Posted on 8/25/2002, 12:59:05 AM by aculeus
It is folly to legalise a drug that is known to leave users with permanent damage to their ability to reason, argues Susan Greenfield, the distinguished expert on brain processes
Now that those anxious to look cool can puff cannabis freely in the street without fear of arrest, perhaps those of us who have argued that relaxing the laws on cannabis is irresponsible and dangerous should retreat gracefully behind our chintz curtains. Yet the downgrading of the classification of cannabis perpetuates the same tired old myths and the same serious problems.
Take the myth that cannabis is 'just the same as' alcohol. A glib yet logical riposte might be that if the drugs are truly identical why not just stick with the booze? What is the distinct appeal of cannabis that can be ignored in equating the two drugs? Such sophistry is inappropriate because alcohol and cannabis work on the brain and body in very different ways. Alcohol has a range of non-specific actions that affect the tiny electrical signals between one brain cell and another; cannabis has its own specialised chemical targets, so far less has a more potent effect. Moreover, although drinking in excess can lead to terrible consequences, there are guidelines for the amount of alcohol that constitutes a 'safe' intake. Such a calculation is possible because we know alcohol is eliminated relatively quickly from the body.
With cannabis, it is a different story. The drug will accumulate in your body for days, if not weeks, so, as you roll your next spliff, you never know how much is already working away inside you. I challenge any advocate of cannabis to state what a 'safe' dose is. Until they do, surely it is irresponsible to send out positive signals, however muted?
Another notion is that cannabis is less harmful than cigarettes. I'm not sure how this idea came about, certainly not as the results of any scientific papers. We do know cannabis smoke contains the same constituents as that of tobacco: however, it is now thought that three to four cannabis cigarettes a day are equivalent to 20 or more tobacco cigarettes, regarding damage to the lining of the bronchus, while the concentration of carcinogens in cannabis smoke is actually higher than in cigarettes.
And if cannabis were 'just the same' as alcohol and cigarettes, why are people not taking those already legal drugs for the much-lauded pain-relief effects? After all, another case for the relaxation of the laws on cannabis is the 'medical' one that it is an effective analgesic. But there is a world of difference between medication prescribed in a hospital, where the cost-benefit balance tips in favour of pain relief, compared to a healthy person endangering their brain and body needlessly.
Even the most loony of liberals has not suggested tolerance for morphine or heroin abuse, because they are prescribed clinically as potent painkillers. And think about it: if cannabis brings effective relief from pain, then how does it do so? Clearly by a large-scale action on the central nervous system.
Further wishful thinking is that, because cannabis doesn't actually kill you, it is OK to send out less negative legal signals, even though the Home Secretary admits that the drug is dangerous. Leaving aside the issue that cannabis could indeed be lethal, in that the impaired driving it can trigger could well kill, there is more to life than death. It is widely accepted that there is a link between cannabis and schizophrenia: as many as 50 per cent of young people attending psychiatric clinics may be regular or occasional cannabis users. The drug can also precipitate psychotic attacks, even in those with no previous psychiatric history. Moreover, there appears to be a severe impairment in attention span and cognitive performance in regular cannabis users, even after the habit has been relinquished. All these observations testify to a strong, long-lasting action on the brain.
Some attempts have been made in laboratories to work out what cannabis could actually be doing to brain cells. So far, some data have suggested that there can be damage to neurons, and at doses comparable to those taken on the street. None the less, others argue that the experimental scenario of isolated neurons growing in a lab dish are hardly a natural situation, and that such data have to be interpreted with caution. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The effects on the brain in real life are most probably subtle and therefore hard to monitor: it's not so much that cannabis will create great holes in your brain, or deplete you wholesale of all your best neurons. Instead, by acting on its own special little chemical targets (and because it will therefore work as an impostor to a naturally occurring transmitter), the drug is likely to modify the configuration of the networks of brain cell connections.
These configurations of connections make you the unique person you are, since they usually reflect your particular experiences. So a change will be hard to register from one person to another, and certainly from one slice of rat brain to another: but still, it will make you see the world in a different way - characteristically one depleted of motivation.
It is hard for me, as a neuroscientist, to accept that a drug that has the biochemical actions that it does, that hangs around in the brain and body, and that has dramatic effects on brain function and dysfunction, could not be leaving its mark, literally, on how our neurons are wired up and work together.
It is argued that we will never stamp out cannabis use, and therefore we should give up trying. But we will not stamp out murder or house break-ins or mugging, yet I've never heard an argument for freeing up police time by liberalising the law on these acts.
Laws, it is said, are only enforceable when the majority wants them enforced, yet the arguments used for easing up on cannabis apply equally to promoting ecstasy or other mind-bending substances. Do we really want a drug-culture lifestyle in the UK?
Cynically, one could argue that it is politically expedient to court the youth vote, to open up the inevitable prospect of revenue from a new source of taxes and to help the ailing tobacco industry prosper from a great new product of readymade packets of spliffs.
The condoning of chemical consolation also distracts from other problems. We have failed our young people in providing homes and jobs and, by giving them an easy route into a chilled-out oblivion, have turned our backs on the far more challenging prospect of initiating policies to help them realise their potential and live better and more fulfilling lives. They are paying a high price for cool.
Seriously, there's as much scientific evidence for that as for most of the nonsense cited in this article. The scientific studies about pot break down into two categories:
1. Those funded by anti-drug agencies. Most (not all!) of these say pot is dangerous. (The ones that conclude that pot is not dangerous are suppressed by those sponsors.)
2. Those that are independent scientific studies. All of these that I've ever read put the health danger/damage from pot in the minimal-to-nonexistent category.
Folks like the author of this article have no trouble finding "research" funded by the DEA and their equivalents that will exaggerate the risks of pot.
And what does that have to do with the case anyway? Don't most of us on this forum believe in the individual's right and ability to judge risks for himself? At least I do.
If we believe government has the right to judge what is "safe" for us to do in the privacy of our own homes, I'd say guns, fatty foods, tobacco, and a host of other things are on their way to being illegal.
Please someone explain to me, in a Free society, if I can grow it in my back yard;smoke it in the privacy of my home;and not effect anyone else in society,,,,,,,who are you to say its a bad thing to do??????(understanding of course, that a couple of War's were fought to seperate us from the UK type thinking.....)
Comparing crimes involving VICTIMS with crimes involving none should be well below a "distinguished expert on brain processes".
It is hard for me, as a neuroscientist, to accept that a drug that has the biochemical actions that it does, that hangs around in the brain and body, and that has dramatic effects on brain function and dysfunction, could not be leaving its mark, literally, on how our neurons are wired up and work together.
Yet every study I've seen reports that there are no lasting effects. Kinda odd for a scientist to use "guestimation" to refute 40 years of clinical studies. I don't think this person is on the up and up here. Anyone know if good 'ol Asa or Walters have had any contact with this one?
Bump to WOD list...
EBUCK
'There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others.'
-Harry Anslinger, testifying to Congress, 1937
With cannabis, it is a different story. The drug will accumulate in your body for days, if not weeks, so, as you roll your next spliff, you never know how much is already working away inside you.
Anyone who's dealt with drug testing knows this is true.
Uh - my husband does do that. He can't take most rx pain killers because they tear up his stomach. And when the meds don't work and he absolutely can't stand it any more, he drinks a beer.
This is true for some people. I made the mistake of turning on people who couldn't handle a car after smoking pot, and they drove so erratically they scared me to death.
It is widely accepted that there is a link between cannabis and schizophrenia: as many as 50 per cent of young people attending psychiatric clinics may be regular or occasional cannabis users.
I've also known many people who can't handle the mental effects of pot...and would get paranoid and skitzo.
Even those who can handle it admit these effects to some extent.
This of course has been my experience from over 20 years of pot smoking.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.