Myth Of Marijuana As A Dangerous Drug Biology Essay

Any treatment of marihuana should get down with the fact that there have been legion official studies and surveies, every one of which has concluded that marihuana poses no great hazard to society and should non be criminalized. These include:

the National Academy of SciencesA Analysis of Marijuana PolicyA ( 1982 ) ;

the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse ( theA Shafer Report ) ( 1973 ) ;

the Canadian Government ‘s Commission of Inquiry ( Le Dain Report ) ( 1970 ) ;

the British Advisory Committee on Drug Dependency ( Wooton Report ) ( 1968 ) ;

theA La Guardia ReportA ( 1944 ) ;

the Panama Canal Zone Military Investigations ( 1916-29 ) ;

and Britain ‘s monumentalA Indian Hemp Drugs CommissionA ( 1893-4 ) .

It is sometimes claimed that there is “ new grounds ” demoing marihuana is more harmful than was thought in the 1960ss. In fact, the most recent surveies have tended to corroborate marihuana ‘s safety, rebuting claims that it causes birth defects, encephalon damag vitamin E, reduced testosterone, or increased drug maltreatment jobs.

The current consensus is good stated in the twentieth one-year study of the California Research Advisory Panel ( 1990 ) , which recommended that personal usage and cultivation of marihuana be legalized: “ An nonsubjective consideration of marihuana shows that it is respo nsible for less harm to society and the person than are alcohol and coffin nails. ”

Mentions: A The National Academy of Sciences study, A Marijuana and HealthA ( National Academy Press, 1982 ) , remains the most utile overview of the wellness effects of marihuana, its major decisions staying mostly unaffected by the last 10 old ages of research. Lovinger and Jones, A The Marihuana QuestionA ( Dod vitamin D, Mead & A ; Co. , NY 1985 ) , is the most thorough and fair-handed sum-up of the grounds against marihuana. Good, positive positions may be found in Lester Grinspoon’sA Marihuana, the Forbidden MedicineA ( Yale Press, 1993 ) and Marihuana Reconsidere vitamin D ( Harvard U. Press 1971 ) , which debunks many of the older anti-pot myths. See besides Leo Hollister, A Health Aspects of Cannabis, Pharmacological Reviews 38:1-20 ( 1986 ) .

Up to the Table of Myths.

Myth: Marijuana is harmless

Merely as most experts agree that occasional or moderate usage of marihuana is innocuous, they besides agree that inordinate usage can be harmful. Research shows that the two major hazards of inordinate marihuana usage are:

respiratory disease due to smoke and

inadvertent hurts due to impairment.

Marijuana and Smoking: A recent study by the Kaiser Permanente Center found that day-to-day marijuana-only tobacco users have a 19 % higher rate of respiratory ailments than non-smokers. ( 1 ) A These findings were non unexpected, since it has long been known that, aside from its psychotropic ingredients, marijuana fume contains virtually the same toxic gases and carcinogenic pitchs as baccy. Human surveies have found that pot tobacco users suffer similar sorts of respiratory harm as baccy tobacco users, seting them at greater hazard of bronchitis, sore pharynx, respiratory redness and infections. ( 2 )

Although at that place has non been adequate epidemiological work to settle the affair definitively, it is widely suspected that marihuana smoke causes malignant neoplastic disease. Surveies have found seemingly pre-cancerous cell alterations in pot tobacco users. ( 3 ) A Some malignant neoplastic disease specializers have reported a higher-than-expected incidence of pharynx, cervix and lingua malignant neoplastic disease in younger, marijuana-only tobacco users. ( 4 ) A A twosome of instances have been fatal. While it has non been once and for all proved that marihuana smoke causes lung malignant neoplastic disease, the grounds is extremely implicative. Harmonizing to Dr. Donald Tashkin of UCLA, the taking expert on marihuanas smoking: ( 5 ) ” Although more information is surely needed, sufficient informations have already been accumulated refering the wellness effects of marihuana to justify guidance by doctors against the smoke of marihuana as an of import jeopardy to wellness. ” Fortunately, the jeopardies of marihuanas smoking can be reduced by assorted schemes:

usage of higher-potency hemp, which can be smoked in smaller measures,

usage of waterpipes and other fume decrease engineerings, ( 6 ) A and

consuming pot orally alternatively of smoking it.

Up to the Table of Myths.

Myth: One articulation equals one battalion of ( or 16, or possibly merely 4 ) coffin nails

Some critics exaggerate the dangers of marihuanas smoking by fallaciously mentioning a survey by Dr. Tashkin which found that day-to-day pot tobacco users experienced a “ mild but important ” addition in airflow opposition in the big air passages greater than that seen in individuals smoking 16 coffin nails per twenty-four hours. ( 7 ) A What they ignore is that the same survey examined other, more of import facets of lung wellness, in which marihuana tobacco users did much better than baccy tobacco users. Dr. Tashkin himself disavows the impression that one articulation peers 16 coffin nails. A more widely recognized estimation is that marihuana tobacco users consume four times every bit much carcinogenic pitch as coffin nails tobacco users per weight smoked.A ( 8 ) A This does non needfully intend that one joint peers four coffin nails, since articulations normally weigh less. In fact, the mean articulation has been estimated to incorporate 0.4 gms of pot, a spot less than one-half the weight of a coffin nail, doing one joint equal to two coffin nails ( really, joint sizes range from cigar-sized joints smoked by Rastas, to really all right sinsemilla articulations weighing every bit small as 0.2 gms ) . It should be noted that there is no exact equivalency between baccy and marihuana smoke, because they affect different parts of the respiratory piece of land otherwise: whereas baccy tends to perforate to the smaller, peripheral passageways of the lungs, pot tends to concentrate on the larger, cardinal passageways. ( 9 ) A One effect of this is that pot, unlike baccy, does non look to do emphysema.

Up to the Table of Myths.

Myth: Prohibition reduces the injuriousness of pot smoke

Whatever the hazards of pot smoke, the current Torahs make affairs worse in several respects:

Paraphernalia Torahs have impeded the development and selling of H2O pipes and other, more advanced engineering that could significantly cut down the injuriousness of marijuana fume.

Prohibition encourages the sale of pot that has been contaminated or adulterated by insect powders, Paraquat, etc. , or assorted with other drugs such as PCP, cleft and diacetylmorphine.

By raising the monetary value of marihuana, prohibition makes it wasteful to devour marijuana orally, the best manner to avoid fume exposure wholly ; this is because eating typically requires two or three times every bit much marihuana as smoke.

Unlike the authorities, NORML is interested in cut downing the dangers of pot smoke ; California NORML and MAPS ( the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies ) are presently researching the usage of waterpipes and other advanced fume decrease engineering.

Mentions on Marijuana and Smoking: A Donald Tashkin, A Is Frequent Marijuana Smoking Hazardous To Health? , Western Journal of Medicine 158 # 6: 635-7 ; June 1993 ; Research Findings on Smoking of Abused Substances, erectile dysfunction. C. Nora Chiang and Richard L. Hawks, NIDA Research Monograph 99 ( National Institute on Drug Abuse, Rockville, MD 1990 ) ; NAS Report, op. cit. ; California NORML, A Health Tips for Marijuana Smokers.

Up to the Table of Myths.

Myth: No 1 has of all time died from utilizing marihuana

The Kaiser survey besides found that day-to-day pot users have a 30 % higher hazard of hurts, presumptively from accidents. These figures are important, though non every bit high as comparable hazards for heavy drinkers or baccy nuts. That pot can do accidents is barely surprising, since marihuana has been shown to degrade short-run memory, concentration, judgement, and coordination at complex undertakings including driving. ( 1 ) A There have been legion studies of pot-related accidents — – some of them fatal, contradicting the attractive myth that no 1 has of all time died from marihuana. One study of 1023 exigency room injury patients in Baltimore found that to the full 34.7 % were under the influence of marihuana, more even than intoxicant ( 33.5 % ) ; half of these ( 16.5 % ) used both pot and intoxicant in combination. ( 2 ) A This is possibly the most troublesome research of all time reported about marihuana ; as we shall see, other accident surveies have by and large found pot to be less unsafe than intoxicant. However, it is of import to be informed on all sides of the issue. Pot tobacco users should be cognizant that accidents are the figure one jeopardy of moderate pot usage. In add-on, of class, the psychotropic effects of hemp can hold many other inauspicious effects on public presentation, school work, and productiveness.

Up to the Table of Myths.

Myth: Marijuana is a major route safety jeopardy

A turning organic structure of research indicates that marihuana is on balance lupus erythematosus of a route jeopardy than intoxicant. Assorted studies have found that half or more of fatal drivers have alcohol in their blood, as opposed to 7 – 20 % with THC, the major psychotropic constituent of marihuana ( a status normally indicative of holding smoked within the past 2-4 hours ) . ( 3 ) A The same surveies show that some 70 – 90 % of those who are THC-positive besides have alcohol in their blood. It hence appears that marihuana by itself is a minor route safety jeopardy, though the combination of pot and intoxicant is non. Some research has even suggested that low doses of marihuana may sometimes better driving public presentation, though this is likely non true in most instances. ( 4 ) A Two major new surveies by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration have confirmed marihuana ‘s comparative safety compared to alcohol. The first, the most comprehensive drug accident survey to day of the month, surveyed blood samples from 1882 drivers killed in auto, truck and motorchycle accidents in seven provinces during 1990-91. ( 5 ) A Alcohol was found in 51.5 % of specimens, as against 17.8 % for all other drugs combined. Marijuana, the 2nd most common drug, appeared in merely 6.7 % . Two-thirds of the marijuana-using drivers besides had intoxicant. The study concluded that intoxicant was by far theA dominantA drug-related job in accidents. It went on to analyse the duty of drivers for the accidents they were involved in. It found that drivers who used intoxicant were particularly blameworthy in fatal accidents, and even more so when they combined it with marihuana or other drugs. However, those who used marijuana entirely appeared to be if anything less blameworthy than non-drug users ( though the informations were deficient to be statistically conclusive ) . The study concluded, “ There was no indicant that marihuana by itself was a cause of fatal accidents. ” ( It must be emphasized that this is non the instance when marihuana is combined with intoxicant or other drugs ) . The 2nd NHTSA survey, A Marijuana and Actual Driving Performance, A concluded that the inauspicious effects of hemp on driving appear “ comparatively little ” and are less than those of bibulous driving.A ( 6 ) A The survey, conducted in the Netherlands, examined the public presentation of drivers in existent expressway and urban drive state of affairss at assorted doses of marihuana. It found that marihuana produces a moderate, dose-related decrease in route tracking ability, but is “ non deeply impairing ” and “ in no manner unusual compared to many medicative drugs. ” It found that marihuana ‘s effects at the higher doses preferred by tobacco users ne’er exceed those of intoxicant at blood concentrations of.08 % , the minimal degree for legal poisoning in stricter provinces such as California. The survey found that unlike intoxicant, which encourages hazardous drive, marihuana appears to bring forth greater cautiousness, seemingly because users are more cognizant of their province and able to counterbalance for it ( similar consequences have been reported by other research workers as good. ( 7 ) ) It should be noted that these consequences may non use to non-driving related state of affairss, where forgetfulness or inattention can be more of import than velocity ( this might explicate the disagreement in the Baltimore infirmary survey, which looked at accidents of all sorts ) . The NHTSA survey besides warned that marihuana could besides be rather unsafe in exigency state of affairss that put high demands on driving accomplishments.

Up to the Table of Myths.

Myth: Marijuana prohibition improves public safety

There is no grounds that the prohibition of marihuana reduces the net societal hazard of accidents. On the reverse, recent surveies suggest that marihuana may really be good in that it substitutes for intoxicant and other, more unsafe drugs. Research by Karyn Model found that provinces with marijuana decrim had lower overall drug maltreatment rates than others ; another survey by Frank Chaloupka found decrim provinces have lower accident rates too.A ( 8 ) In Alaska, accident rates held changeless or declined following the legalisation of personal usage of marihuana. ( 9 ) A In Holland, governments believe that hemp has contributed to an overall diminution in opiate maltreatment. Recent authorities statistics showed that the highest rates of cocaine maltreatment in the West were in Nevada and Arizona, the provinces with the toughest marihuana Torahs.

Up to the Table of Myths.

Myths: Drug uranalysis improves workplace safety

There has ne’er been a individual, controlled scientific survey demoing drug uranalysis improves workplace safety. Claims that drug testing plants are based on doubtful anecdotal studies or the mere observation of a worsening rate of drug positives in the on the job population, which has nil to make with occupation public presentation. Such scientific surveies as have been conducted have found small difference between the public presentation of drug-urine-positive workers and others. The largest study to day of the month, covering 4,396 postal workers countrywide, found no difference in accident records between workers who tested positive on pre-employment drug screens and those who did non. ( 10 ) The survey did happen that drug-positive workers had a 50 % higher rate of absenteeism and dismissals ; set another manner, nevertheless, drug users had a 93.4 % attending record ( versus 95.8 % for non-users ) and to the full 85 % kept their occupations for a twelvemonth ( versus 89.5 % for non-users ) ! An economic analysis of postal workers in Boston concluded that the net nest eggs of drug proving were fringy, and that there could be many state of affairss where it is non cost-efficient. ( 11 ) A Another study of wellness workers in Georgia found no difference in occupation public presentation between drug-positive and drug-negative workers. ( 12 )

Up to the Table of Myths.

Myth: Random uranalysis is needed in safety-sensitive transit occupations

Government regulations mandating random drug proving were promulgated without any anterior statistical grounds that illicit drugs constituted an inordinate safety jeopardy. Not a individual commercial rider air hose accident has of all time been attributed to marijuana ( or, for that affair, intoxicant ) maltreatment. ( 1 ) A Drug trials on rail workers found no elevated incidence of drug usage among workers involved in accidents. ( 2 ) A Random drug testing of transit workers was enacted as a hysterical reaction to a individual 1987 train hit, in which 16 Amtrak riders were killed by a Conrail train that failed to halt. The applied scientist and brakeman of the Conrail train at mistake were found to hold late smoked marihuana, though it was ne’er steadfastly proven that marihuana caused the accident. The Conrail applied scientist had an extended record of rushing and bibulous drive discourtesies and was known by direction to hold imbibing jobs. Critical safety equipment that would hold averted the accident was losing or disabled. A subsequent probe by the National Transportation Safety Board recommended that Conrail better both its direction and equipment, but did non urge random proving. Nonetheless, Congress responded by mandating random drug proving on the full transit industry, from air hose flight attenders to gas grapevine workers.

Up to the Table of Myths.

Myth: A individual articulation has effects that linger for yearss and hebdomads

While it is true that THC and other cannabinoids are fat-soluble and linger in the organic structure for drawn-out periods, they do non usually affect behaviour beyond a few hours except in chronic users. Most impairment surveies have found that the inauspicious effects of ague marihuana usage wear off in 2-6 hours, normally faster than intoxicant. ( 3 ) A The one noteworthy exclusion was a brace of flight simulator surveies by Leirer, Yesavage, and Morrow, which reported effects on flight simulator public presentation up to 24 hours subsequently. ( 4 ) A The differences, described by Leirer as “ really elusive ” and “ really fringy, ” were less than those due to pilot age. Another flight simulator survey by the same group failed to happen any effects beyond 4 hours. ( 5 ) A Similar “ katzenjammer ” effects have been noted for intoxicant. ( 6 ) A Chronic users may see more drawn-out effects due to a build-up of cannabinoids in the tissues. Some heavy users have reported feeling effects hebdomads or even months after halting. However, there is no grounds that these are damaging to safety.

Mentions on Accidents and Drug Testing: A Alcohol, Drugs and Driving: Abstractions and Reviews Vol. 2 # 3-4 ( Brain Information Service, UCLA 1986 ) ; Dale Gieringer, A Marijuana, Driving, and Accident Safety, Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 20 ( 1 ) : 93-101 ( Jan.-Mar 1988 ) ; Dr. John Morgan, A Impaired Statistics and the Unimpaired Worker, A Drug Policy Letter 1 ( 2 ) : May/June 1989, andA The “ scientific ” justification for drug urine testing, A The University of Kansas Law Review 36: 683-97 ( 1988 ) ; John Horgan, A Test Negative: A expression at the grounds warranting illicit-drug trials, A Scientific American, March 1990 pp. 18-22, andA Postal Mortem, A Scientific American, Feb. 1991 pp. 22-3 ; Dale Gieringer, A Urinalysis or Uromancy? A in Strategies for Change: New Directions in Drug Policy ( Drug Policy Foundation, 1992 ) .

Up to the Table of Myths.

Myth: Pot is 10 times more powerful and unsafe now than in the 1960 ‘s

The impression that pot has increased dramatically in authority is a DEA myth based on colored authorities informations, as shown in a recent NORML study by Dr. John Morgan. ( 7 ) A Samples of pot from the early ’70s came from stale, low-potency Mexican “ kilobricks ” left in constabulary cabinets, whose authority had deteriorated to sub-smokable degrees of less than 0.5 % . These were compared to later samples of decent-quality domestic marihuana, doing it look that authority had skyrocketed. A careful scrutiny of the authorities ‘s informations show that mean marijuana authority increased modestly by a factor of two or so during the 1970ss, and has been more or less changeless of all time since.In fact, there is nil new about high-potency pot. During the 1960ss, it was available in premium assortments such as Acapulco Gold, Panama Red, etc. , every bit good as in the signifier of hashish and hash oil, which were every spot every bit strong as today ‘s sinsemilla, but were ignored in authorities authority statistics. While the mean authority of domestic pot did increase with the development of sinsemilla in the 1970ss, the scope of authorities available has remained virtually unchanged since the last century, when highly powerful quinine waters were sold over the counter in pharmaceuticss. In Holland, high-octane hasheesh and sinsemilla are presently sold in java stores with no apparent jobs.

Contrary to popular myth, greater authority is non needfully more unsafe, due to the fact that users tend to set ( or “ self-titrate ” ) their dose harmonizing to authority. Therefore, good quality sinsemilla is really healthier for the lungs because it reduces the sum of fume one needs to inhale to acquire high.

Up to the Table of Myths.

Myth: Pot kills encephalon cells

Government experts now admit that pot does n’t kill encephalon cells. ( 8 ) A This myth came from a smattering of carnal experiments in which structural alterations ( non existent cell decease, as is frequently alleged ) were observed in encephalon cells of animate beings exposed to high doses of pot. Many critics still cite the ill-famed monkey surveies of Dr. Robert G. Heath, which purported to happen encephalon harm in three monkeys that had been to a great extent dosed with hemp. ( 9 ) A This work was ne’er replicated and has since been discredited by a brace of better controlled, much larger monkey surveies, one by Dr. William Slikker of the National Center for Toxicological Research ( 10 ) A and the other by Charles Rebert and Gordon Pryor of SRI International. ( 11 ) A Neither found any grounds of physical change in the encephalons of monkeys exposed to day-to-day doses of pot for up to a twelvemonth. Human surveies of heavy users in Jamaica and Costa Rica found no grounds of abnormalcies in encephalon physiology. ( 12 ) A Even though there is no grounds that pot causes lasting encephalon harm, users should be cognizant that relentless shortages in short-run memory have been noted in chronic, heavy marihuana tobacco users after 6 to 12 hebdomads of abstention. ( 13 ) A It is deserving observing that other drugs, including intoxicant, are known to do encephalon harm.

Up to the Table of Myths.

Myth: Marijuana causes asepsis and lowers testosterone

Government experts besides concede that pot has no lasting consequence on the male or female generative systems. ( 14 ) A A few surveies have suggested that heavy marihuanas use may hold a reversible, suppressive consequence on male testicular map. ( 15 ) A A recent survey by Dr. Robert Block has refuted earlier research proposing that pot lowers testosterone or other sex endocrines in work forces or adult females. ( 16 ) A In contrast, heavy intoxicant imbibing is known to take down testosterone degrees and cause powerlessness. A twosome of lab surveies indicated that really heavy marihuanas smoking might take down sperm counts. However, studies of chronic tobacco users have turned up no indicant of sterility or other abnormalcies.

Less is known about the effects of hemp on human females. Some carnal surveies suggest that pot might temporarily take down birthrate or increase the hazard of foetal loss, but this grounds is of doubtful relevancy to worlds. ( 1 ) One homo survey suggested that pot may mildly interrupt ovulation. It is possible that striplings are particularly vulnerable to hormonal breaks from pot. However, non a individual instance of impaired birthrate has of all time been observed in worlds of either sex.

Up to the Table of Myths.

Myth: Marijuana causes birth defects

While experts by and large recommend against any drug usage during gestation, marihuana has small grounds implicating it in foetal injury, unlike intoxicant, cocaine or baccy. Epidemiologic surveies have found no apparent nexus between antenatal usage of marihuana and birth defects in worlds. ( 2 ) A A recent survey by Dr. Susan Astley at the University of Washington refuted an earlier work proposing that hemp might do foetal intoxicant syndrome. ( 3 ) Although some research has found that antenatal hemp usage is associated with somewhat reduced mean birth weight and length, ( 4 ) A these surveies have been unfastened to methodological unfavorable judgment. More late, a well-controlled survey found that hemp usage had a positive impact on birthweight during the 3rd trimester of gestation with no inauspicious behavioral effects. ( 5 ) A The same survey found a little decrease in birth length with pot usage in the first two months of gestation. Another survey of Jamaican adult females who had smoked pot throughout gestation found that their babes registered higher on developmental tonss at the age of 30 yearss, while sing no important effects on birthweight or length. ( 6 ) A While hemp usage is non recommended in gestation, it may be of medical value to some adult females in handling forenoon illness or easing childbearing.

Up to the Table of Myths.

Myth: Pot causes high blood force per unit area

Harmonizing to the NAS, the effects of marihuana on blood force per unit area are complex, depending on dosage, disposal, and position. ( 7 ) A Marijuana frequently produces a impermanent, A moderateA addition in blood force per unit area instantly after consumption ; nevertheless, heavy chronic doses may somewhat deject blood force per unit area alternatively. One common reaction is to do reduced blood force per unit area while standing and increased blood force per unit area while lying down, doing people to conk if they stand up excessively rapidly. There is no grounds that pot usage causes prevailing high blood pressure or bosom disease ; some users even claim that it helps them command high blood pressure by cut downing emphasis.

One thing Tetrahydrocannabinol does make is to increase pulse rates for about an hr. This is non by and large harmful, since exercising does the same thing, but it may do jobs to people with preexistent bosom disease. Chronic users may develop a tolerance to this and other cardiovascular reactions.

Up to the Table of Myths.

Myth: Marijuana amendss the immune system

A assortment of surveies indicate that THC and other cannabinoids may exert mild, reversible immuno-suppressive effects by suppressing the activity of immune system cells know as lymph cells ( T- and B-cells ) and macrophages. It is doubtful whether these effects are of import to human wellness, since they are based chiefly on theoretical research lab and carnal surveies. Harmonizing to a reappraisal by Dr. Leo Hollister: ( 8 ) A ” The grounds [ on immune suppression ] has been contradictory and is more supportive of some grade of immunosuppression merely when one considers in vitro surveies. These have been earnestly flawed by the really high concentrations of drug used to bring forth immunosuppression. The closer that experimental surveies have been to existent clinical state of affairss, the lupus erythematosus compelling has been the grounds. ”

The immune suppression issue was foremost raised in research by the ill-famed cannabophobe Dr. Gabriel Nahas, but a bustle of research by the Reagan disposal failed to happen anything dismaying. The recent find of a cannabinoid receptor inside rat liens, where immune cells reside, raises the likeliness that cannabinoids do exercise some kind of influence on the immune system. ( 9 ) A It has even been suggested that these effects might be good for patients with auto-immune diseases such as multiple induration. Nevertheless, non a individual instance of marijuana-induced immune lack has of all time been clinically or epidemiologically detected in worlds.

One exclusion is the lungs, where chronic pots tobacco users have been shown to endure harm to the immune cells known as alveolar macrophages and other defence mechanisms. ( 10 ) A It is ill-defined how much of this harm is due to THC, as opposed to all of the other toxins that occur in fume, many of which can be filtered out by waterpipes and other devices ( 11 ) .

There is no ground to believe marihuana is unsafe to AIDS patients. On the contrary, many AIDS patients study that marijuana helps debar the deathly “ blowing syndrome ” by exciting appetency and cut downing sickness. Cannabinoids do non really damage the T-cells, which are depleted in HIV patients: one survey even found that marijuana exposure increased T-cell counts in topics ( non AIDS patients ) whose T-cell counts had been low. ( 12 ) A Epidemiologic surveies have found no relation between usage of marihuana or other drugs and development of AIDS. ( 13 )

Up to the Table of Myths.

Myth: Marijuana causes chromosome and cell harm

Harmonizing to the NAS, ( 14 ) A ” Surveies proposing that marihuana likely does non interrupt chromosomes are reasonably conclusive. ” Cannabinoids in themselves are neither mutagenic nor carcinogenic, though the pitchs produced by marijuana burning are. Some research lab surveies have suggested that high doses of THC might interfere with cell reproduction and bring forth unnatural Numberss of chromosomes ; nevertheless, there is no grounds of such harm in realistic state of affairss.

Up to the Table of Myths.

Myth: Marijuana leads to harder drugs

There is no scientific grounds for the theory that marihuana is a “ gateway ” drug. The cannabis-using civilizations in Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America show no leaning for other drugs. The gateway theory took clasp in the 1960ss, when marihuana became the taking new recreational drug. It was refuted by events in the 1880ss, when cocaine maltreatment exploded at the same clip marihuana usage declined. As we have seen, there is grounds that hemp may replace for intoxicant and other “ difficult ” drugs. A recent study by Dr. Patricia Morgan of the University of California at Berekeley found that a important figure of pot tobacco users and traders switched to methamphetamine “ ice ” when Hawaii ‘s marijuana obliteration plan created a deficit of pot. ( 15 ) A Dr. Morgan noted a similar phenomenon in California, where cocaine usage soared in the aftermath of the CAMP chopper obliteration campaign.The one manner in which marihuana does take to other drugs is through its illegality: individuals who deal in marihuana are likely to cover in other illicit drugs every bit good.

Up to the Table of Myths.

Michael R. Polen et al.A Health Care Use by Frequent Marijuana Smokers Who Do Not Smoke Tobacco, A Western Journal of Medicine 158 # 6: 596-601 ( June 1993 ) .

Donald Tashkin, A Is Frequent Marijuana Smoking Hazardous To Health? A Western Journal of Medicine 158 # 6: 635-7 ( June 1993 ) .

D. Tashkin et Al, A Effectss of Habitual Use of Marijuana and/or Cocaine on the Lung, A in Research Findings on Smoking of Abused Substances, NIDA Research Monograph 99 ( 1990 ) .

Paul Donald, A Advanced malignance in the immature marihuana tobacco user, A Adv Exp Med Biol 288:33-56 ( 1991 ) ; FM Taylor, A Marijuana as a possible respiratory piece of land carcinogen, A South Med Journal 81:1213-6 ( 1988 ) .

D. Tashkin, A Is Frequent Marijuana Smoking Hazardous To Health, ? A op. cit.

Nicholas Cozzi, A Effects of Water Filtration on Marijuana Smoke: A Literature Review, A MAPS ( Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies ) newssheet, Vol. IV # 2 ( 1993 ) ( Reprints available from MAPS and Cal. NORML ) .

D. Tashkin, A Respiratory Status of 74 Habitual Marijuana Smokers, A Chest 78 # 5: 699-706 ( Nov. 1980 ) .

T-C. Wu, D. Tashkin, B. Djahed and J.E. Rose, A Pulmonary jeopardies of smoking marihuana as compared with baccy, A New England Journal of Medicine 318: 347-51 ( 1988 ) .

D. Tashkin et Al, A Effectss of Habitual Use of Marijuana and/or Cocaine on the Lung, A loc.cit.

Herbert Moskowitz, A Marihuana and Driving, A Accident Analysis and Prevention 17 # 4: 323-45 ( 1985 ) .

Carl Soderstrom et al. , A Marijuana and Alcohol Use Among 1023 Trauma Patients, A Archives of Surgery, 123: 733-7 ( 1988 ) .

Dale Gieringer, A Marijuana, Driving, and Accident Safety, A Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 20 ( 1 ) : 93-101 ( Jan-Mar 1988 ) .

H. Klonoff, A Marijuana and driving in real-life state of affairss, A Science 186: 317-24 ( 1974 ) .

K.W. Terhune et al. , A The Incidence and Role of Drugs in Fatally Injured Drivers, A NHTSA Report # DOT-HS-808-065 ( 1994 ) .

Hendrik Robbe and James O’Hanlon, A Marijuana and Actual Driving Performance, A NHTSA Report # DOT-HS-808-078 ( 1994 ) .

Klonoff, loc. cit. ; A. Smiley, A Marijuana: On-road and driving simulator surveies, A Alcohol, Drugs and Driving: Abstractions and Reviews 2 # 3-4: 15-30 ( 1986 ) .

Peter Passell, A Less Marijuana, More Alcohol? A New York Times June 17, 1992.

Michael Dunham, A When the Smoke Clears, A Reason March 1983 pp.33-6.

Norman, Salyard and Mahoney, A An Evaluation of Preemployment Drug Testing, A Journal of Applied Psychology 75 ( 6 ) 629-39 ( 1990 ) .

Zwerling, Ryan and Orav, A Costss and Benefits of Preemployment Drug Screening, A JAMA 267 ( 1 ) : 91-3 ( 1992 ) .

David Charles Parish, A Relation of the Pre-employment Drug Testing Result to Employment Status: A Annual Follow-up, A Journal of General Internal Medicine 4:44-7 ( 1989 ) .

Dale Gieringer, A Urinalysis or Uromancy? A in Strategies for Change: New Directions in Drug Policy ( Drug Policy Foundation, 1992 ) ; testimony of R.B. Stone in Hearings on the Airline and Rail Service Protection Act of 1987, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, Feb. 20, 1987.

Gieringer, op. cit. ; statistics reported in Federal Register Vol. 53 # 224, Nov. 21, 1988 p. 47104.

Alison Smiley, A Marijuana: On-Road and Driving Simulator Studies, A Alcohol, Drugs, and Driving 2 # 3-4: 121-34 ( 1986 ) .

V.O. Leirer, J.A. Yesavage and D.G. Morrow, A Marijuana Carry-Over Effects on Aircraft Pilot Performance, A Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine 62: 221-7 ( March 1991 ) ; Yesavage, Leirer, et al. , Carry-Over effects of marijuana poisoning on aircraft pilot public presentation: a preliminary study, A American Journal of Psychiatry 142: 1325-9 ( 1985 ) .

Leirer, Yesavage and Morrow, A Marijuana, Aging and Task Difficulty Effects on Pilot Performance, A Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine 60: 1145-52 ( Dec. 1989 ) .

Yesavage and Leirer, A Hangover Effects on Aircraft Pilots 14 Hours After Alcohol Ingestion: A Preliminary Report, A American Journal of Psychiatry 143: 1546-50 ( Dec. 1986 ) .

John Morgan, A American Marijuana Authority: Data Versus Conventional Wisdom, A NORML Reports ( 1994 ) . See besides T. Mikuriya and M. Aldrich, A Cannabis 1988: Old drug, new dangers, the authority inquiry, A Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 20:47-55.

Dr. Christine Hartel, Acting Director of Research, National Institute of Drug Abuse, cited by the State of Hawaii Dept of Health, Alcohol and Drug Abuse Division in memo of Feb. 4, 1994.

For an overview, see NAS Report, op. cit. , pp. 81-2. R.G. Heath et Al, A Cannabis sativa: effects on encephalon map and ultrastructure in Rhesus monkeys, A Biol. Psychiatry 15: 657-90 ( 1980 ) .

William Slikker et al. , A Chronic Marijuana Smoke Exposure in the Rhesus Monkey, A Fundamental and Applied Toxicology 17: 321-32 ( 1991 ) .

Charles Rebert & A ; Gordon Pryor -A Chronic Inhalation of Marijuana Smoke and Brain Electrophysiology of Rhesus Monkeys, A International Journal of Psychophysiology V 14, p.144, 1993.

NAS Report, pp. 82-7.

Cannabis and Memory Loss, A ( column ) British Journal of Addiction 86: 249-52 ( 1991 )

Dr. Christine Hartel, loc. cit.

NAS Report, pp. 94-9.

Dr. Robert Block in Drug and Alcohol Dependence 28: 121-8 ( 1991 ) .

NAS Report, p. 97-8.

NAS Report, p. 99.

Dr. Susan Astley, A Analysis of Facial Shape in Children Gestationally Exposed to Marijuana, Alcohol, and/or Cocaine, A Pediatrics 89 # 1: 67-77 ( January 1992 ) .

Dr. Barry Zuckerman et al.A Effectss of Maternal Marijuana and Cocaine Use on Fetal Growth, A New England Journal of Medicine 320 # 12: 762-8 ( March 23, 1989 ) ; Dr. Ralph Hingson et al. , A Effectss of maternal imbibing and marihuana usage on foetal growing and development, A Pediatricss 70: 539-46 ( 1982 ) .

Nancy Day et al. , A Prenatal Marijuana Use and Neonatal Outcome, A Neurotoxicology and Teratology 13: 329-34 ( 1992 ) .

Janice Hayes, Melanie Dreher and J. Kevin Nugent, A Newborn Outcomes With Maternal Marihuana Use in Jamaican Women, A Pediatric Nursing 14 # 2: 107-10 ( Mar-Apr. 1988 ) .

NAS Report, pp. 66-67.

Dr. Leo Hollister, A Marijuana and Immunity, A Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 20 ( 1 ) : 3-8 ( Jan/Mar 1988 ) .

Sean Munro, Kerrie Thomas and Muna Abu-Shaar, A Molecular word picture of a peripheral receptor for cannabinoids, A Nature 365:61-5 ( Sept. 2, 1993 ) ; Leslie Iversen, A Medical Uses of Marijuana? , ibid. pp. 12-3.

D. Tashkin, A Is Frequent Marijuana Smoking Hazardous To Health, ? A op. cit.

Nicholas Cozzi, ibid.

Donald Tashkin et al. , A Cannabis 1977, A Ann. Intern. Med. 89:539-49 ( 1978 ) .

Richard A Kaslow et Al, A No Evidence for a Role of Alcohol or Other Psychoactive Drugs in Accelerating Immunodeficiency in HIV-1-Positive Persons, A JAMA 261:3424-9 ( June 16, 1989 ) .

NAS Report, p. 101.

Survey: Hawaii war on pot pushed users to “ ice, ” A Honolulu Advertiser, April 1, 1994 p.1.