobacco smokers, due to the psychoactive effects of cannabis.
3) Not one case of lung cancer has ever been successfully linked to marijuana use.
4) Cannabis, unlike tobacco, does not cause any narrowing of the small air passageways in the lungs.
In fact, marijuana has been shown to be an expectorant and actually dilates the air channels it comes in contact with. This is why many asthma sufferers look to marijuana to provide relief. Doctors have postulated that marijuana may, in this respect, be more effective than all of the prescription drugs on the market.
Studies even show that due to marijuana???s ability to clear the lungs of smog, pollutants, and cigarette, it may actually reduce your risk of emphysema, bronchitis, and lung cancer. Smokers of cannabis have been shown to outlive non-smokers in some areas by up to two years. Medium to heavy tobacco smokers will live seven to ten years longer if they also smoke marijuana.
Cannabis is also radically different from tobacco in that it does not contain nicotine and is NOT physically addictive. The psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, THC, has been accused of causing brain and genetic damage, but these studies have all been disproven. In fact, the DEA???s own Administrative Law Judge Francis Young has declared that ???marijuana in its natural form is far safer than many foods we commonly consume.???
Another aspect of the drug war is the unreasonable measures taken as a result of ???reefer madness???. B/c of the long-standing anti-pot-smoking paranoia begun in the 1930???s, many law enforcement agencies have taken it upon themselves to censor and limit the marijuana culture through whatever channels they can find. This includes the banning of various forms of drug paraphernalia. (Pipes, clips, rolling papers, etc.)
The sad fact is that water pipes have been shown to be extremely effective in removing harmful materials from smoke before it reaches the lungs. They also cool the smoke and prevent injury and irritation to lung passageways.
Produced as a public service by the University of Massachusetts at Amherst Cannabis Reform Coalition
Researched and Written by Brian S. Julin
Corrections, comments, inquiries should be addressed to:
UMASS CANNABIS
S.A.O. Box #2
Student Union
UMASS Amherst, MA
01003
This article is an attempt to point out some of the absurdities in the marijuana-is-bad-for-you-like-cigarettes aruement, as well as to take a few cheap (but well aimed) shots at the tobacco industry. It is written from a pro-marijuana-relegalization perspective, and if you want a copy, mail us a self addressed stamped envelope. An address and some sources are at the end.
So, you thought it was the tar that caused cancer.....
Think again. Cigarette companies will have you believing anything just as long as you continue to buy their products. The fact is, although insoluable tars are a contributing factor to the lung cancer danger present in todays's cigarettes, the real danger is radioactivity. According to the U.S Surgeon General C. Everette Koop (on national Television, 1990) radioactivity, not tar, accounts for at least 90% of all smoking related lung cancer.
Tobacco crops grown in the United States are fertilized by law with phosphates rich in radium 226. In addition, many soils have a natural radium 226 content. Radium 226 breaks down into two long-lived ???daughter??? elements ??? lead 210 and polonium 210. These radioactive particles become airborne, and attach themselves to the fine hairs on the tobacco leaves.
Studies have shown that lead 210 and polonium 210 deposits accumulate in the bodies of people exposed to cigarettes smoke. Data collected in the late 1970???s shows that smokers have three times as much of these elements in their lower lungs as non-smokers. Smokers also show a greater accumulation of lead 210 and polonium 210 in their skeletons, though no studies have been conducted to link these deposits with bone cancer. Polonium 210 is the only component of cigarette smoke, which has produced tumors by itself in inhalation experiments with animals.
When a smoker inhales tobacco smoke, the lungs react by forming irritated area in the bronchi. Al smoke produces this effect. However, although these irritated spots are referred to as ???pre-cancerous; lesions, they are a perfectly natural defense system and usually go away with no adverse side effects. Insoluble tars in tobacco smoke can slow this healing process and adhering to the lesions and causing additional irritation. In addition, tobacco smoke causes the bronchi to constrict for long periods of time, which obstruct the lung???s ability to clear itself of these residues.
Polonium 210 and lead 210 in tobacco smoke show a tendency to accumulate at lesions in specific spots, called bifurcation, in the bronchi. When smoking is continued for an extended period of time, deposits of radioactivity turn into radioactive ???hot spots??? and remain at bifurcations for years. Polonium 210 emits highly localized alpha radiation, which has been shown to cause cancer. Since the polonium 210 has a half-life of 21.5 years (due to the presence of lead 210), it can be put in an ex-smoker at risk for years after he/she quits. Experiments measuring the level of polonium210 in victims of lung cancer found that the level of ???hot spot??? activity was virtually the same in smokers and ex-smokers even though the ex-smokers had quit five years prior to death.
Over half the radioactive materials emitted by a burning cigarette are released into the air, where they can be inhaled by non-smokers. In addition to lead 210 and polonium 210, it has been proven that tobacco smoke can cause airborne radioactive particles to collect in the lungs of both smokers and non-smokers exposed to second hand smoke. Original studies conducted on uranium miners which showed an increase risk of lung cancer due to exposure to radon in smokers have been re-run to evaluate the radioactive lung cancer risk from an indoor air radon. It turns out that tobaccos smoke works as a kind of ???magnet??? for airborne radioactive particles, causing them to deposit in your lungs instead of on furniture. (Smoking indoors increases lung cancer risks greatly.)
It has been estimated that the total accumulated alpha radiation exposure of a pack-a-day indoor smoker is 38 to 97 rad by age 60. (Two packs a day yields up to 143 rad, and non-smokers receive no more than 17 rad.) An exposure of 1 rad per year yields a 1% risk of lung cancer (at the lowest estimate.)
Don???t smoke. Or if you do, smoke lightly, outdoors, and engage frequently in activities which will clear your lungs. Imported India tobacco has less than half the radiation content of that grown in the U.S.
Kicking the nicotine habit is not easy, and nobody has the right to expect it of you. Often physical addictions are reinforced by emotional and psychological needs. Filling or coming to terms with those needs can give you the inspiration and added freedom to succeed.
Most of all inform yourself, even if the information is disturbing. You are a lot less likely to be taken in by tobacco advertising once you know the facts.
Nicotine, the highly active ingredient in tobacco smoke, has long been known to be highly addictive. In fact, doctors and pharmacologists are not in consensus as to which is more addictive, nicotine or heroin. Physical addiction occurs when a chemical becomes essential for the body or metabolism to function. In other words, a substance is said to be physically addictive if extended use results in a build up of tolerance in the body to the extent that discontinuing use of the substance results in negative side effects or withdrawal symptoms. These withdrawal symptoms can include anxiety, stress, trauma, depression and physical conditions such as shakes or nausea. It is to avoid these consequences that an addict will keep using their substance.
In addition to being extremely physically addictive, nicotine is also a toxin (i.e. lethal if ingested in sufficient quantities.) Nicotine has been shown to have negative effects on the heart and circulatory systems, causing a constriction in veins and arteries, which may lead to a stroke or heart attack. In fact nicotine is so poisonous that smokers who ignore their doctor???s advice and continue to smoke while using dermal nicotine patches have managed to overdose and die of heart seizure.
Many people think that smoking marijuana is just as harmful as smoking tobacco, but this is not true. Those who hold that marijuana is equivalent to tobacco are misinformed. Due to the efforts of various federal agencies to discourage use of marijuana in the 1970???s, the government, in a fit of ???reefer madness??? conducted several biased studies designed to return results that would equate marijuana smoking with tobacco smoking, or worse.
For example the Berkeley carcinogenic tar studies of the late 70???s concluded that ???marijuana is one and a half times as carcinogenic as tobacco.??? This finding was based solely on the tar content of cannabis leaves compared to that of tobacco, and did not take radioactivity into consideration.) Cannabis tars do not contain radioactive materials.) In addition, it was not considered that:
1) Most marijuana smokers smoke the bud, not the leaf, of the plant. The bud only contains 33% as much tar as tobacco.
2) Marijuana smokers do not smoke anywhere near as much as tobacco smokers, due to the psychoactive effects of cannabis.
3) Not one case of lung cancer has ever been successfully linked to marijuana use.
4) Cannabis, unlike tobacco, does not cause any narrowing of the small air passageways in the lungs.
In fact, marijuana has been shown to be an expectorant and actually dilates the air channels it comes in contact with. This is why many asthma sufferers look to marijuana to provide relief. Doctors have postulated that marijuana may, in this respect, be more effective than all of the prescription drugs on the market.
Studies even show that due to marijuana???s ability to clear the lungs of smog, pollutants, and cigarette, it may actually reduce your risk of emphysema, bronchitis, and lung cancer. Smokers of cannabis have been shown to outlive non-smokers in some areas by up to two years. Medium to heavy tobacco smokers will live seven to ten years longer if they also smoke marijuana.
Cannabis is also radically different from tobacco in that it does not contain nicotine and is NOT physically addictive. The psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, THC, has been accused of causing brain and genetic damage, but these studies have all been disproven. In fact, the DEA???s own Administrative Law Judge Francis Young has declared that ???marijuana in its natural form is far safer than many foods we commonly consume.???
Another aspect of the drug war is the unreasonable measures taken as a result of ???reefer madness???. B/c of the long-standing anti-pot-smoking paranoia begun in the 1930???s, many law enforcement agencies have taken it upon themselves to censor and limit the marijuana culture through whatever channels they can find. This includes the banning of various forms of drug paraphernalia. (Pipes, clips, rolling papers, etc.)
The sad fact is that water pipes have been shown to be extremely effective in removing harmful materials from smoke before it reaches the lungs. They also cool the smoke and prevent injury and irritation to lung passageways.
Produced as a public service by the University of Massachusetts at Amherst Cannabis Reform Coalition
Researched and Written by Brian S. Julin
Corrections, comments, inquiries should be addressed to:
UMASS CANNABIS
S.A.O. Box #2
Student Union
UMASS Amherst, MA
01003
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2003
- Messages
- 6,315
- Reaction score
- 16
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Just below our civil disguise
Some basic facts about marijuana
DESCRIPTION
Cannabis is a leafy plant which grows wild in many of the tropic and temperate areas of the world. It is cultivated both indoors and out for the production of its flowering tops. The most commonly used form of cannabis are the leaves and flowering tops (buds) which may be either smoked or eaten; It also comes in a more concentrated resinous form called hashish, and as a sticky black liquid called hash oil. There are three distinct species of cannabis: Cannabis sativa, Cannabis indica, and Cannabis ruderalis, though there is some argument as to whether these should be considered varieties rather than species. Most recreationally used cannabis is the result of interbreeding between these three types. The term 'hemp' is generally used to describe low-thc varieties of cannabis which are grown for industrial uses
PROBLEMS
Negative effects can include paranoia, dry mouth, respiratory problems and nervousness/racing heart. Other effects may be negative or inconvenient in certain settings or situations including reduced ability to concentrate, impaired memory, tiredness, and confusion. Side effects tend to increase with lifetime use: as users age, they often report the anxiety-producing and uncomfortable effects increase and the euphoria decreases.
Contraindications:
Avoid Driving - While there has been little formal study into the effects of cannabis on driving, it is generally a good idea to avoid driving while under the influence of any psychoactive or intoxicating substance. Several studies have shown that drivers who use alcohol and cannabis in combination are far less capable than when taking either substance alone. Some studies have shown that cannabis causes impairment in driving performance, but that users often are aware of the impairment and compensate by driving more carefully.
Addiction Potential:
Regular use of cannabis can lead to psychological habituation for some people making it difficult for them to quit. Studies have estimated that between 5 and 10% of those who try smoking cannabis will become daily users sometime during their life, but most of these smokers will have given up the habit by age 30 and few remain daily smokers after age 40. Most people do not experience signs of physical addiction, but with regular daily use use, mild to medium withdrawal symptoms usually occur for less than a week, but can extend for as long as 6 weeks.
Long Term Health Problems:
The most common negative health impact of regular cannabis smoking are lung and throat problems including: coughing, increased frequency of throat and lung infections, and reduced lung capacity. There are concerns about possible long term carcinogenic (cancer causing) effects of cannabis smoking, but the results are still somewhat controversial. It can be safely said, however, that health risks increase with frequency and duration of smoking anything.
Poisoning:
There are no confirmed, published deaths from cannabis-only poisoning. There are a small number of people who report serious cannabis allergies which cause unexpectedly intense reactions, throat & lung irritation, etc.
Heart Issues:
Because cannabis increases heart rate, it could potentially increase risks of heart problems in those at risk of heart disease. One study found that cannabis use increased the risk of heart attack in men over 40, but its findings were weak and based on a very small number of individuals. In a large study of 65,000 individuals in California by Sidney et al in 1997, cannabis was not found to increase mortality rates among users under 50.
Mental Illness:
Several studies have indicated that cannabis use (like many other strong psychoactives) can precipitate neuroses or psychoses in those who are already at risk. Studies have also shown that cannabis use does not appear to increase the risk of psychosis in otherwise healthy individuals.
Cannabis Health Concerns
by Erowid
* Every individual reacts differently to every substance.
* Be mindful at every step.
* Know your body. Know your mind. Know your source.
Use of marijuana is relatively safe. There are no confirmed deaths caused by marijuana alone, although deaths can and do result from injuries sustained while intoxicated. When combined with alcohol, cannabis decreases driving ability and can contribute to traffic accidents.
Negative Health Effects: A list of health-related references can be found on the Cannabid References Page. A very good introduction to the negative health effects of cannabis is the paper "Adverse Effects of Cannabis" by Hall W, Solowij N published in The Lancet, 1998 (14(352):1611-6). A brief summary of these can be found on the Cannabis Basics Page.
Some people may experience panic attacks (including extreme feelings of dread, accelerated heart rate, feeling as if they're going to die) from smoking cannabis. [See the Psychedelic Crisis FAQ for information about such an occurrence.]
Chronic smoking of marijuana can lead to respiratory ailments associated with smoke inhalation. A 1995 study suggests that use of a bong or water pipe does not necessarily lower the overall ratio of particulate matter to THC and may be counterproductive. In other words, it lowers the particulate matter, but it also lowers the amount of THC. For the same effects, a person may have to smoke more...thus raising particulate matter back to a level equal to that inhaled from unfiltered sources (joint or pipe).
Politics & Health: The political climate around cannabis and other recreational psychoactive substances has made it complicated to find balanced opinions about its safety and risks. The Federation of American Scientists has an interesting article on the issue of cannabis-risks and the political motivation on those on both sides of the issue.
Medical Marijuana Use
Marijuana has many possible medical uses. Positive effects are claimed for ailments such as cancer, AIDS, and glaucoma. AIDS can cause a loss of appetite known as the "wasting syndrome" which can lead to drastic weight loss and weakness. Chemotherapy used in the treatment of cancer causes nausea resulting in an inability to keep down food. Marijuana's healing nature for these two illnesses is a result of it's ability to increase a person's appetite as well as relieving nausea allowing a patient to regain weight. Marijuana reportedly helps glaucoma patients by reducing occular pressure which can cause damage to the eye.
DESCRIPTION
Cannabis is a leafy plant which grows wild in many of the tropic and temperate areas of the world. It is cultivated both indoors and out for the production of its flowering tops. The most commonly used form of cannabis are the leaves and flowering tops (buds) which may be either smoked or eaten; It also comes in a more concentrated resinous form called hashish, and as a sticky black liquid called hash oil. There are three distinct species of cannabis: Cannabis sativa, Cannabis indica, and Cannabis ruderalis, though there is some argument as to whether these should be considered varieties rather than species. Most recreationally used cannabis is the result of interbreeding between these three types. The term 'hemp' is generally used to describe low-thc varieties of cannabis which are grown for industrial uses
PROBLEMS
Negative effects can include paranoia, dry mouth, respiratory problems and nervousness/racing heart. Other effects may be negative or inconvenient in certain settings or situations including reduced ability to concentrate, impaired memory, tiredness, and confusion. Side effects tend to increase with lifetime use: as users age, they often report the anxiety-producing and uncomfortable effects increase and the euphoria decreases.
Contraindications:
Avoid Driving - While there has been little formal study into the effects of cannabis on driving, it is generally a good idea to avoid driving while under the influence of any psychoactive or intoxicating substance. Several studies have shown that drivers who use alcohol and cannabis in combination are far less capable than when taking either substance alone. Some studies have shown that cannabis causes impairment in driving performance, but that users often are aware of the impairment and compensate by driving more carefully.
Addiction Potential:
Regular use of cannabis can lead to psychological habituation for some people making it difficult for them to quit. Studies have estimated that between 5 and 10% of those who try smoking cannabis will become daily users sometime during their life, but most of these smokers will have given up the habit by age 30 and few remain daily smokers after age 40. Most people do not experience signs of physical addiction, but with regular daily use use, mild to medium withdrawal symptoms usually occur for less than a week, but can extend for as long as 6 weeks.
Long Term Health Problems:
The most common negative health impact of regular cannabis smoking are lung and throat problems including: coughing, increased frequency of throat and lung infections, and reduced lung capacity. There are concerns about possible long term carcinogenic (cancer causing) effects of cannabis smoking, but the results are still somewhat controversial. It can be safely said, however, that health risks increase with frequency and duration of smoking anything.
Poisoning:
There are no confirmed, published deaths from cannabis-only poisoning. There are a small number of people who report serious cannabis allergies which cause unexpectedly intense reactions, throat & lung irritation, etc.
Heart Issues:
Because cannabis increases heart rate, it could potentially increase risks of heart problems in those at risk of heart disease. One study found that cannabis use increased the risk of heart attack in men over 40, but its findings were weak and based on a very small number of individuals. In a large study of 65,000 individuals in California by Sidney et al in 1997, cannabis was not found to increase mortality rates among users under 50.
Mental Illness:
Several studies have indicated that cannabis use (like many other strong psychoactives) can precipitate neuroses or psychoses in those who are already at risk. Studies have also shown that cannabis use does not appear to increase the risk of psychosis in otherwise healthy individuals.
Cannabis Health Concerns
by Erowid
* Every individual reacts differently to every substance.
* Be mindful at every step.
* Know your body. Know your mind. Know your source.
Use of marijuana is relatively safe. There are no confirmed deaths caused by marijuana alone, although deaths can and do result from injuries sustained while intoxicated. When combined with alcohol, cannabis decreases driving ability and can contribute to traffic accidents.
Negative Health Effects: A list of health-related references can be found on the Cannabid References Page. A very good introduction to the negative health effects of cannabis is the paper "Adverse Effects of Cannabis" by Hall W, Solowij N published in The Lancet, 1998 (14(352):1611-6). A brief summary of these can be found on the Cannabis Basics Page.
Some people may experience panic attacks (including extreme feelings of dread, accelerated heart rate, feeling as if they're going to die) from smoking cannabis. [See the Psychedelic Crisis FAQ for information about such an occurrence.]
Chronic smoking of marijuana can lead to respiratory ailments associated with smoke inhalation. A 1995 study suggests that use of a bong or water pipe does not necessarily lower the overall ratio of particulate matter to THC and may be counterproductive. In other words, it lowers the particulate matter, but it also lowers the amount of THC. For the same effects, a person may have to smoke more...thus raising particulate matter back to a level equal to that inhaled from unfiltered sources (joint or pipe).
Politics & Health: The political climate around cannabis and other recreational psychoactive substances has made it complicated to find balanced opinions about its safety and risks. The Federation of American Scientists has an interesting article on the issue of cannabis-risks and the political motivation on those on both sides of the issue.
Medical Marijuana Use
Marijuana has many possible medical uses. Positive effects are claimed for ailments such as cancer, AIDS, and glaucoma. AIDS can cause a loss of appetite known as the "wasting syndrome" which can lead to drastic weight loss and weakness. Chemotherapy used in the treatment of cancer causes nausea resulting in an inability to keep down food. Marijuana's healing nature for these two illnesses is a result of it's ability to increase a person's appetite as well as relieving nausea allowing a patient to regain weight. Marijuana reportedly helps glaucoma patients by reducing occular pressure which can cause damage to the eye.
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2003
- Messages
- 6,315
- Reaction score
- 16
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Just below our civil disguise
Health Effects of Cannabis Use: Ideology and Evidence
Appraisals of the Adverse Health Effects of Cannabis Use: Ideology and Evidence
by Wayne Hall
The cannabis policy debate in the USA and many other Western countries has often been represented as a forced choice between two positions: Doves who argue that cannabis use is harmless, and hence it should be legalized; and Hawks who argue that cannabis use is harmful to health, and hence should continue to be prohibited. This false antithesis has prevented a realistic appraisal of the adverse health effects of cannabis (Hall, 1997). It has meant that the public have been exposed to two polarized views of the adverse health effects of cannabis dictated by their proponents' views on the legal status of cannabis. The Doves focus on the modest health risks of intermittent cannabis use; the Hawks emphasize the worst case interpretation of the evidence on the risks of chronic cannabis use. There seems to be an implicit agreement between Doves and Hawks that the acute health effects of intermittent cannabis use provide at best a weak justification for prohibition. The Doves stress that there is no risk of overdose from cannabis. The Hawks respond by pointing to the possibility of death or serious injury in a motor vehicle accident if cannabis users drive, and to the social consequences of engaging in risky sexual and other behavior while intoxicated by cannabis.
Points of Dispute
Hawks and Doves both accept that there is some respiratory risk from sustained heavy cannabis smoking but they disagree about its magnitude because they use different bases to assess it. Hawks stress the fact that on a puff-for-puff basis marijuana smoke contains more carcinogens and toxins than tobacco smoke (Tashkin, 1993). Doves (e.g. Zimmer and Morgan, 1997) point out that this comparison ignores two facts: that there are many fewer regular marijuana than tobacco smokers under current policies, and the average marijuana user smokes many fewer joints in a day than a daily tobacco user smokes cigarettes. Doves also discount the respiratory effects (e.g. Zimmer and Morgan, 1997), arguing that on current patterns of use the attributable risk of cannabis smoking to respiratory disease is very small by comparison with that of tobacco smoking; they ignore the amplification of risk among the minority of regular heavy marijuana smokers, many of whom are also daily tobacco smokers (Hall, 1998).
Is Cannabis a Drug of Dependence
One of the most contested issues is whether cannabis is a drug of dependence. Doves argue that it is not because it does not have a clearly defined withdrawal syndrome. Hawks cite animal evidence of the development of tolerance to the effects of THC and the occurrence of withdrawal symptoms. Both arguments depend upon a narrow view of dependence that makes withdrawal and tolerance sine qua non for dependence. Modern concepts of dependence place greater emphasis on impaired control over use and continued use despite problems caused or exacerbated by drug use. In the latter sense, there is no doubt that some cannabis users want to stop or cut down, and find it very difficult to do so without assistance and support (Hall et al, 1994). Epidemiological studies (e.g. Anthony et al, 1994) indicate that impaired control over cannabis use is the most common form of drug dependence in the community after tobacco and alcohol. Doves contest these prevalence estimates and reports of people requesting assistance to stop using cannabis (e.g Zimmer and Morgan, 1997). They argue that the apparent increase in persons complaining of cannabis dependence is a by-product of drug testing and the promotional activities of a "cannabis treatment industry". Yet, population surveys suggest that one in ten of those who have used cannabis in their lifetimes have met criteria for dependence at some time, and 80% of these people have not sought treatment (Hall et al, 1994). In Australia, moreover, cannabis use is highly prevalent, drug testing is still rare and there has not been a cannabis treatment industry. Yet treatment services that traditionally treat people who are alcohol and opiate dependent have seen a steady increase in the numbers requesting help to stop using cannabis (Hall et al, 1994). The most contentious issue of all is the explanation of the association between heavy adolescent cannabis use and the risk of using harder drugs (MacCoun, 1997). Hawks see the association as evidence of the deleterious effects of cannabis on the development of young people, and hence, as a potent reason for continued prohibition. Doves, by contrast, see it as a consequence of two things: (1) the types of troubled adolescents who begin cannabis use early and become heavy cannabis users; and (2) the shared illicit drug markets for cannabis and harder drugs. There is evidence in favor of both (1) and (2): adolescents who initiate cannabis use early, and who become heavy users, are independently at higher risk of using other drugs (e.g. Fergusson and Horwood, 1997); and cannabis users are also more likely to keep company with other heavy drug using peers. But the association is not wholly explained by pre-existing risk and peer group affiliations so Hawks can still legitimately argue that heavy cannabis use by adolescents predicts an increased risk of harder drug use (MacCoun,1997). Hawks also contend that heavy cannabis use produces an "amotivational" syndrome. There is reasonable self-report data that cannabis intoxication can affect motivation but it seems unnecessary to invoke an "amotivational syndrome" to explain the narrowed interests, loss of motivation and achievement seen in some chronic heavy cannabis users. It is simpler to regard these as symptoms of chronic cannabis intoxication (Hall et al, 1994). A more realistic understanding of the health effects of cannabis demands more appraisals that are not driven by the appraisers' views on the legal status of cannabis (e.g. Hall and Solowij, 1998). Debates about cannabis, and drug policy more generally, are too important to be left to the Hawks and Doves. The challenge is finding the institutional arrangements and professional incentives that will encourage non-partisans from a variety of relevant disciplines to provide fairer appraisals of the health and social consequences of cannabis use and predictions about the likely effects of changes in the legal status of cannabis use.
References
Anthony, J.C., Warner, L.A., and Kessler, R.C. (1994) Comparative epidemiology of dependence on tobacco, alcohol, controlled substances and inhalants: basic findings from the National Comorbidity Study. Clinical and Experimental Psychopharmacology, 2, 244-268.
Fergusson, D. and Horwood, (1997) Early onset cannabis use and psychosocial adjustment in young adults. Addiction, 92, 279-296.
Hall, W. (1997) The recent Australian debate about the prohibition on cannabis use. Addiction, 92, 1109-1115.
Hall, W. (1998) The respiratory risks of cannabis smoking. Addiction, 93, 1461-1463.
Hall, W. and Solowij, N. (1998) The adverse effects of cannabis use. Lancet, 352, 1611-616.
Hall, W., Solowij, N. & Lemon, J. (1994) The Health and Psychological Effects of Cannabis Use. National Drug Strategy Monograph Series No. 25. Canberra, Australian Government Publication Service.
MacCoun, R. (1997) In what sense (if any) is marijuana a gateway drug? FAS Drug Policy Analysis Bulletin, Number 2., 6-10.
Tashkin, D.P. (1993) Is frequent marijuana smoking harmful to health? Western Journal of Medicine, 158, 635-637.
Zimmer, L. and Morgan, J.P. (1997) Marijuana Myths: Marijuana Facts. Lindesmith Center, New York.
Can Supply Factors Suppress Marijuana Use By Youth?
by Jonathan Caulkins
Monitoring the Future has consistently measured high school seniors' self-reports of drug-use and related variables for many years, and these time series show some striking correlations. One of the most widely reported is the strong negative correlation between prevalence of drug use and perceptions of the riskiness of that use (see, e.g., Bachman et al., 1988). For example, between 1981 and 1995 the correlation between four measures of high school seniors' marijuana use and their perceptions of the risk of smoking marijuana at three different intensities almost all ranged between -0.75 and -0.97, with an average correlation of -0.88.[1] This is sometimes contrasted with the fact that while there were substantial changes in self-reported use, there were only modest variations in reports of marijuana's availability. For example, past-year prevalence of marijuana smoking fell from a peak of 50.8% for the class of 1979 to a trough of 21.9% in 1992. The fraction of 12th graders reporting that it would be "fairly easy" or "very easy" to get marijuana also reached its peak and trough in 1979 and 1992, respectively. However, the absolute magnitude of the decline was much smaller, falling only from 90.1% to 82.7%.
Some see in these data evidence that supply reduction has limited capacity to influence use. For example, Johnston et al. (1996, p.276) write that "Overall, it is important to note that supply reduction does not appear to have played a major role in perhaps the two most important downturns in drug use which have occurred to date, namely, those for marijuana and cocaine. . . In the case of cocaine, perceived availability actually rose during much of the period of downturn in use. These data are corroborated by data from the Drug Enforcement Administration on trends in the price and purity of cocaine on the streets. In the case of marijuana, availability remained almost universal to this age group over the last 18 years, while use dropped substantially until 1993. . . .What did change dramatically are young peoples' beliefs about the dangers of using marijuana and cocaine" (emphasis in original in all cases).
There is no doubt that cocaine prices fell and availability increased during the 1980s, a time when cocaine use was declining, or that those trends raise serious questions about the ability of supply control efforts to control cocaine use, particularly given that the level and intensity of cocaine control efforts increased dramatically during that period. It is not clear, though, that the case is as strong regarding marijuana.
Consider first the availability of marijuana. That the indicator of availability was maxed out during this period does not necessarily mean that availability or lack thereof never affects use. It may simply mean that the measuring scale was not calibrated properly. When repairing an electrical device, if the voltmeter reading goes off the scale, one just switches to a more appropriate scale. One doesn't conclude that electricity has no influence on the operation of the machine.
A theoretical argument for this possibility is the observation that availability is not a binary condition, so availability can vary meaningfully over time even if the drug is readily "available" throughout the period in question. Regular heroin users would probably report that heroin was "fairly easy" or "very easy" to obtain, but we know they often spend 30 to 40 minutes per purchase trying to obtain it (Rocheleau and Boyum, 1994). An empirical argument for this possibility is the observation that the seniors' reports of availability were actually quite highly correlated with their self-reported levels of use. The specific correlation depends on the measure of use and the range of years, but it is generally between 0.75 and 0.85.
Of course correlation does not imply causality, and causality could run in the opposite direction. High prevalence could cause marijuana to be more available because it gives respondents a reason to be in regular contact with sellers. Nevertheless, it is perhaps safer to remain agnostic in the face of Monitoring the Future's availability data than to conclude that availability does not influence use.
The story is similar with respect to prices. Figure 1 shows a strong negative correlation between median national marijuana prices and seniors' self-reported use between 1981 and 1997.[2] Unfortunately price data are not available before 1981, and the series is noisy because there are relatively few observations per year and because we have no information on the quality or potency of the marijuana. Furthermore, these are prices paid by enforcement agents and are not restricted to the market for youth. Nevertheless, the negative correlation is clear. (The correlation coefficient is between -0.79 and -0.95 depending on the measure of use.)
Again correlation does not imply causality, and causal relations could run in the opposite direction. Price and measures related to consumption are determined simultaneously in a market. Without a good independent measure of supply or demand it is hard to interpret their relationship. For example, increased use could help drive down prices through enforcement swamping (Kleiman, 1993), although it does not seem likely that this could affect national prices. High school seniors account for a modest portion of all consumption, and overall prevalence did not follow exactly the same pattern as that seen in the seniors' data. More generally, there may be other factors, such as demographic trends, that drive changes in both prevalence and price. The number of 15-19 year olds was highly positively correlated with prevalence (average correlation over four prevalence measures was 0.9) and price (correlation of about -0.85). [3]
Hence, the point of this essay is not to argue that changes in supply or supply control efforts substantially influence use by youth. One cannot draw such sweeping conclusions from such short time series, at least not without geographically disaggregated data. However, it would likewise be premature to dismiss the importance of supply factors on the basis of the Monitoring the Future data. Only more refined analysis can tease apart causal relationships in a highly endogenous system of variables.
[1] The levels of self-reported use were lifetime prevalence, annual prevalence, past-month use, and past-month daily use. The levels of use in the riskiness questions were trying marijuana once or twice, smoking occasionally, and smoking regularly. The one relatively low correlation was between lifetime prevalence and perceived risk of regular use, which was only -0.59.
[2] The marijuana price series was constructed from the Drug Enforcement Administration's STRIDE data set as part of work on two unrelated research projects. The methods are similar to those described in Caulkins (1994). For more information on STRIDE, see Frank (1987).
[3] Price correlation computed from 1981 to 1997 for mean (-0.84) and median (-0.86) price. Prevalence correlation computed from 1975-1997; restricting to 1981-1997 increases the average correlation to 0.94.
References
Bachman, Jerald G., Lloyd D. Johnston, Patrick M. O'Malley, and RH Humphrey. 1988. "Explaining the Recent Decline in Marijuana Use: Differentiating the Effects of Perceived Risks, Disapproval, and General Lifestyle Factors." Journal of Health and Social Behavior. Vol. 29, pp.92-112.
Caulkins, Jonathan P. 1994. Developing Price Series for Cocaine. MR-317-DPRC, RAND, Santa Monica, CA.
Frank, Richard S. 1987. "Drugs of Abuse: Data Collection Systems of DEA and Recent Trends." Journal of Analytical Toxicology. Vol. 11, Nov./Dec. pp.237-241.
Johnston, Lloyd D., Patrick M. O'Malley, Jerald G. Bachman. 1996. National Survey Results on Drug Use from The Monitoring the Future Study, 1975-1995. US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC.
Kleiman, M.A.R. 1993. Enforcement Swamping: a Positive-Feedback Mechanism in Rates of Illicit Activity. Mathematical and Computer Modeling, 17, 65-75.
Rocheleau, A.M. and D. Boyum. 1994. Measuring Heroin Availability in Three Cities. Office of National Drug Control Policy, Washington, DC.
Marijuana Arrests and Incarceration in the United States
by Chuck Thomas
There were more than 700,000 marijuana arrests in the United States in 1997.[1] This was the largest number in U.S. history. Of these arrests, 87% were for possession rather than sale or manufacture. The percentage of possession arrests has been at least 80% for more than a decade, and it has been rising throughout the 1990s.[2] The total number of annual marijuana arrests, having dipped in the 1980s, has been rising sharply since 1992.
It is often asserted that these arrests rarely lead to any substantial penalty, and that therefore the costs of the current high-arrest policy, both to those arrested and to the correctional system, are modest. Some recent figures from the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) cast doubt on that assertion.
Calculations based on recent BJS reports suggest that, at any one time, 59,300 prisoners charged with or convicted of violating marijuana laws (3.3% of the total incarcerated population) are behind bars, at a total cost to taxpayers of some $1.2 billion per year. They represent almost 12% of the total federal prison population and about 2.7% of the state prison population. Of the people incarcerated in federal and state prison and in local jails, 37,500 were charged with marijuana offenses only and an additional 21,800 with both marijuana offenses and other controlled-substance offenses. Of the marijuana-only offenders, 15,400 are incarcerated for possession, not trafficking.
The Estimates: State and Federal Prisons
The BJS report provides data from the 1997 Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities.[3] According to the report, 12.9% of the drug prisoners in state prison and 18.9% of those in federal prison were incarcerated for marijuana/hashish offenses. The report uses the numbers 216,254 and 55,069 as the total numbers of state and federal inmates, respectively, for all drug offenses. Using these numbers, the total number of people incarcerated for marijuana offenses would be 27,900 in state prison and 10,400 in federal prison, for a total of 38,300 marijuana prisoners.
However, this estimate of the number of marijuana prisoners is too low, as it is based on an estimated total number of all prisoners which the BJS report notes is an underestimate.
The BJS report's estimates of the total number of drug prisoners represents 20.7% and 62.6% of the total estimated state and federal inmate populations, respectively. But the report notes that its estimated 1,046,705 state inmates and 88,018 federal inmates represent undercounts. Excluded from the BJS estimate of federal inmates were unsentenced inmates and those prisoners under federal jurisdiction but housed in state and private contract facilities. Those prisoners who were under state jurisdiction, yet held in local jails or private facilities, were excluded from the estimated number of state prisoners.[3]
An even newer BJS report provides accurate prisoner counts as of 30 June 1998--a total of 1,102,653 state prisoners and 107,381 federal prisoners. [4] In the Survey of Inmates, marijuana prisoners composed 2.7% of the state prison population and 11.8% of the federal population. Assuming that the proportions of drug prisoners to all prisoners--and of marijuana prisoners to all drug prisoner--was the same in the total prison population in June 1998 as in the population subject to the Survey of Inmates, there would be 29,800 marijuana prisoners presently incarcerated in state prisons and 12,700 marijuana prisoners presently incarcerated in the federal prison system, for a total of 42,500 marijuana prisoners.
This number is surprisingly high; the only recent published estimate, in a report by the Marijuana Policy Project issued in November 1998, put the figure at 29,300. [5]
Additional data obtained from a BJS official distinguish between offenses involving "marijuana only" and "marijuana and other drugs" (usually cocaine/crack). [6] According to the 1997 BJS prisoner surveys, 16,435 state prisoners and 8,150 federal prisoners were incarcerated for "marijuana only" offenses. Adjusting for the June 30, 1998 prisoner counts yields estimates of 17,600 state prisoners and 10,000 federal prisoners incarcerated for offenses involving only marijuana, for a total of 27,600 "marijuana only" prisoners.
BJS officials also estimated that 42% of state "marijuana only" prisoners and 23% of federal "marijuana only" prisoners were incarcerated for possession, not "trafficking." [6] ("Trafficking" includes "possession with intent to distribute.") Applied to the previously calculated estimates, as adjusted for the June 1998 prisoner counts, there would be 7,400 state prisoners and 2,300 federal prisoners incarcerated for marijuana possession only, for a total of 9,700 prisoners.
Local Jails
As opposed to prisons, which primarily hold persons convicted and sentenced to a year or more, jails generally hold persons awaiting trial or sentenced to less than a year. As of June 30, 1998, there were a total of 592,462 local jail inmates in the United States.[6] An estimated 22% were incarcerated for drug law violations in 1996.[7] Assuming that the same percentage applied in 1998, this amounts to 130,300 people in jail for violating drug laws. Assuming that the percentage of drug offenders in jail incarcerated for marijuana offenses is 12.9% (the same as the percentage of drug offenders incarcerated for marijuana offenses in state prison), there would be 16,800 people in jail for marijuana offenses. Assuming that 59% of those offenders were "marijuana only" offenders (the same percentage as in state prison), there would be 9,900 people in jail for marijuana only.
Both assumptions are very conservative: the proportions of people in jail for marijuana offenses, and for "marijuana only" offenses, are probably greater than those proportions among state prison inmates, because the penalties for marijuana offenses, compared to other drug offenses, are more likely to fall in the lower (jail) range rather than in the higher (prison) range.
Finally, an estimated 58% of drug law violators in jail are locked up for possession, not trafficking. [7] Assuming that the same percentage applies to "marijuana only" offenses, there would be 5,700 people in jail for possessing only marijuana.
Totals and Costs
Adding the jail and prison estimates gives a total of 59,300 people incarcerated for marijuana offenses. Using the adjusted estimates for "marijuana only" gives a jail-plus-prison total of 37,500 people incarcerated for marijuana without any other drugs involved. (To be even more precise, this figure ought to be adjusted to reflect the fact that the "lead charge" reflected in the Survey of Inmates may not be the only, or even the primary, reason a person is in prison; the data does not tell us whether this adjustment would, on balance, be up or down.) Finally, using the adjusted estimates for possession gives a jail-plus-prison total of 15,400 people incarcerated for possessing only marijuana.
At an average annual cost per prisoner-year of more than $20,000,[8] the total cost to taxpayers of marijuana-related incarceration reaches more than $1.2 billion per year. (This does not include the cost of investigating, arresting, and prosecuting the hundreds of thousands of marijuana users arrested every year.)
Conclusion
The benefits of marijuana prohibition and its enforcement have long been the subject of debate. For example, a National Academy of Sciences report recently concluded that "there is little evidence that decriminalization of marijuana use necessarily leads to a substantial increase in marijuana use." [9] However one judges the merits of that debate, the latest figures cast serious doubt on the argument that marijuana incarceration costs are low enough to be ignored.
Notes
[1] Crime in the United States: 1997, FBI Division of Uniform Crime Reports; Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1998; pages 221-222.
[2] Data print-outs from FBI Division of Uniform Crime Reports (e.g., "Estimated Drug Abuse Violations Arrests, 1979-1993") and Crime in the United States volumes published in 1975-1979 and 1992-1998.
[3] "Substance Abuse and Treatment, State and Federal Prisoners, 1997," Bureau of Justice Statistics; December 1998.
[4] "Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 1998," Bureau of Justice Statistics; March 1999.
[5] "Marijuana Arrests and Incarceration in the United States: Preliminary Report," Marijuana Policy Project; November 1998.
[6] Unpublished data from the 1997 Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities and the 1997 Survey of Inmates in Federal Correctional Facilities, conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, from June through October, 1997.
[7] "Profile of Jail Inmates, 1996," Bureau of Justice Statistics; April 1998.
[8] The 1997 Corrections Yearbook, Criminal Justice Institute; September 1997.
[9]"Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base," Institute of Medicine; Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1999; page 3.26 (prepublication copy).
Drug Policy Analysis Bulletin
c/o Federation of American Scientists
307 Massachusetts Ave., NE
Washington, DC 20002
Appraisals of the Adverse Health Effects of Cannabis Use: Ideology and Evidence
by Wayne Hall
The cannabis policy debate in the USA and many other Western countries has often been represented as a forced choice between two positions: Doves who argue that cannabis use is harmless, and hence it should be legalized; and Hawks who argue that cannabis use is harmful to health, and hence should continue to be prohibited. This false antithesis has prevented a realistic appraisal of the adverse health effects of cannabis (Hall, 1997). It has meant that the public have been exposed to two polarized views of the adverse health effects of cannabis dictated by their proponents' views on the legal status of cannabis. The Doves focus on the modest health risks of intermittent cannabis use; the Hawks emphasize the worst case interpretation of the evidence on the risks of chronic cannabis use. There seems to be an implicit agreement between Doves and Hawks that the acute health effects of intermittent cannabis use provide at best a weak justification for prohibition. The Doves stress that there is no risk of overdose from cannabis. The Hawks respond by pointing to the possibility of death or serious injury in a motor vehicle accident if cannabis users drive, and to the social consequences of engaging in risky sexual and other behavior while intoxicated by cannabis.
Points of Dispute
Hawks and Doves both accept that there is some respiratory risk from sustained heavy cannabis smoking but they disagree about its magnitude because they use different bases to assess it. Hawks stress the fact that on a puff-for-puff basis marijuana smoke contains more carcinogens and toxins than tobacco smoke (Tashkin, 1993). Doves (e.g. Zimmer and Morgan, 1997) point out that this comparison ignores two facts: that there are many fewer regular marijuana than tobacco smokers under current policies, and the average marijuana user smokes many fewer joints in a day than a daily tobacco user smokes cigarettes. Doves also discount the respiratory effects (e.g. Zimmer and Morgan, 1997), arguing that on current patterns of use the attributable risk of cannabis smoking to respiratory disease is very small by comparison with that of tobacco smoking; they ignore the amplification of risk among the minority of regular heavy marijuana smokers, many of whom are also daily tobacco smokers (Hall, 1998).
Is Cannabis a Drug of Dependence
One of the most contested issues is whether cannabis is a drug of dependence. Doves argue that it is not because it does not have a clearly defined withdrawal syndrome. Hawks cite animal evidence of the development of tolerance to the effects of THC and the occurrence of withdrawal symptoms. Both arguments depend upon a narrow view of dependence that makes withdrawal and tolerance sine qua non for dependence. Modern concepts of dependence place greater emphasis on impaired control over use and continued use despite problems caused or exacerbated by drug use. In the latter sense, there is no doubt that some cannabis users want to stop or cut down, and find it very difficult to do so without assistance and support (Hall et al, 1994). Epidemiological studies (e.g. Anthony et al, 1994) indicate that impaired control over cannabis use is the most common form of drug dependence in the community after tobacco and alcohol. Doves contest these prevalence estimates and reports of people requesting assistance to stop using cannabis (e.g Zimmer and Morgan, 1997). They argue that the apparent increase in persons complaining of cannabis dependence is a by-product of drug testing and the promotional activities of a "cannabis treatment industry". Yet, population surveys suggest that one in ten of those who have used cannabis in their lifetimes have met criteria for dependence at some time, and 80% of these people have not sought treatment (Hall et al, 1994). In Australia, moreover, cannabis use is highly prevalent, drug testing is still rare and there has not been a cannabis treatment industry. Yet treatment services that traditionally treat people who are alcohol and opiate dependent have seen a steady increase in the numbers requesting help to stop using cannabis (Hall et al, 1994). The most contentious issue of all is the explanation of the association between heavy adolescent cannabis use and the risk of using harder drugs (MacCoun, 1997). Hawks see the association as evidence of the deleterious effects of cannabis on the development of young people, and hence, as a potent reason for continued prohibition. Doves, by contrast, see it as a consequence of two things: (1) the types of troubled adolescents who begin cannabis use early and become heavy cannabis users; and (2) the shared illicit drug markets for cannabis and harder drugs. There is evidence in favor of both (1) and (2): adolescents who initiate cannabis use early, and who become heavy users, are independently at higher risk of using other drugs (e.g. Fergusson and Horwood, 1997); and cannabis users are also more likely to keep company with other heavy drug using peers. But the association is not wholly explained by pre-existing risk and peer group affiliations so Hawks can still legitimately argue that heavy cannabis use by adolescents predicts an increased risk of harder drug use (MacCoun,1997). Hawks also contend that heavy cannabis use produces an "amotivational" syndrome. There is reasonable self-report data that cannabis intoxication can affect motivation but it seems unnecessary to invoke an "amotivational syndrome" to explain the narrowed interests, loss of motivation and achievement seen in some chronic heavy cannabis users. It is simpler to regard these as symptoms of chronic cannabis intoxication (Hall et al, 1994). A more realistic understanding of the health effects of cannabis demands more appraisals that are not driven by the appraisers' views on the legal status of cannabis (e.g. Hall and Solowij, 1998). Debates about cannabis, and drug policy more generally, are too important to be left to the Hawks and Doves. The challenge is finding the institutional arrangements and professional incentives that will encourage non-partisans from a variety of relevant disciplines to provide fairer appraisals of the health and social consequences of cannabis use and predictions about the likely effects of changes in the legal status of cannabis use.
References
Anthony, J.C., Warner, L.A., and Kessler, R.C. (1994) Comparative epidemiology of dependence on tobacco, alcohol, controlled substances and inhalants: basic findings from the National Comorbidity Study. Clinical and Experimental Psychopharmacology, 2, 244-268.
Fergusson, D. and Horwood, (1997) Early onset cannabis use and psychosocial adjustment in young adults. Addiction, 92, 279-296.
Hall, W. (1997) The recent Australian debate about the prohibition on cannabis use. Addiction, 92, 1109-1115.
Hall, W. (1998) The respiratory risks of cannabis smoking. Addiction, 93, 1461-1463.
Hall, W. and Solowij, N. (1998) The adverse effects of cannabis use. Lancet, 352, 1611-616.
Hall, W., Solowij, N. & Lemon, J. (1994) The Health and Psychological Effects of Cannabis Use. National Drug Strategy Monograph Series No. 25. Canberra, Australian Government Publication Service.
MacCoun, R. (1997) In what sense (if any) is marijuana a gateway drug? FAS Drug Policy Analysis Bulletin, Number 2., 6-10.
Tashkin, D.P. (1993) Is frequent marijuana smoking harmful to health? Western Journal of Medicine, 158, 635-637.
Zimmer, L. and Morgan, J.P. (1997) Marijuana Myths: Marijuana Facts. Lindesmith Center, New York.
Can Supply Factors Suppress Marijuana Use By Youth?
by Jonathan Caulkins
Monitoring the Future has consistently measured high school seniors' self-reports of drug-use and related variables for many years, and these time series show some striking correlations. One of the most widely reported is the strong negative correlation between prevalence of drug use and perceptions of the riskiness of that use (see, e.g., Bachman et al., 1988). For example, between 1981 and 1995 the correlation between four measures of high school seniors' marijuana use and their perceptions of the risk of smoking marijuana at three different intensities almost all ranged between -0.75 and -0.97, with an average correlation of -0.88.[1] This is sometimes contrasted with the fact that while there were substantial changes in self-reported use, there were only modest variations in reports of marijuana's availability. For example, past-year prevalence of marijuana smoking fell from a peak of 50.8% for the class of 1979 to a trough of 21.9% in 1992. The fraction of 12th graders reporting that it would be "fairly easy" or "very easy" to get marijuana also reached its peak and trough in 1979 and 1992, respectively. However, the absolute magnitude of the decline was much smaller, falling only from 90.1% to 82.7%.
Some see in these data evidence that supply reduction has limited capacity to influence use. For example, Johnston et al. (1996, p.276) write that "Overall, it is important to note that supply reduction does not appear to have played a major role in perhaps the two most important downturns in drug use which have occurred to date, namely, those for marijuana and cocaine. . . In the case of cocaine, perceived availability actually rose during much of the period of downturn in use. These data are corroborated by data from the Drug Enforcement Administration on trends in the price and purity of cocaine on the streets. In the case of marijuana, availability remained almost universal to this age group over the last 18 years, while use dropped substantially until 1993. . . .What did change dramatically are young peoples' beliefs about the dangers of using marijuana and cocaine" (emphasis in original in all cases).
There is no doubt that cocaine prices fell and availability increased during the 1980s, a time when cocaine use was declining, or that those trends raise serious questions about the ability of supply control efforts to control cocaine use, particularly given that the level and intensity of cocaine control efforts increased dramatically during that period. It is not clear, though, that the case is as strong regarding marijuana.
Consider first the availability of marijuana. That the indicator of availability was maxed out during this period does not necessarily mean that availability or lack thereof never affects use. It may simply mean that the measuring scale was not calibrated properly. When repairing an electrical device, if the voltmeter reading goes off the scale, one just switches to a more appropriate scale. One doesn't conclude that electricity has no influence on the operation of the machine.
A theoretical argument for this possibility is the observation that availability is not a binary condition, so availability can vary meaningfully over time even if the drug is readily "available" throughout the period in question. Regular heroin users would probably report that heroin was "fairly easy" or "very easy" to obtain, but we know they often spend 30 to 40 minutes per purchase trying to obtain it (Rocheleau and Boyum, 1994). An empirical argument for this possibility is the observation that the seniors' reports of availability were actually quite highly correlated with their self-reported levels of use. The specific correlation depends on the measure of use and the range of years, but it is generally between 0.75 and 0.85.
Of course correlation does not imply causality, and causality could run in the opposite direction. High prevalence could cause marijuana to be more available because it gives respondents a reason to be in regular contact with sellers. Nevertheless, it is perhaps safer to remain agnostic in the face of Monitoring the Future's availability data than to conclude that availability does not influence use.
The story is similar with respect to prices. Figure 1 shows a strong negative correlation between median national marijuana prices and seniors' self-reported use between 1981 and 1997.[2] Unfortunately price data are not available before 1981, and the series is noisy because there are relatively few observations per year and because we have no information on the quality or potency of the marijuana. Furthermore, these are prices paid by enforcement agents and are not restricted to the market for youth. Nevertheless, the negative correlation is clear. (The correlation coefficient is between -0.79 and -0.95 depending on the measure of use.)
Again correlation does not imply causality, and causal relations could run in the opposite direction. Price and measures related to consumption are determined simultaneously in a market. Without a good independent measure of supply or demand it is hard to interpret their relationship. For example, increased use could help drive down prices through enforcement swamping (Kleiman, 1993), although it does not seem likely that this could affect national prices. High school seniors account for a modest portion of all consumption, and overall prevalence did not follow exactly the same pattern as that seen in the seniors' data. More generally, there may be other factors, such as demographic trends, that drive changes in both prevalence and price. The number of 15-19 year olds was highly positively correlated with prevalence (average correlation over four prevalence measures was 0.9) and price (correlation of about -0.85). [3]
Hence, the point of this essay is not to argue that changes in supply or supply control efforts substantially influence use by youth. One cannot draw such sweeping conclusions from such short time series, at least not without geographically disaggregated data. However, it would likewise be premature to dismiss the importance of supply factors on the basis of the Monitoring the Future data. Only more refined analysis can tease apart causal relationships in a highly endogenous system of variables.
[1] The levels of self-reported use were lifetime prevalence, annual prevalence, past-month use, and past-month daily use. The levels of use in the riskiness questions were trying marijuana once or twice, smoking occasionally, and smoking regularly. The one relatively low correlation was between lifetime prevalence and perceived risk of regular use, which was only -0.59.
[2] The marijuana price series was constructed from the Drug Enforcement Administration's STRIDE data set as part of work on two unrelated research projects. The methods are similar to those described in Caulkins (1994). For more information on STRIDE, see Frank (1987).
[3] Price correlation computed from 1981 to 1997 for mean (-0.84) and median (-0.86) price. Prevalence correlation computed from 1975-1997; restricting to 1981-1997 increases the average correlation to 0.94.
References
Bachman, Jerald G., Lloyd D. Johnston, Patrick M. O'Malley, and RH Humphrey. 1988. "Explaining the Recent Decline in Marijuana Use: Differentiating the Effects of Perceived Risks, Disapproval, and General Lifestyle Factors." Journal of Health and Social Behavior. Vol. 29, pp.92-112.
Caulkins, Jonathan P. 1994. Developing Price Series for Cocaine. MR-317-DPRC, RAND, Santa Monica, CA.
Frank, Richard S. 1987. "Drugs of Abuse: Data Collection Systems of DEA and Recent Trends." Journal of Analytical Toxicology. Vol. 11, Nov./Dec. pp.237-241.
Johnston, Lloyd D., Patrick M. O'Malley, Jerald G. Bachman. 1996. National Survey Results on Drug Use from The Monitoring the Future Study, 1975-1995. US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC.
Kleiman, M.A.R. 1993. Enforcement Swamping: a Positive-Feedback Mechanism in Rates of Illicit Activity. Mathematical and Computer Modeling, 17, 65-75.
Rocheleau, A.M. and D. Boyum. 1994. Measuring Heroin Availability in Three Cities. Office of National Drug Control Policy, Washington, DC.
Marijuana Arrests and Incarceration in the United States
by Chuck Thomas
There were more than 700,000 marijuana arrests in the United States in 1997.[1] This was the largest number in U.S. history. Of these arrests, 87% were for possession rather than sale or manufacture. The percentage of possession arrests has been at least 80% for more than a decade, and it has been rising throughout the 1990s.[2] The total number of annual marijuana arrests, having dipped in the 1980s, has been rising sharply since 1992.
It is often asserted that these arrests rarely lead to any substantial penalty, and that therefore the costs of the current high-arrest policy, both to those arrested and to the correctional system, are modest. Some recent figures from the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) cast doubt on that assertion.
Calculations based on recent BJS reports suggest that, at any one time, 59,300 prisoners charged with or convicted of violating marijuana laws (3.3% of the total incarcerated population) are behind bars, at a total cost to taxpayers of some $1.2 billion per year. They represent almost 12% of the total federal prison population and about 2.7% of the state prison population. Of the people incarcerated in federal and state prison and in local jails, 37,500 were charged with marijuana offenses only and an additional 21,800 with both marijuana offenses and other controlled-substance offenses. Of the marijuana-only offenders, 15,400 are incarcerated for possession, not trafficking.
The Estimates: State and Federal Prisons
The BJS report provides data from the 1997 Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities.[3] According to the report, 12.9% of the drug prisoners in state prison and 18.9% of those in federal prison were incarcerated for marijuana/hashish offenses. The report uses the numbers 216,254 and 55,069 as the total numbers of state and federal inmates, respectively, for all drug offenses. Using these numbers, the total number of people incarcerated for marijuana offenses would be 27,900 in state prison and 10,400 in federal prison, for a total of 38,300 marijuana prisoners.
However, this estimate of the number of marijuana prisoners is too low, as it is based on an estimated total number of all prisoners which the BJS report notes is an underestimate.
The BJS report's estimates of the total number of drug prisoners represents 20.7% and 62.6% of the total estimated state and federal inmate populations, respectively. But the report notes that its estimated 1,046,705 state inmates and 88,018 federal inmates represent undercounts. Excluded from the BJS estimate of federal inmates were unsentenced inmates and those prisoners under federal jurisdiction but housed in state and private contract facilities. Those prisoners who were under state jurisdiction, yet held in local jails or private facilities, were excluded from the estimated number of state prisoners.[3]
An even newer BJS report provides accurate prisoner counts as of 30 June 1998--a total of 1,102,653 state prisoners and 107,381 federal prisoners. [4] In the Survey of Inmates, marijuana prisoners composed 2.7% of the state prison population and 11.8% of the federal population. Assuming that the proportions of drug prisoners to all prisoners--and of marijuana prisoners to all drug prisoner--was the same in the total prison population in June 1998 as in the population subject to the Survey of Inmates, there would be 29,800 marijuana prisoners presently incarcerated in state prisons and 12,700 marijuana prisoners presently incarcerated in the federal prison system, for a total of 42,500 marijuana prisoners.
This number is surprisingly high; the only recent published estimate, in a report by the Marijuana Policy Project issued in November 1998, put the figure at 29,300. [5]
Additional data obtained from a BJS official distinguish between offenses involving "marijuana only" and "marijuana and other drugs" (usually cocaine/crack). [6] According to the 1997 BJS prisoner surveys, 16,435 state prisoners and 8,150 federal prisoners were incarcerated for "marijuana only" offenses. Adjusting for the June 30, 1998 prisoner counts yields estimates of 17,600 state prisoners and 10,000 federal prisoners incarcerated for offenses involving only marijuana, for a total of 27,600 "marijuana only" prisoners.
BJS officials also estimated that 42% of state "marijuana only" prisoners and 23% of federal "marijuana only" prisoners were incarcerated for possession, not "trafficking." [6] ("Trafficking" includes "possession with intent to distribute.") Applied to the previously calculated estimates, as adjusted for the June 1998 prisoner counts, there would be 7,400 state prisoners and 2,300 federal prisoners incarcerated for marijuana possession only, for a total of 9,700 prisoners.
Local Jails
As opposed to prisons, which primarily hold persons convicted and sentenced to a year or more, jails generally hold persons awaiting trial or sentenced to less than a year. As of June 30, 1998, there were a total of 592,462 local jail inmates in the United States.[6] An estimated 22% were incarcerated for drug law violations in 1996.[7] Assuming that the same percentage applied in 1998, this amounts to 130,300 people in jail for violating drug laws. Assuming that the percentage of drug offenders in jail incarcerated for marijuana offenses is 12.9% (the same as the percentage of drug offenders incarcerated for marijuana offenses in state prison), there would be 16,800 people in jail for marijuana offenses. Assuming that 59% of those offenders were "marijuana only" offenders (the same percentage as in state prison), there would be 9,900 people in jail for marijuana only.
Both assumptions are very conservative: the proportions of people in jail for marijuana offenses, and for "marijuana only" offenses, are probably greater than those proportions among state prison inmates, because the penalties for marijuana offenses, compared to other drug offenses, are more likely to fall in the lower (jail) range rather than in the higher (prison) range.
Finally, an estimated 58% of drug law violators in jail are locked up for possession, not trafficking. [7] Assuming that the same percentage applies to "marijuana only" offenses, there would be 5,700 people in jail for possessing only marijuana.
Totals and Costs
Adding the jail and prison estimates gives a total of 59,300 people incarcerated for marijuana offenses. Using the adjusted estimates for "marijuana only" gives a jail-plus-prison total of 37,500 people incarcerated for marijuana without any other drugs involved. (To be even more precise, this figure ought to be adjusted to reflect the fact that the "lead charge" reflected in the Survey of Inmates may not be the only, or even the primary, reason a person is in prison; the data does not tell us whether this adjustment would, on balance, be up or down.) Finally, using the adjusted estimates for possession gives a jail-plus-prison total of 15,400 people incarcerated for possessing only marijuana.
At an average annual cost per prisoner-year of more than $20,000,[8] the total cost to taxpayers of marijuana-related incarceration reaches more than $1.2 billion per year. (This does not include the cost of investigating, arresting, and prosecuting the hundreds of thousands of marijuana users arrested every year.)
Conclusion
The benefits of marijuana prohibition and its enforcement have long been the subject of debate. For example, a National Academy of Sciences report recently concluded that "there is little evidence that decriminalization of marijuana use necessarily leads to a substantial increase in marijuana use." [9] However one judges the merits of that debate, the latest figures cast serious doubt on the argument that marijuana incarceration costs are low enough to be ignored.
Notes
[1] Crime in the United States: 1997, FBI Division of Uniform Crime Reports; Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1998; pages 221-222.
[2] Data print-outs from FBI Division of Uniform Crime Reports (e.g., "Estimated Drug Abuse Violations Arrests, 1979-1993") and Crime in the United States volumes published in 1975-1979 and 1992-1998.
[3] "Substance Abuse and Treatment, State and Federal Prisoners, 1997," Bureau of Justice Statistics; December 1998.
[4] "Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 1998," Bureau of Justice Statistics; March 1999.
[5] "Marijuana Arrests and Incarceration in the United States: Preliminary Report," Marijuana Policy Project; November 1998.
[6] Unpublished data from the 1997 Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities and the 1997 Survey of Inmates in Federal Correctional Facilities, conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, from June through October, 1997.
[7] "Profile of Jail Inmates, 1996," Bureau of Justice Statistics; April 1998.
[8] The 1997 Corrections Yearbook, Criminal Justice Institute; September 1997.
[9]"Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base," Institute of Medicine; Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1999; page 3.26 (prepublication copy).
Drug Policy Analysis Bulletin
c/o Federation of American Scientists
307 Massachusetts Ave., NE
Washington, DC 20002
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2003
- Messages
- 6,315
- Reaction score
- 16
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Just below our civil disguise
Marijuana Myths...
MARIJUANA CAUSES LUNG DISEASE
It is frequently claimed that marijuana smoke contains such high concentrations of irritants that marijuana users' risk of developing lung disease is equal to or greater than that of tobacco users.
THE FACTS
Except for their psychoactive ingredients, marijuana and tobacco smoke are nearly identical. 21 Because most marijuana smokers inhale more deeply and hold the smoke in their lungs, more dangerous material may be consumed per cigarette. However, it is the total volume of irritant inhalation - not the amount in each cigarette - that matters.
Most tobacco smokers consume more than 10 cigarettes per day and some consume 40 or more. Regular marijuana smokers seldom consume more than three to five cigarettes per day and most consume far fewer. Thus, the amount of irritant material inhaled almost never approaches that of tobacco users.
Frequent marijuana smokers experience adverse respiratory symptoms from smoking, including chronic cough, chronic phlegm, and wheezing. However, the only prospective clinical study shows no increased risk of crippling pulmonary disease (chronic bronchitis and emphysema).
Since 1982, UCLA researchers have evaluated pulmonary function and bronchial cell characteristics in marijuana-only smokers, tobacco-only smokers, smokers of both, and non-smokers. Although they have found changes in marijuana-only smokers, the changes are much less pronounced than those found in tobacco smokers.
The nature of the marijuana-induced changes were also different, occurring primarily in the lung's large airways - not the small peripheral airways affected by tobacco smoke. Since it is small-airway inflammation that causes chronic bronchitis and emphysema, marijuana smokers may not develop these diseases. 22
In an epidemiological survey, approximately 1200 subjects gave information on smoking and pulmonary function at two-year intervals. A large percentage of the subjects underwent pulmonary function testing. Although a small group who reported previous marijuana smoking had significant pulmonary abnormalities, current marijuana smokers had no significant reduction in any pulmonary functions. 23
There are no epidemiological or aggregate clinical data suggesting that marijuana-only smokers develop lung cancer. However, since some bronchial cell changes appear to be pre-cancerous, an increased risk of cancer among frequent marijuana smokers is possible. 24
Since the pulmonary risks associated with marijuana are related to smoking, the danger is eliminated with other routes of administration. For committed smokers, pulmonary risk might be reduced with higher-potency products, which produce desired psychoactive effects with less inhalation of irritants. Smokers could also be encouraged to abandon deep inhalation and breath-holding, which increase drug delivery only slightly. Finally, pulmonary risk might be reduced if marijuana were smoked in water pipes rather than cigarettes. 25
MARIJUANA CAUSES BRAIN DAMAGE
Critics state that marijuana has been shown to damage brain cells and that this damage, in turn, causes memory loss, cognitive impairment, and difficulties in learning.
THE FACTS
The original basis of this claim was a report that, upon postmortem examinations, structural changes in several brain regions were found in two rhesus monkeys exposed to THC. 51 Because these changes primarily involved the hippocampus, a cortical brain region known to play an important role in learning and memory, this finding suggested possible negative consequences for human marijuana users.
Additional studies, employing rodents, reported similar brain changes.
However, to achieve these results, massive doses of THC - up to 200 times the psychoactive dose in humans - had to be given . In fact, studies employing 100 times the human dose have failed to reveal any damage. 52
In the most recently published study, rhesus monkeys were exposed through face-mask inhalation to the smoke equivalent of four to five joints per day for one year. When sacrificed seven months later, there was no observed alteration of hippocampal architecture, cell size, cell number, or synaptic configuration. The authors conclude:
"while behavioral and neuroendocrinal effects are observed during marijuana smoke exposure in the monkey, residual neuropathological and neurochemical effects of marijuana exposure were not observed seven months after the year-long marijuana smoke regimen." 53
Thus, 20 years after the first report of brain damage in two marijuana-exposed monkeys, the claim of damage to brain cells has been effectively disproven.
No postmortem examinations of the brains of human marijuana users have ever been conducted. However, numerous studies have explored marijuana effect on brain-related cognitive functions. Many employ an experimental design - in which subjects are given marijuana in a laboratory setting, and then compared to controls on a variety of measures involving attention, learning and memory.
In a number of studies, no significant differences were detected. 54 In fact, there is substantial research demonstrating that that marijuana intoxication does not impair the retrieval of information learned previously. 55 However, there is evidence that marijuana, particularly in high doses, may interfere with users' ability to transfer new information into longterm memory. 56
While there is general agreement that, while under the influence of marijuana, learning is less efficient, 57 there is no evidence that marijuana users - even longterm users - suffer permanent impairment. Indeed, numerous studies comparing chronic marijuana users with non-user controls have found no significant differences in learning, memory recall or other cognitive functions. 58
CLAIM #9: MARIJUANA IS AN ADDICTIVE DRUG
It is now frequently stated that marijuana is profoundly addicting and that any increase in prevalence of use will lead inevitably to increases in addiction.
THE FACTS
Essentially all drugs are used in "an addictive fashion" by some people. However, for any drug to be identified as highly addictive, there should be evidence that substantial numbers of users repeatedly fail in their attempts to discontinue use and develop use-patterns that interfere with other life activities.
National epidemiological surveys show that the large majority of people who have had experience with marijuana do not become regular users.
In 1993, among Americans age 12 and over, about 34% had used marijuana sometime in their life, but only 9% had used it in the past year, 4.3% in the past month, and 2.8% in the past week. 59
A longitudinal study of young adults who had first been surveyed in high school also found a high "discontinuation rate" for marijuana. While 77% had used the drug, 74% of those had not used in the past year and 84% had not used in the past month. 60
Of course, even people who continue using marijuana for several years or more are not necessarily "addicted" to it. Many regular users - including many daily users - consume marijuana in a way that does not interfere with other life activities, and may in some cases enhance them.
There is only scant evidence that marijuana produces physical dependence and withdrawal in humans.
When human subjects were administered daily oral doses of 180-210 mg of THC - the equivalent of 15-20 joints per day - abrupt cessation produced adverse symptoms, including disturbed sleep, restlessness, nausea, decreased appetite, and sweating. The authors interpreted these symptoms as evidence of physical dependence. However, they noted the syndrome's relatively mild nature and remained skeptical of its occurrence when marijuana is consumed in usual doses and situations. 61 Indeed, when humans are allowed to control consumption, even high doses are not followed by adverse withdrawal symptoms. 62
Signs of withdrawal have been created in laboratory animals following the administration of very high doses. 63 Recently, at a NIDA-sponsored conference, a researcher described unpublished observations involving rats pretreated with THC and then dosed with a cannabinoid receptor-blocker. 64 Not surprisingly, this provoked sudden withdrawal, by stripping receptors of the drug. This finding has no relevance to human users who, upon ceasing use, experience a very gradual removal of THC from receptors.
The most avid publicizers of marijuana's addictive nature are treatment providers who, in recent years, have increasingly admitted insured marijuana users to their programs. 65 The increasing use of drug-detection technologies in the workplace, schools and elsewhere has also produced a group of marijuana users who identify themselves as "addicts" in order to receive treatment instead of punishment. 66
MARIJUANA CAUSES LUNG DISEASE
It is frequently claimed that marijuana smoke contains such high concentrations of irritants that marijuana users' risk of developing lung disease is equal to or greater than that of tobacco users.
THE FACTS
Except for their psychoactive ingredients, marijuana and tobacco smoke are nearly identical. 21 Because most marijuana smokers inhale more deeply and hold the smoke in their lungs, more dangerous material may be consumed per cigarette. However, it is the total volume of irritant inhalation - not the amount in each cigarette - that matters.
Most tobacco smokers consume more than 10 cigarettes per day and some consume 40 or more. Regular marijuana smokers seldom consume more than three to five cigarettes per day and most consume far fewer. Thus, the amount of irritant material inhaled almost never approaches that of tobacco users.
Frequent marijuana smokers experience adverse respiratory symptoms from smoking, including chronic cough, chronic phlegm, and wheezing. However, the only prospective clinical study shows no increased risk of crippling pulmonary disease (chronic bronchitis and emphysema).
Since 1982, UCLA researchers have evaluated pulmonary function and bronchial cell characteristics in marijuana-only smokers, tobacco-only smokers, smokers of both, and non-smokers. Although they have found changes in marijuana-only smokers, the changes are much less pronounced than those found in tobacco smokers.
The nature of the marijuana-induced changes were also different, occurring primarily in the lung's large airways - not the small peripheral airways affected by tobacco smoke. Since it is small-airway inflammation that causes chronic bronchitis and emphysema, marijuana smokers may not develop these diseases. 22
In an epidemiological survey, approximately 1200 subjects gave information on smoking and pulmonary function at two-year intervals. A large percentage of the subjects underwent pulmonary function testing. Although a small group who reported previous marijuana smoking had significant pulmonary abnormalities, current marijuana smokers had no significant reduction in any pulmonary functions. 23
There are no epidemiological or aggregate clinical data suggesting that marijuana-only smokers develop lung cancer. However, since some bronchial cell changes appear to be pre-cancerous, an increased risk of cancer among frequent marijuana smokers is possible. 24
Since the pulmonary risks associated with marijuana are related to smoking, the danger is eliminated with other routes of administration. For committed smokers, pulmonary risk might be reduced with higher-potency products, which produce desired psychoactive effects with less inhalation of irritants. Smokers could also be encouraged to abandon deep inhalation and breath-holding, which increase drug delivery only slightly. Finally, pulmonary risk might be reduced if marijuana were smoked in water pipes rather than cigarettes. 25
MARIJUANA CAUSES BRAIN DAMAGE
Critics state that marijuana has been shown to damage brain cells and that this damage, in turn, causes memory loss, cognitive impairment, and difficulties in learning.
THE FACTS
The original basis of this claim was a report that, upon postmortem examinations, structural changes in several brain regions were found in two rhesus monkeys exposed to THC. 51 Because these changes primarily involved the hippocampus, a cortical brain region known to play an important role in learning and memory, this finding suggested possible negative consequences for human marijuana users.
Additional studies, employing rodents, reported similar brain changes.
However, to achieve these results, massive doses of THC - up to 200 times the psychoactive dose in humans - had to be given . In fact, studies employing 100 times the human dose have failed to reveal any damage. 52
In the most recently published study, rhesus monkeys were exposed through face-mask inhalation to the smoke equivalent of four to five joints per day for one year. When sacrificed seven months later, there was no observed alteration of hippocampal architecture, cell size, cell number, or synaptic configuration. The authors conclude:
"while behavioral and neuroendocrinal effects are observed during marijuana smoke exposure in the monkey, residual neuropathological and neurochemical effects of marijuana exposure were not observed seven months after the year-long marijuana smoke regimen." 53
Thus, 20 years after the first report of brain damage in two marijuana-exposed monkeys, the claim of damage to brain cells has been effectively disproven.
No postmortem examinations of the brains of human marijuana users have ever been conducted. However, numerous studies have explored marijuana effect on brain-related cognitive functions. Many employ an experimental design - in which subjects are given marijuana in a laboratory setting, and then compared to controls on a variety of measures involving attention, learning and memory.
In a number of studies, no significant differences were detected. 54 In fact, there is substantial research demonstrating that that marijuana intoxication does not impair the retrieval of information learned previously. 55 However, there is evidence that marijuana, particularly in high doses, may interfere with users' ability to transfer new information into longterm memory. 56
While there is general agreement that, while under the influence of marijuana, learning is less efficient, 57 there is no evidence that marijuana users - even longterm users - suffer permanent impairment. Indeed, numerous studies comparing chronic marijuana users with non-user controls have found no significant differences in learning, memory recall or other cognitive functions. 58
CLAIM #9: MARIJUANA IS AN ADDICTIVE DRUG
It is now frequently stated that marijuana is profoundly addicting and that any increase in prevalence of use will lead inevitably to increases in addiction.
THE FACTS
Essentially all drugs are used in "an addictive fashion" by some people. However, for any drug to be identified as highly addictive, there should be evidence that substantial numbers of users repeatedly fail in their attempts to discontinue use and develop use-patterns that interfere with other life activities.
National epidemiological surveys show that the large majority of people who have had experience with marijuana do not become regular users.
In 1993, among Americans age 12 and over, about 34% had used marijuana sometime in their life, but only 9% had used it in the past year, 4.3% in the past month, and 2.8% in the past week. 59
A longitudinal study of young adults who had first been surveyed in high school also found a high "discontinuation rate" for marijuana. While 77% had used the drug, 74% of those had not used in the past year and 84% had not used in the past month. 60
Of course, even people who continue using marijuana for several years or more are not necessarily "addicted" to it. Many regular users - including many daily users - consume marijuana in a way that does not interfere with other life activities, and may in some cases enhance them.
There is only scant evidence that marijuana produces physical dependence and withdrawal in humans.
When human subjects were administered daily oral doses of 180-210 mg of THC - the equivalent of 15-20 joints per day - abrupt cessation produced adverse symptoms, including disturbed sleep, restlessness, nausea, decreased appetite, and sweating. The authors interpreted these symptoms as evidence of physical dependence. However, they noted the syndrome's relatively mild nature and remained skeptical of its occurrence when marijuana is consumed in usual doses and situations. 61 Indeed, when humans are allowed to control consumption, even high doses are not followed by adverse withdrawal symptoms. 62
Signs of withdrawal have been created in laboratory animals following the administration of very high doses. 63 Recently, at a NIDA-sponsored conference, a researcher described unpublished observations involving rats pretreated with THC and then dosed with a cannabinoid receptor-blocker. 64 Not surprisingly, this provoked sudden withdrawal, by stripping receptors of the drug. This finding has no relevance to human users who, upon ceasing use, experience a very gradual removal of THC from receptors.
The most avid publicizers of marijuana's addictive nature are treatment providers who, in recent years, have increasingly admitted insured marijuana users to their programs. 65 The increasing use of drug-detection technologies in the workplace, schools and elsewhere has also produced a group of marijuana users who identify themselves as "addicts" in order to receive treatment instead of punishment. 66
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2003
- Messages
- 6,315
- Reaction score
- 16
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Just below our civil disguise
Hey Flex, here is a response to your statement that weed is a gateway drug...
MARIJUANA IS A "GATEWAY" TO THE USE OF OTHER DRUGS
Advocates of marijuana prohibition claim that even if marijuana itself causes minimal harm, it is a dangerous substance because it leads to the use of "harder drugs" such as heroin, LSD, and cocaine.
THE FACTS
Most users of heroin, LSD and cocaine have used marijuana. However, most marijuana users never use another illegal drug.
Over time, there has been no consistent relationship between the use patterns of various drugs. 83
As marijuana use increased in the 1960s and 1970s, heroin use declined. And, when marijuana use declined in the 1980s, heroin use remained fairly stable.
For the past 20 years, as marijuana use-rates fluctuated, the use of LSD hardly changed at all.
Cocaine use increased in the early 1980s as marijuana use was declining. During the late 1980s, both marijuana and cocaine declined. During the last few years, cocaine use has continued to decline as marijuana use has increased slightly.
In 1994, less than 16% of high school seniors who had ever tried marijuana had ever tried cocaine - the lowest percentage ever recorded. In fact, as shown below, the proportion of marijuana users trying cocaine has declined steadily since 1986, when a high of more than 33% was recorded.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proportion of Marijuana Users Ever Trying Cocaine
High School Seniors, 1975-1994 84
1975: 19% 1980: 27% 1985: 31% 1990: 22%
1976: 19% 1981: 28% 1986: 33% 1991: 22%
1977: 20% 1982: 27% 1987: 30% 1992: 18%
1978: 22% 1983: 28% 1988: 26% 1993: 17%
1979: 25% 1984: 29% 1989: 23% 1994: 16%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In short, there is no inevitable relationship between the use of marijuana and other drugs. This fact is supported by data from other countries. In the Netherlands, for example, although marijuana prevalence among young people increased during the past decade, cocaine use decreased - and remains considerably lower than in the United States. Whereas approximately 16% of youthful marijuana users in the U.S. have tried cocaine, the comparable figure for Dutch youth is 1.8 percent. 85 Indeed, the Dutch policy of allowing marijuana to be purchased openly in government-regulated "coffee shops" was designed specifically to separate young marijuana users from illegal markets where heroin and cocaine are sold. 86
[Next Claim]
MARIJUANA IS A "GATEWAY" TO THE USE OF OTHER DRUGS
Advocates of marijuana prohibition claim that even if marijuana itself causes minimal harm, it is a dangerous substance because it leads to the use of "harder drugs" such as heroin, LSD, and cocaine.
THE FACTS
Most users of heroin, LSD and cocaine have used marijuana. However, most marijuana users never use another illegal drug.
Over time, there has been no consistent relationship between the use patterns of various drugs. 83
As marijuana use increased in the 1960s and 1970s, heroin use declined. And, when marijuana use declined in the 1980s, heroin use remained fairly stable.
For the past 20 years, as marijuana use-rates fluctuated, the use of LSD hardly changed at all.
Cocaine use increased in the early 1980s as marijuana use was declining. During the late 1980s, both marijuana and cocaine declined. During the last few years, cocaine use has continued to decline as marijuana use has increased slightly.
In 1994, less than 16% of high school seniors who had ever tried marijuana had ever tried cocaine - the lowest percentage ever recorded. In fact, as shown below, the proportion of marijuana users trying cocaine has declined steadily since 1986, when a high of more than 33% was recorded.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proportion of Marijuana Users Ever Trying Cocaine
High School Seniors, 1975-1994 84
1975: 19% 1980: 27% 1985: 31% 1990: 22%
1976: 19% 1981: 28% 1986: 33% 1991: 22%
1977: 20% 1982: 27% 1987: 30% 1992: 18%
1978: 22% 1983: 28% 1988: 26% 1993: 17%
1979: 25% 1984: 29% 1989: 23% 1994: 16%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In short, there is no inevitable relationship between the use of marijuana and other drugs. This fact is supported by data from other countries. In the Netherlands, for example, although marijuana prevalence among young people increased during the past decade, cocaine use decreased - and remains considerably lower than in the United States. Whereas approximately 16% of youthful marijuana users in the U.S. have tried cocaine, the comparable figure for Dutch youth is 1.8 percent. 85 Indeed, the Dutch policy of allowing marijuana to be purchased openly in government-regulated "coffee shops" was designed specifically to separate young marijuana users from illegal markets where heroin and cocaine are sold. 86
[Next Claim]
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2003
- Messages
- 6,315
- Reaction score
- 16
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Just below our civil disguise
Do y'all need mreo or is that enough info?? cause I got more for ya. ha ha
please no more info ..haha
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2003
- Messages
- 6,315
- Reaction score
- 16
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Just below our civil disguise
read 'em all fellas
my attention span isn't long enough
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2003
- Messages
- 6,315
- Reaction score
- 16
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Just below our civil disguise
you will learn nothing with that attitude...
I have another fact: Marijuana is illegal in most states (actually every state), outside of medical usage of course. Makes you wonder though with Gr's statistics why it continues to be illegal 
... Is there a slight possiblitity that those facts are innacurate? What criteria is used to capture accurate facts? Why does it continue to be illegal? If it is harmless as with alcohol if used responsibly, again why isn't it illegal? Personally I am glad it is illegal, and would never vote to legalize it other than for medical use. I think it does nothing for most people, but rob them of motivation, interest, and makes them look like shit....(Slanted red eyes like a damn rat) 
This is just my thinking... When I was a kid like most everyone, I too smoked weed. To this day though I don't know why I did. I lost severe motivation, didn't care about much of anything including the way I looked or dressed. The munchies would make me binge eat like there was not going to be any food left in the world. I ate anything in site Outside of that it made me very unsociable, and I didn't want to be around anyone. I know it doesn't affect everyone like this, but sure did me. Also I think it can affect students ability to retain what they learn. This is the big problem with teens / high school students. Well on the contrary of Gr's statistics, back in my high school years...70's weed was all over the place.. It was easier to point out those that didn't smoke weed than those who did. And in my experiences 90 percent of those who smoked, experimented with other drugs. I can't say how it is in high schools now, but it sure was an issue back in my days.
... Is there a slight possiblitity that those facts are innacurate? What criteria is used to capture accurate facts? Why does it continue to be illegal? If it is harmless as with alcohol if used responsibly, again why isn't it illegal? Personally I am glad it is illegal, and would never vote to legalize it other than for medical use. I think it does nothing for most people, but rob them of motivation, interest, and makes them look like shit....(Slanted red eyes like a damn rat) This is just my thinking... When I was a kid like most everyone, I too smoked weed. To this day though I don't know why I did. I lost severe motivation, didn't care about much of anything including the way I looked or dressed. The munchies would make me binge eat like there was not going to be any food left in the world. I ate anything in site
Outside of that it made me very unsociable, and I didn't want to be around anyone. I know it doesn't affect everyone like this, but sure did me. Also I think it can affect students ability to retain what they learn. This is the big problem with teens / high school students. Well on the contrary of Gr's statistics, back in my high school years...70's weed was all over the place.. It was easier to point out those that didn't smoke weed than those who did. And in my experiences 90 percent of those who smoked, experimented with other drugs. I can't say how it is in high schools now, but it sure was an issue back in my days.
Last edited:
prolangtum
Registered
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2003
- Messages
- 352
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Wether or not I am reducing gains or anything to that extent, when the day is all said and done, nothing helps relax me like a bowl or two of hydro
Cruise over Pro... I got u dawg... haha
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2003
- Messages
- 6,315
- Reaction score
- 16
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Just below our civil disguise
hey Randy, there is 1 reason that it is illegal and one only, nad it ain't b/c my facts are not indeed facts. It is b/c the government cannot tax it like it can tobacco. It grows freely so they can''t make money off it. they can however make money off of fines and court dates when it is illegal. I know it pains you to see that I am right, but deal wit it.
I can back you up on that as well Flex... This is exactly how things where in my high school days.. started with alcohol, weed, then anything else that would become readily available.... I remember hash, honey oil, hash oil, cocaine, speed (black beauties), cross tops, then came acid with printed sheets like Frankenstein and blotter, and 4way window pane, and purple microdot, and crank, crystal meth and you name it...it was all there... I even had someone offer me some PCP 
... Walked from that one.... But it is funny when the younger generation try to tell us how it was...
This was the drug era back in the 60's and 70's... GR's ass was probably not even born
... Walked from that one.... But it is funny when the younger generation try to tell us how it was...This was the drug era back in the 60's and 70's... GR's ass was probably not even born
GR,
Yes, I do agree with you on that. This is the one primary reason that weed will never be legalized. Outside of that would be the impact the drug would have on society. I know this will always be the topic of debate.
Oh, and it doesn't pain me to see you right GR... I am an open minded person. I figured there would be something you would say that would make sense. For that I have no choice, but to agree with you
Yes, I do agree with you on that. This is the one primary reason that weed will never be legalized. Outside of that would be the impact the drug would have on society. I know this will always be the topic of debate.
Oh, and it doesn't pain me to see you right GR... I am an open minded person. I figured there would be something you would say that would make sense. For that I have no choice, but to agree with you
Would anyone like to take a stab at why weed was first made illegal? There are a few reasons... also, why was Opium made illegal?
Anyone?
Anyone?
