Re: Drug Laws Kill - Proof

[Guest guest]

Stuart, to me your arguments don't reflect the economic realities of

supply and demand, but I am no economist, so I'll refer you to Milton

Friedman. There is an interview with him on the net somewhere in

which he both addresses the points you make and also analyzes drinking

patterns after Prohibition was ended. Does any one know where this is

located? I saw it the other day after following a link someone posted

here, but didn't bookmark it. Maybe a search for " Milton Friedman "

would turn it up.

> > I see no reason that the amount spent on drugs would increase if

> drugs

> > were legal. Indeed, if they were legal, the market price would

> > decline, since no one would be paying for the risk involved in

> > marketing them. Perhaps you mean they would be heavily taxed to

> > discourage consumption, which is not only possible but likely, but

> > still, I can't see why the price would be above what it is now.

> >

>

>

> Kayleigh, my point was not that the price of legal drugs would be

> higher than the price of illegal drugs. Rather it was that the

total

> amount spent on drugs might be higher after

> legalization/decriminalization. If the quantity demanded grew by a

> greater percentage than the price declined, the total amount spent

> would increase.

>

> I believe that alcohol consumption in the US increased by two- or

> three-fold when prohibition ended. It seems quite possible to me

> that the consumption of marijuana might show a similar marked

> increase if it were legalized.

>

> It is conceivable that the price might increase after legalization,

> since part of the cost of drugs is not reflected in the illegal

> market price. The rational drug consumer would add to the illegal

> market price his estimate of the cost of getting caught multiplied

by

> the likelihood of being aprehended, etc.

>

> For instance, if a consumer was willing to pay $40 an ounce for

> marijuana, he might be willing to pay $60 an ounce if he could do so

> without facing any legal reprecussions.

[Guest guest]

Granted, that scenario is logically and economically possible in some

parallel universe, but do you really think it would happen in this one?

Recently I read that the cost of producing enough coca leaves to make a gram

of cocaine (which sells for $150) is 30 cents. Allowing processing and

distribution costs to bring the 30 cents up to $1.50 (a guess) you'd need a

100-fold increase in consumption.

I don't know what it costs to produce an ounce of marihuana, but a priori I

can think of no reason why grass should cost more than a moderately

expensive spice, say cumin or turmeric, so we're talking something like

$4.00 per ounce, versus the $600 I have heard some people will now pay for

an ounce of pretty good stuff. Once again we're talking an order or two of

magnitude.

The possibility that increased demand would drive prices up doesn't seem

realistic when you consider the extreme elasticity of supply, once the need

for secrecy goes. Of course I'm assuming a relatively free market.

--wally

Re: Drug Laws Kill - Proof

>

>

> > I see no reason that the amount spent on drugs would increase if

> drugs

> > were legal. Indeed, if they were legal, the market price would

> > decline, since no one would be paying for the risk involved in

> > marketing them. Perhaps you mean they would be heavily taxed to

> > discourage consumption, which is not only possible but likely, but

> > still, I can't see why the price would be above what it is now.

> >

>

>

> Kayleigh, my point was not that the price of legal drugs would be

> higher than the price of illegal drugs. Rather it was that the total

> amount spent on drugs might be higher after

> legalization/decriminalization. If the quantity demanded grew by a

> greater percentage than the price declined, the total amount spent

> would increase.

>

> I believe that alcohol consumption in the US increased by two- or

> three-fold when prohibition ended. It seems quite possible to me

> that the consumption of marijuana might show a similar marked

> increase if it were legalized.

>

> It is conceivable that the price might increase after legalization,

> since part of the cost of drugs is not reflected in the illegal

> market price. The rational drug consumer would add to the illegal

> market price his estimate of the cost of getting caught multiplied by

> the likelihood of being aprehended, etc.

>

> For instance, if a consumer was willing to pay $40 an ounce for

> marijuana, he might be willing to pay $60 an ounce if he could do so

> without facing any legal reprecussions.

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Granted, that scenario is logically and economically possible in some

parallel universe, but do you really think it would happen in this one?

Recently I read that the cost of producing enough coca leaves to make a gram

of cocaine (which sells for $150) is 30 cents. Allowing processing and

distribution costs to bring the 30 cents up to $1.50 (a guess) you'd need a

100-fold increase in consumption.

I don't know what it costs to produce an ounce of marihuana, but a priori I

can think of no reason why grass should cost more than a moderately

expensive spice, say cumin or turmeric, so we're talking something like

$4.00 per ounce, versus the $600 I have heard some people will now pay for

an ounce of pretty good stuff. Once again we're talking an order or two of

magnitude.

The possibility that increased demand would drive prices up doesn't seem

realistic when you consider the extreme elasticity of supply, once the need

for secrecy goes. Of course I'm assuming a relatively free market.

--wally

Re: Drug Laws Kill - Proof

>

>

> > I see no reason that the amount spent on drugs would increase if

> drugs

> > were legal. Indeed, if they were legal, the market price would

> > decline, since no one would be paying for the risk involved in

> > marketing them. Perhaps you mean they would be heavily taxed to

> > discourage consumption, which is not only possible but likely, but

> > still, I can't see why the price would be above what it is now.

> >

>

>

> Kayleigh, my point was not that the price of legal drugs would be

> higher than the price of illegal drugs. Rather it was that the total

> amount spent on drugs might be higher after

> legalization/decriminalization. If the quantity demanded grew by a

> greater percentage than the price declined, the total amount spent

> would increase.

>

> I believe that alcohol consumption in the US increased by two- or

> three-fold when prohibition ended. It seems quite possible to me

> that the consumption of marijuana might show a similar marked

> increase if it were legalized.

>

> It is conceivable that the price might increase after legalization,

> since part of the cost of drugs is not reflected in the illegal

> market price. The rational drug consumer would add to the illegal

> market price his estimate of the cost of getting caught multiplied by

> the likelihood of being aprehended, etc.

>

> For instance, if a consumer was willing to pay $40 an ounce for

> marijuana, he might be willing to pay $60 an ounce if he could do so

> without facing any legal reprecussions.

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Granted, that scenario is logically and economically possible in some

parallel universe, but do you really think it would happen in this one?

Recently I read that the cost of producing enough coca leaves to make a gram

of cocaine (which sells for $150) is 30 cents. Allowing processing and

distribution costs to bring the 30 cents up to $1.50 (a guess) you'd need a

100-fold increase in consumption.

I don't know what it costs to produce an ounce of marihuana, but a priori I

can think of no reason why grass should cost more than a moderately

expensive spice, say cumin or turmeric, so we're talking something like

$4.00 per ounce, versus the $600 I have heard some people will now pay for

an ounce of pretty good stuff. Once again we're talking an order or two of

magnitude.

The possibility that increased demand would drive prices up doesn't seem

realistic when you consider the extreme elasticity of supply, once the need

for secrecy goes. Of course I'm assuming a relatively free market.

--wally

Re: Drug Laws Kill - Proof

>

>

> > I see no reason that the amount spent on drugs would increase if

> drugs

> > were legal. Indeed, if they were legal, the market price would

> > decline, since no one would be paying for the risk involved in

> > marketing them. Perhaps you mean they would be heavily taxed to

> > discourage consumption, which is not only possible but likely, but

> > still, I can't see why the price would be above what it is now.

> >

>

>

> Kayleigh, my point was not that the price of legal drugs would be

> higher than the price of illegal drugs. Rather it was that the total

> amount spent on drugs might be higher after

> legalization/decriminalization. If the quantity demanded grew by a

> greater percentage than the price declined, the total amount spent

> would increase.

>

> I believe that alcohol consumption in the US increased by two- or

> three-fold when prohibition ended. It seems quite possible to me

> that the consumption of marijuana might show a similar marked

> increase if it were legalized.

>

> It is conceivable that the price might increase after legalization,

> since part of the cost of drugs is not reflected in the illegal

> market price. The rational drug consumer would add to the illegal

> market price his estimate of the cost of getting caught multiplied by

> the likelihood of being aprehended, etc.

>

> For instance, if a consumer was willing to pay $40 an ounce for

> marijuana, he might be willing to pay $60 an ounce if he could do so

> without facing any legal reprecussions.

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

At 03:58 PM 4/25/01 +0000, you wrote:

>In my mind marijuana certainly should be legal. It is much less

>harmful any way you look at it than alcohol.

And the evidence for this?

> Other things such as

>heroin or cocaine are a bit stickier...although I must say I agree

>with Mona on the costs of prohibition regarding them.

>

> but I also think it would harm others.

And this cost..medical,lost work, etc does not seem factored into the

discussions. Probihition costs vs legal drug costs probably does weigh in

favor of legal drugs, but avoiding the truly complex and far extending

economic issues.

> Legalizing drugs

>would be like saying " The State Perceives that you are all Adults and

>are Responsible for Your Own Actions. " Somehow that doesn't seem

>likely to me!

And the issue presented that one has the right to ingest anything they

choose ignores many facets of other existing problems. Herbal remedies are

unregulated. As such, most herbal concoctions to not provide what the

manufacturer claims. Fortunately with most, the effects are negligible

(there is little proven efficacy); with potent drugs, and no information

about adulteration, quality, content, etc; one can be in harms way despite

the drug purveyor's claim. How does this work within an " informed

consent " tort system? And does not one have the right to informed consent?

Or can we unleash unscrupulously labeled 'hard' drugs,much like the herbal

industry does today? No drug laws have the potential to kill as well.

[Guest guest]

At 03:58 PM 4/25/01 +0000, you wrote:

>In my mind marijuana certainly should be legal. It is much less

>harmful any way you look at it than alcohol.

And the evidence for this?

> Other things such as

>heroin or cocaine are a bit stickier...although I must say I agree

>with Mona on the costs of prohibition regarding them.

>

> but I also think it would harm others.

And this cost..medical,lost work, etc does not seem factored into the

discussions. Probihition costs vs legal drug costs probably does weigh in

favor of legal drugs, but avoiding the truly complex and far extending

economic issues.

> Legalizing drugs

>would be like saying " The State Perceives that you are all Adults and

>are Responsible for Your Own Actions. " Somehow that doesn't seem

>likely to me!

And the issue presented that one has the right to ingest anything they

choose ignores many facets of other existing problems. Herbal remedies are

unregulated. As such, most herbal concoctions to not provide what the

manufacturer claims. Fortunately with most, the effects are negligible

(there is little proven efficacy); with potent drugs, and no information

about adulteration, quality, content, etc; one can be in harms way despite

the drug purveyor's claim. How does this work within an " informed

consent " tort system? And does not one have the right to informed consent?

Or can we unleash unscrupulously labeled 'hard' drugs,much like the herbal

industry does today? No drug laws have the potential to kill as well.

[Guest guest]

At 03:58 PM 4/25/01 +0000, you wrote:

>In my mind marijuana certainly should be legal. It is much less

>harmful any way you look at it than alcohol.

And the evidence for this?

> Other things such as

>heroin or cocaine are a bit stickier...although I must say I agree

>with Mona on the costs of prohibition regarding them.

>

> but I also think it would harm others.

And this cost..medical,lost work, etc does not seem factored into the

discussions. Probihition costs vs legal drug costs probably does weigh in

favor of legal drugs, but avoiding the truly complex and far extending

economic issues.

> Legalizing drugs

>would be like saying " The State Perceives that you are all Adults and

>are Responsible for Your Own Actions. " Somehow that doesn't seem

>likely to me!

And the issue presented that one has the right to ingest anything they

choose ignores many facets of other existing problems. Herbal remedies are

unregulated. As such, most herbal concoctions to not provide what the

manufacturer claims. Fortunately with most, the effects are negligible

(there is little proven efficacy); with potent drugs, and no information

about adulteration, quality, content, etc; one can be in harms way despite

the drug purveyor's claim. How does this work within an " informed

consent " tort system? And does not one have the right to informed consent?

Or can we unleash unscrupulously labeled 'hard' drugs,much like the herbal

industry does today? No drug laws have the potential to kill as well.

[Guest guest]

Moreover, twenty or so years ago, when the government began a harsh

crackdown on marijuana use, kids started experimenting with gasoline and

cleaning solvents. Much of the damage people do to themselves from

drugs is directly or indirectly tied to their being illegal. Ever hear

of a heroin overdose where the person overdosing _knew_ how much heroin

he was actually taking or if he even was taking heroin?

Ken, I think you are likely correct that legalizing cocaine would not significantly increase problematic use, altho I also believe it is prudent to concede that increased use is almost certainly going to entail *some increased addiction, even if those most disposed to it are likely already using. I say prudent because I have spent a great deal of time debating drug policy with prohibitionists, and in my experience it can "help" them if one denies what seems so strongly and intuitively obvious to many.

You are absolutely correct in your points quoted above. Illegality renders it almost impossible to manage dosage. Further, impure product is a frequent contributing factor, if not outright cause, of heroin "overdose." Cutting smack with bleach crystals, glue, flour and all manner of other crap is-- gosh golly gee -- harmful.

Your observation about the unintended consequences of marijuana prohibition reminds me of an episode that well illustrates your point. Almost ten years ago my oldest son was busted for possessing a garbage bag full of weed.

After the cops were able to verify that his incredible claim of having found it in a park was actually true (he really did; it had almost no THC content and was "ditch weed," which is why it was left in the park) they settled for just a short period of probation. (He wasn't that most heinous of creatures, the dealer, after all, so they could go "soft" with him.)

Well, he had to pee for his PO every week for 6 mos, which meant he couldn't do his beloved pot. One evening during this period, he came downstairs and told me he was going to cook his sneaker, proceeded to put it in a kettle, and then informed me that we had to hurry because Bill Clinton was about to screw up the national budget. My husband took the hallucinating young man to the ER, while I searched his room and found some seeds.

What had happened was this: his friends gave him jimpson seeds, aka loco weed, which cannot be detected in urine. Of course, no one with an ounce of sense would take this stuff, because it is highly toxic, and used to kill horses that munched on it. My son spent four days in the ICU hooked up to heart monitors.

Oh, I was pretty shook up that he came so close to killing himself, but as a good citizen my overriding feeling was relief that he had not smoked MJ.

Better that he risk death than disobey our nation's benevolent and oh-so-wise drug laws.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

MonaHolland@... wrote:

> In a message dated 4/25/01 2:53:55 PM US Eastern Standard Time,

> annie8@... writes:

> <---snip--->

>

>>

>>

>> > Other things such as

>> >heroin or cocaine are a bit stickier...although I must say I agree

>> >with Mona on the costs of prohibition regarding them.

>> >

>> > but I also think it would harm others.

>>

>> And this cost..medical,lost work, etc does not seem factored into

>> the

>> discussions. Probihition costs vs legal drug costs probably does

>> weigh in

>> favor of legal drugs, but avoiding the truly complex and far

>> extending

>> economic issues.

>

> There would almost certainly be an increase in use of cocaine if it

> were

> legal, and some increase in addiction. However, it is very hard to

> conceive

> of the costs of legal cocaine outweighing the costs of prohibition,

> which are

> absolutely astronomical.

>

Mona, ,

I'm not sure that an increase in use is going to mean an increase in

" destructive " or " problematical " use. Even with alcohol, until

Prohibition, most alcohol consumption was beer and wine. It was

Prohibition that made it economically necessary to produce and market

more powerful spirits. A truckload of beer is more difficult and has no

more alcohol that a much smaller quantity of moonshine and is more

difficult to smuggle and market illegally. The same is true of cocaine

(powder) which has been much replaced with the far worse crack cocaine,

which is smaller, easier to smuggle and easier to hide. The law is

responsible for the wider use of more potent forms.

Moreover, twenty or so years ago, when the government began a harsh

crackdown on marijuana use, kids started experimenting with gasoline and

cleaning solvents. Much of the damage people do to themselves from

drugs is directly or indirectly tied to their being illegal. Ever hear

of a heroin overdose where the person overdosing _knew_ how much heroin

he was actually taking or if he even was taking heroin?

Ken Ragge

P.S. In legalization, I would suggest that there be no brand identity,

just " generic " and no advertising and stiff penalties for manufacturing

a mislabeled product.

[Guest guest]

MonaHolland@... wrote:

> In a message dated 4/25/01 2:53:55 PM US Eastern Standard Time,

> annie8@... writes:

> <---snip--->

>

>>

>>

>> > Other things such as

>> >heroin or cocaine are a bit stickier...although I must say I agree

>> >with Mona on the costs of prohibition regarding them.

>> >

>> > but I also think it would harm others.

>>

>> And this cost..medical,lost work, etc does not seem factored into

>> the

>> discussions. Probihition costs vs legal drug costs probably does

>> weigh in

>> favor of legal drugs, but avoiding the truly complex and far

>> extending

>> economic issues.

>

> There would almost certainly be an increase in use of cocaine if it

> were

> legal, and some increase in addiction. However, it is very hard to

> conceive

> of the costs of legal cocaine outweighing the costs of prohibition,

> which are

> absolutely astronomical.

>

Mona, ,

I'm not sure that an increase in use is going to mean an increase in

" destructive " or " problematical " use. Even with alcohol, until

Prohibition, most alcohol consumption was beer and wine. It was

Prohibition that made it economically necessary to produce and market

more powerful spirits. A truckload of beer is more difficult and has no

more alcohol that a much smaller quantity of moonshine and is more

difficult to smuggle and market illegally. The same is true of cocaine

(powder) which has been much replaced with the far worse crack cocaine,

which is smaller, easier to smuggle and easier to hide. The law is

responsible for the wider use of more potent forms.

Moreover, twenty or so years ago, when the government began a harsh

crackdown on marijuana use, kids started experimenting with gasoline and

cleaning solvents. Much of the damage people do to themselves from

drugs is directly or indirectly tied to their being illegal. Ever hear

of a heroin overdose where the person overdosing _knew_ how much heroin

he was actually taking or if he even was taking heroin?

Ken Ragge

P.S. In legalization, I would suggest that there be no brand identity,

just " generic " and no advertising and stiff penalties for manufacturing

a mislabeled product.

[Guest guest]

MonaHolland@... wrote:

> In a message dated 4/25/01 2:53:55 PM US Eastern Standard Time,

> annie8@... writes:

> <---snip--->

>

>>

>>

>> > Other things such as

>> >heroin or cocaine are a bit stickier...although I must say I agree

>> >with Mona on the costs of prohibition regarding them.

>> >

>> > but I also think it would harm others.

>>

>> And this cost..medical,lost work, etc does not seem factored into

>> the

>> discussions. Probihition costs vs legal drug costs probably does

>> weigh in

>> favor of legal drugs, but avoiding the truly complex and far

>> extending

>> economic issues.

>

> There would almost certainly be an increase in use of cocaine if it

> were

> legal, and some increase in addiction. However, it is very hard to

> conceive

> of the costs of legal cocaine outweighing the costs of prohibition,

> which are

> absolutely astronomical.

>

Mona, ,

I'm not sure that an increase in use is going to mean an increase in

" destructive " or " problematical " use. Even with alcohol, until

Prohibition, most alcohol consumption was beer and wine. It was

Prohibition that made it economically necessary to produce and market

more powerful spirits. A truckload of beer is more difficult and has no

more alcohol that a much smaller quantity of moonshine and is more

difficult to smuggle and market illegally. The same is true of cocaine

(powder) which has been much replaced with the far worse crack cocaine,

which is smaller, easier to smuggle and easier to hide. The law is

responsible for the wider use of more potent forms.

Moreover, twenty or so years ago, when the government began a harsh

crackdown on marijuana use, kids started experimenting with gasoline and

cleaning solvents. Much of the damage people do to themselves from

drugs is directly or indirectly tied to their being illegal. Ever hear

of a heroin overdose where the person overdosing _knew_ how much heroin

he was actually taking or if he even was taking heroin?

Ken Ragge

P.S. In legalization, I would suggest that there be no brand identity,

just " generic " and no advertising and stiff penalties for manufacturing

a mislabeled product.

[Guest guest]

Most Begnign Substance????

Yes. The Merck Manual says there is virtually no serious harm from smoking marijuan, and that most objections to it are driven by a "political" not a toxicological reason.

Did you notice how often the words "may" "could," plausible" and "possibility"were employed in the authorities you cited? The fact remains, that no long-term severe health consequences have been proven to attend marijuana use. And there are ZERO known deaths. One cannot overdose on it.

Aspirin annually kills more people than pot does; indeed this is true of many drugs, since pot kills ZERO.

Compare the irrefutable links between alcohol or tobacco, or aspirin or acetaminophen, with *known deaths and illnesses. Pot, on the other hand -- which kills no one -- has a host of therapeutic uses. And if one wishes to recreate with a mood-altering substance, cannabis is far and away the safest choice.

So yes, MJ is among the most benign substances man may take into his body.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Most Begnign Substance????

Yes. The Merck Manual says there is virtually no serious harm from smoking marijuan, and that most objections to it are driven by a "political" not a toxicological reason.

Did you notice how often the words "may" "could," plausible" and "possibility"were employed in the authorities you cited? The fact remains, that no long-term severe health consequences have been proven to attend marijuana use. And there are ZERO known deaths. One cannot overdose on it.

Aspirin annually kills more people than pot does; indeed this is true of many drugs, since pot kills ZERO.

Compare the irrefutable links between alcohol or tobacco, or aspirin or acetaminophen, with *known deaths and illnesses. Pot, on the other hand -- which kills no one -- has a host of therapeutic uses. And if one wishes to recreate with a mood-altering substance, cannabis is far and away the safest choice.

So yes, MJ is among the most benign substances man may take into his body.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

It's my guess that inhaling any burning vegetation wouldn't be the best thing

for you. Should we therefore outlaw basal?

[Guest guest]

Annie asked me for proof that marijuana is, by any measure, safer than alcohol. I posted the 1988 findings of a DEA administrative law judge supporting my claim in a thread titled to indicate same. What follows is a 1994 report of the World Health Organization, Project on Health Implications of Cannabis Use. All emphasis is added.

After these two posts, should anyone wish to debate my claims further, I shall either quote only briefly from sources, and/or refer them to appropriate links.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. THE PROBABLE HEALTH EFFECTS OF CANNABIS USE

Acute Psychological and Health Consequences

The acute toxicity of cannabis is very low. There are no confirmed cases of human deaths from cannabis poisoning in the world medical literature. Animal studies indicate that the dose of THC required to produce 50% mortality in rodents is extremely high by comparison with other commonly used pharmaceutical and recreational drugs. The lethal dose also increases as one moves up the phylogenetic tree, suggesting by extrapolation that the lethal increases as one moves up the phylogenetic tree, suggesting by extrapolation that the lethal dose in humans could not be very easily achieved by smoking or ingesting the drug (Grinspoon and Bakalar, 1993; Rosencrantz, 1983).

Dysphoric effects

The most common unpleasant acute psychological effects of cannabis use are anxiety, sometimes producing unpleasant depressive feelings (Tart, 1970; Weil, 1970). These effects are most often reported by naive users who are unfamiliar with the drug's effects, and by patients who have been given oral THC for therapeutic purposes. More experienced users may occasionally report these effects after receiving a much larger than intended dose of THC. These effects can usually be prevented by adequate preparation of users about the type of effects they may experience, or they can be managed by reassurance and support (Weil, 1970).

Motor vehicle accidents

The major potential health risks from the acute use of cannabis arise from its effects on cognitive and psychomotor performance. Intoxication produces dose-related impairments in a wide range of cognitive and behavioural functions that are relevant to a skilled performance like driving an automobile or operating machinery. These include: slowed reaction time and information processing, impaired perceptual-motor coordination and motor performance, impaired short term memory, signal detection, tracking behaviour and slowed time perception. (Chait and Pierri, 1992).

The negative effects of cannabis on the performance of psychomotor tasks is almost always related to dose (Chait and Pierri, 1992). The effects are generally larger, more consistent and persistent in different tasks which involve sustained attention. The acute effects of "recreational" doses of cannabis on driving performance in laboratory simulators and over standardised driving courses are similar to those of doses of alcohol that achieve BACs between 0.07% and 0.10% (Hansteen, , Lonero, Reid and , 1976; Peck et al, 1986; Smiley, 1986).

While cannabis impairs performance in laboratory and simulated driving settings, it is difficult to relate the magnitude of these impairments to an increased risk of being involved in motor vehicle accidents. Students of the effects of cannabis on on-road driving performance have found at most modest impairments (e.g. Sutton, 1983). Cannabis intoxicated persons drive more slowly perhaps because they are more aware of their level of psychomotor impairment than alcohol intoxicated drinkers who generally drive at faster speeds (Smiley, 1986).

No controlled epidemiological studies have established that cannabis users are at increased risk of motor vehicle accidents. A prospective Swedish study of mortality over 15 years among military conscripts found an increased risk of premature mortality among men who had smoked cannabis 50 or more times by age 18. Violent deaths were the major contributor to this excess, of which 26% were motor vehicle and 7% other accidents (e.g. drownings and falls). The increased risk disappeared, however, after multivariate statistical adjustment for confounding variables such as alcohol and other drug use (sson and Allebeck, 1990).

Uncertainty about the role of cannabis in motor vehicle accidents is likely to remain since case-control studies are difficult to conduct and interpret (see chapter by Smiley this volume). Blood levels of cannabinoids do not indicate whether a driver or pedestrian was intoxicated with cannabis at the time of an accident, and many drivers with cannabinoids in their blood were also intoxicated with alcohol at the time of the accident (Smiley, 1986). Factors other than psychomotor performance also contribute to the danger of drug use when driving. Foremost among these is the user's preparedness to take risks when intoxicated, which the available evidence suggests is reduced by cannabis intoxication by contrast with alcohol intoxication which consistently increases risk-taking (Smiley, 1986)

The Health Effects of Chronic Cannabis Use

The Immune System

There is reasonably consistent evidence that THC can produce cellular changes such as alterations in cell metabolism, and DNA synthesis, in vitro (Bloch, 1983). There is even stronger evidence that cannabis smoke is mutagenic in vitro, and in vitro, and hence, that it is potentially carcinogenic for the same reasons as tobacco smoke (Leuchtenberger, 1983).

There is reasonably consistent evidence that cannabinoids impair both the cell-mediated and humoral immune systems in rodents (Munson and Fehr, 1983). These changes have decreased resistance to infection by bacteria and viruses. There is also evidence that the noncannabinoid components of cannabis smoke impair the functioning of alveolar macrophages, the first line of the body's defence system in the lungs (Munson and Fehr, 1983). The relevance of these findings to human health is uncertain: the doses required to produce these effects are often very high, and the problem of extrapolating from the effects of these doses to those used by humans is complicated by the possibility that tolerance develops to the effects on the immune system (Hollister, 1992).

Moreover, the limited experimental and clinical evidence on immune effects in humans is mixed, with a small number of early studies that have suggested adverse effects not being replicated by later ones (Munson and Fehr, 1983; Hollister, 1992). At present, there is no conclusive evidence that consumption of cannabinoids predisposes humans to immune dysfunction, as measured by reduced numbers or impaired functioning of T-lymphocytes, B-lymphocytes or macrophages, or reduced immunoglobulin levels.

The clinical and biological significance of these possible immunological impairments in chronic cannabis uses is uncertain. To date there has been no epidemiological evidence of increased rates of disease among chronic heavy cannabis users. There is one large prospective study of HIV-positive homosexual men which indicates that continued cannabis use did not increase the risk of progression to AIDS (Kaslow et al, 1989). Given the duration of large scale cannabis use by young adults in Western societies, the absence of any epidemics of infectious disease makes it unlikely that cannabis smoking produces major impairments in the immune system.

It is more difficult to exclude the possibility that chronic heavy cannabis use produces minor impairments in immunity. Such effects would produce small increases in the rate of occurrence of common bacterial and viral illnesses among chronic users which would be of public health significance because of the increased expenditure on health services, and the increased loss of productivity that this would entail among the young adults who are the heaviest users of cannabis. A recent epidemiological study by Polen at al (1993) which compared health service utilisation by nonsmokers and daily cannabis only smokers has provided the first suggestive evidence of an increased rate of presentation for respiratory conditions among cannabis smokers. This remains suggestive, however, because infectious and noninfectious respiratory conditions were not distinguished. The Cardiovascular System

The conclusion reached by the Institute of medicine in 1982 still stands: the smoking of marijuana "causes changes to the heart and circulation that are characteristics of stress ...[but] there is no evidence ... that it exerts a permanently deleterious effect on the normal cardiovascular system ..." (p 72). The cardiovascular effects of cannabis may be less benign in patients with hypertension, cerebrovascular disease and coronary atherosclerosis for whom marijuana poses a threat by increasing the work of the heart (Aronow and Cassidy, 1974, 1975).

The Respiratory System

Chronic heavy cannabis smoking impairs the functioning of the large airways, and probably causes symptoms of chronic bronchitis such as coughing, sputum, and wheezing (Bloom et al, 1987; Huber et al, 1988; Tashkin et al, 1988a, 1990). Given the documented adverse effects of tobacco smoke which is qualitatively very similar in composition to cannabis smoke (Tashkin, 1993; Wu et al, 1988). There is as yet little direct evidence that the latter occurs (Huber et al, 1988) although there is evidence that chronic cannabis smoking may produce histopathological changes in lung tissues of the kind that precede the development of lung cancer (Fligiel et al, 1988).

More recently, concern about respiratory cancers has been heightened by a series of case reports of cancers of the aerodigestive tract in young adults with a history of heavy cannabis use (e.g. Caplan and Brigham, 1989; , 1991; , 1988). Although these reports fall short of providing convincing evidence because they were uncontrolled and many of the cases concurrently used alcohol and tobacco, they are clearly cause for concern since such cancers are rare in adults under the age of 60, even among those who smoke tobacco and drink alcohol (Tashkin, 1993). Smoking cannabis may also pose an acute risk to individuals with respiratory diseases such as asthma. Evidence linking tobacco smoke to asthma and asthmatic symptoms is increasing.

The potential adverse effects of cannabis on the respiratory system are specific to smoking as the route of administration, and could not result from oral ingestion.

Reproductive Effects

Chronic cannabis use probably disrupts the male and female reproductive systems in animals, reducing the secretion of testosterone, and sperm production, motility, and viability in males, and disrupting the ovulatory cycle in females (Bloch, 1983; Institute of Medicine, 1982). It is uncertain whether it is these effects in humans, given the inconsistency in the limited literature on human males (Mendelson and Mello, 1984), and the lack of research in the case of human females (Hollister, 1986). There is also uncertainty about the clinical significance of these effects in normal healthy young adults. They may be of greater concern among young adolescents, and among males whose fertility has been impaired for other reasons.

Cannabis smoking during pregnancy probably impairs foetal development Gibson et al, 1983; Hatch and Bracken, 1986; Tennes et al, 1985; Zuckerman et al, 1989, leading to a reduction in birthweight (Abel, 1985). This may be a consequence of a shorter gestation period, and probably occurs by the same mechanism as cigarette smoking, namely, foetal hypoxia. There is uncertainty about whether cannabis use during pregnancy produces a small increase in the risk of birth defects as a result of exposure of the foetus in utero. There is some animal evidence of such effects although these studies have usually involved very high doses by the oral route (Abel, 1985). The limited studies in humans have generally but not consistently produced null results (Gibson et al, 1983; Hatch and Bracken, 1986; Hingson et al, 1982; Zuckerman et al, 1989).

There is not a great deal of evidence that cannabis use can produce chromosomal or genetic abnormalities in either parent which could be transmitted to offspring. Such animal and in vitro evidence as exists suggests that the mutagenic capacities of cannabis smoke are greater than those of THC, and are probably of greater relevance to the risk of users developing cancer than to the transmission of genetic defects to children (Bloch, 1983; Hollister, 1986).

There is suggestive evidence that infants exposed in utero to cannabis may experience transient behavioural and developmental effects during the first few months after birth (e.g. Fried 1985, 1989). There are several case-control studies which suggest that there is an increased risk of certain childhood cancers (namely, astrocytomas and leukemia) among children born to women who reported that they had used cannabis during their pregnancies (Kuitjen et al, 1990; Robison et al, 1989).

Possible Health Effects of Contaminants in Cannabis

Because cannabis is an illegal drug its cultivation, harvesting and distribution are not subject to quality control mechanisms to ensure the reliability and safety of the product used by consumers. It is well recognised in developing countries, such as Kenya, that illicit alcohol production can result in the contamination with toxic by-products or adulterants that can kill or seriously affect the health of users. The same may be true of illicit drugs such as opiates, cocaine and amphetamine in developed societies. There is no evidence of comparable health effects for cannabis although there were concerns expressed about the possible health effects of the use of cannabis contaminated by herbicides (such as paraquat) that were used to control illicit cannabis cultivation in the US in the 1970s. These concerns proved unfounded (Hollister, 1986). There have also been concerns about the microbial contamination of cannabis leaf but there has been little evidence (other than a small number of case histories) that this has adversely affected the health of cannabis users (Hollister, 1986). Psychological Effects of Chronic Cannabis Use

Adult Motivation

One of the major concerns about the psychological effects of chronic heavy cannabis use has been that it impairs adult motivation. The evidence for an "amotivational syndrome" among a

[Guest guest]

Marijuana (MJ) smoking produces inflammation, edema, and cell injury in the tracheobronchial mucosa of smokers " sounds like a health consequence (and stated with no equivocation).

I said no SEVERE health consequences result -- not zero. And my original claim, about which you requested evidence, was that MJ is far safer than alcohol, which it irrefutably is. It is one of the safest drugs used in the history of humanity. I shall give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you overlooked my word "severe," and did not intend to set up a ludicrous strawman argument, implying that I would make the absurd claim that any drug, including pot, is entirely lacking in health consequences.

As Merck noted, objections to MJ are *political, not toxicological. The

World Health Organization is not known to have a pro-legalization political agenda, and it too finds cannabis to be quite safe -- not entirely -- but relatively. Even aspirin can be unsafe in that it kills people, and also causes health problems short of death.

Pot can cause bronchitis, usuall in only heavy users. Not something anyone would wish for, but also nothing as severe as cirrhosis or alcoholic dementia. Do you think that sufficient reason to send people to prison for smoking it? If so, what is your aspirin policy, in light of its lethality?

--Mona--

Pot is one of the safest drugs known to man.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Marijuana (MJ) smoking produces inflammation, edema, and cell injury in the tracheobronchial mucosa of smokers " sounds like a health consequence (and stated with no equivocation).

I said no SEVERE health consequences result -- not zero. And my original claim, about which you requested evidence, was that MJ is far safer than alcohol, which it irrefutably is. It is one of the safest drugs used in the history of humanity. I shall give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you overlooked my word "severe," and did not intend to set up a ludicrous strawman argument, implying that I would make the absurd claim that any drug, including pot, is entirely lacking in health consequences.

As Merck noted, objections to MJ are *political, not toxicological. The

World Health Organization is not known to have a pro-legalization political agenda, and it too finds cannabis to be quite safe -- not entirely -- but relatively. Even aspirin can be unsafe in that it kills people, and also causes health problems short of death.

Pot can cause bronchitis, usuall in only heavy users. Not something anyone would wish for, but also nothing as severe as cirrhosis or alcoholic dementia. Do you think that sufficient reason to send people to prison for smoking it? If so, what is your aspirin policy, in light of its lethality?

--Mona--

Pot is one of the safest drugs known to man.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Marijuana (MJ) smoking produces inflammation, edema, and cell injury in the tracheobronchial mucosa of smokers " sounds like a health consequence (and stated with no equivocation).

I said no SEVERE health consequences result -- not zero. And my original claim, about which you requested evidence, was that MJ is far safer than alcohol, which it irrefutably is. It is one of the safest drugs used in the history of humanity. I shall give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you overlooked my word "severe," and did not intend to set up a ludicrous strawman argument, implying that I would make the absurd claim that any drug, including pot, is entirely lacking in health consequences.

As Merck noted, objections to MJ are *political, not toxicological. The

World Health Organization is not known to have a pro-legalization political agenda, and it too finds cannabis to be quite safe -- not entirely -- but relatively. Even aspirin can be unsafe in that it kills people, and also causes health problems short of death.

Pot can cause bronchitis, usuall in only heavy users. Not something anyone would wish for, but also nothing as severe as cirrhosis or alcoholic dementia. Do you think that sufficient reason to send people to prison for smoking it? If so, what is your aspirin policy, in light of its lethality?

--Mona--

Pot is one of the safest drugs known to man.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Mona asked:

Do you think that sufficient reason to send people to prison for smoking it? If so, what is your aspirin policy, in light of its lethality?

Annie responded:

>>Herein is the ludicrous strawman. I have said nothing whatsoever about legalization, jail, or aspirin.<<

Exactly. You said nothing, and I asked you a question. Depending upon your answer to the first question, I had a second question ("If so..."). That is not a strawman argument. It is an inquiry.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Mona asked:

Do you think that sufficient reason to send people to prison for smoking it? If so, what is your aspirin policy, in light of its lethality?

Annie responded:

>>Herein is the ludicrous strawman. I have said nothing whatsoever about legalization, jail, or aspirin.<<

Exactly. You said nothing, and I asked you a question. Depending upon your answer to the first question, I had a second question ("If so..."). That is not a strawman argument. It is an inquiry.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

btw, aspirine is not lethal: "Tout est poison, rien n'est poison, tout est une question de dose"

Well, no, it is not true that everything is poison, nothing is poison, and it is all a matter of dose. It is humanly impossible to inhale a toxic dose of cannabis. Asprin certainly *can be lethal, and kills some 2000 Americans each year.

>>Nor do I care about subjective ratings of consequential diseases (potential lung cancer equates to potential cirrhosis for me).<<

There is nothing remotely subjective in the equation: alcohol consumption results in approximately 25,000 deaths in the U.S. each year. This is a hard fact. Most of these deaths are occurring in persons in their 30s and 40s. (I'm pretty sure of this, but it is at least a large minority, and of the three persons I know who did die of it two were in their mid-30s, and my uncle was 47.) That is an untimely and early death.

By contrast, lung cancer, *if* it occurs in pot smokers, has not been shown to be occurring in 30-something and 40-something pot smokers. That would have been noticed by now. There are studies tracking pot smokers, and they are not dropping dead from lung cancer at these ages at rates high enough to raise suspicion of a connection. I could post some of this data, but if you are interested I'll go back and find the url address and post merely that.

--Mona--

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

btw, aspirine is not lethal: "Tout est poison, rien n'est poison, tout est une question de dose"

Well, no, it is not true that everything is poison, nothing is poison, and it is all a matter of dose. It is humanly impossible to inhale a toxic dose of cannabis. Asprin certainly *can be lethal, and kills some 2000 Americans each year.

>>Nor do I care about subjective ratings of consequential diseases (potential lung cancer equates to potential cirrhosis for me).<<

There is nothing remotely subjective in the equation: alcohol consumption results in approximately 25,000 deaths in the U.S. each year. This is a hard fact. Most of these deaths are occurring in persons in their 30s and 40s. (I'm pretty sure of this, but it is at least a large minority, and of the three persons I know who did die of it two were in their mid-30s, and my uncle was 47.) That is an untimely and early death.

By contrast, lung cancer, *if* it occurs in pot smokers, has not been shown to be occurring in 30-something and 40-something pot smokers. That would have been noticed by now. There are studies tracking pot smokers, and they are not dropping dead from lung cancer at these ages at rates high enough to raise suspicion of a connection. I could post some of this data, but if you are interested I'll go back and find the url address and post merely that.

--Mona--

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

btw, aspirine is not lethal: "Tout est poison, rien n'est poison, tout est une question de dose"

Well, no, it is not true that everything is poison, nothing is poison, and it is all a matter of dose. It is humanly impossible to inhale a toxic dose of cannabis. Asprin certainly *can be lethal, and kills some 2000 Americans each year.

>>Nor do I care about subjective ratings of consequential diseases (potential lung cancer equates to potential cirrhosis for me).<<

There is nothing remotely subjective in the equation: alcohol consumption results in approximately 25,000 deaths in the U.S. each year. This is a hard fact. Most of these deaths are occurring in persons in their 30s and 40s. (I'm pretty sure of this, but it is at least a large minority, and of the three persons I know who did die of it two were in their mid-30s, and my uncle was 47.) That is an untimely and early death.

By contrast, lung cancer, *if* it occurs in pot smokers, has not been shown to be occurring in 30-something and 40-something pot smokers. That would have been noticed by now. There are studies tracking pot smokers, and they are not dropping dead from lung cancer at these ages at rates high enough to raise suspicion of a connection. I could post some of this data, but if you are interested I'll go back and find the url address and post merely that.

--Mona--

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

.. True, I don't understand Latin. Are you [Annie] a medical doctor?

She was writing in French, not Latin. I'm relatively fluent in French, but very, very seldom use it in posts because doing so strikes me as pretentious. Chaque son gout. (To each his own.)

--Mona--(being pretentious

[Guest guest]

.. True, I don't understand Latin. Are you [Annie] a medical doctor?

She was writing in French, not Latin. I'm relatively fluent in French, but very, very seldom use it in posts because doing so strikes me as pretentious. Chaque son gout. (To each his own.)

--Mona--(being pretentious