Drug Policy Needs More Centrists (NYTimes OP-Ed)

[Telarus]

For all the back and forth, this seems like a polite conversation so far.

So there's this.

http://healthland.time.com/2012/01/10/study-smoking-marijuana-not-linked-with-lung-damage/

And we have cannabis not associated with decreased lung function in young men (and, presumably other healthy adults), and not associated with cognitive impairment in middle aged men. Both stories broke "as if" those were the previous assumptions (it's a drug, it messes with your cognitive abilities, it's smoked, it messes with your lung function).

Now, to touch on Beardman Meow's point (& dig into Tosk's anecdotal evidence)... let's ask the question: What effects of cannabis are self-described "dependent" users dependent on?

One would immediately say "the high/mental-perceptual effects".. but that's too obvious. Of course it makes one "feel good" and "feeling good" may not be a usual state for these users. But let's look at the other actual medical effects in conjunction with this.

I find Dr. Robert Melamede to be one of the smarted people in this field who can effectively communicate the benefits of cannabis consumption (and a DEA speaker once claimed "what you say is very dangerous to our children & I'm very sorry you consider yourself a role model" because of this, LOL).

http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/2/1/17

A little explored question is what does harm reduction specifically mean with respect to cannabis consumption? This article will address cannabis harm reduction from a biological perspective. Two directions will be examined: what are the biological effects of cannabis use and what are the social effects that emerge from the biological foundation.

Like many substances that are put into the human body, there can be positive or negative consequences that result from cannabis consumption, depending on amount, frequency, quality, and probably most importantly, the idiosyncratic biochemistry of the user. Prohibitionists concentrate their efforts on the negative effects of cannabis use, while anti-prohibitionists tend to focus on the positive effects. If we assume that both sides have valid arguments, the issue to be resolved is one of balance between the negative and positive effects.
...
Cannabis preparations have been used medically for thousands of years for illnesses such as epilepsy, migraine headaches, childbirth, and menstrual symptoms. However, it is only relatively recently that the active components have been identified and their mechanisms of action have begun to be understood. While delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) was first synthesized by Mechoulam in 1967 [5], it was not until 1990 that the cannabinoid receptor was localized in the brain [6] and cloned [7]. Since then, discoveries in the field have proceeded at an ever-increasing pace.
...
Endocannabinoid synthesis, degradation, transport, and receptors together form the endocannabinoid system.
...
Evolution of Endocannabinoids

The cannabinoid system appears to be quite ancient [13,14], with some of its components dating back about 600 million years to when the first multicellular organisms appeared. The beginnings of the modern cannabinoid system are found in mollusks [15] and hydra [16]. As evolution proceeded, the role that the cannabinoid system played in animal life continuously increased (as Dr. Bob says elsewhere, this indicated a selection pressure - Telarus). It is now known that this system maintains homeostasis within and across the organizational scales of all animals. Within a cell, cannabinoids control basic metabolic processes such as glucose metabolism [17]. Cannabinoids regulate intercellular communication, especially in the immune [18] and nervous systems [19]. In general, cannabinoids modulate and coordinate tissues, organ and body systems (including the cardiovascular [20], digestive [16], endocrine [21], excretory [22,23], immune [18], musculo-skeletal [24], nervous [19], reproductive [25], and respiratory [26] systems). The effects of cannabinoids on consciousness are not well understood, but are well known, and underlie recreational cannabis use. These effects also have therapeutic possibilities [27].
...
Behavioral Effects: Self-administration and Reward

The broad homeostatic activities of cannabinoids that have been developed in this article have been rooted in hard science. The extension of these ideas to the psychological and behavioral levels is intrinsically more speculative, but remains consistent with the literature. For years, researchers have looked into the possible addictive qualities of cannabis. The lack of significant reward behavior was indicated by the lack of self-administration in primates. Experiments examining preference in rats demonstrated that low doses of THC could induce place preference but that higher doses produced drug aversion [110], again demonstrating the homeostatic nature of cannabinoids. Self-administration is typical of most psychoactive drugs of abuse. Hence, one could conclude that marijuana has a low potential for abuse.

Some may question the conclusion that cannabis has a low abuse potential since an animal model using squirrel monkeys was recently developed in which self-administration behavior was maintained using THC [111]. Interestingly, and consistent with the notion that the cannabinoid system is a biological homeostatic harm reduction mechanism, the self-administration of THC ranges from 2 to 8 ug/kg and peaks at 4 ug/kg [112]. Thus, in this animal model a controlled dose is chosen. To further put these experiments in perspective, the dose used must be examined more closely. A 1-gram joint of 10% THC content would contain 100 mg of THC. The self-administered dose schedule chosen by the animal of 4 ug/kg would correspond to 360 ug of THC (if absorption was complete, approximately 1/278 of the joint) for a 200-pound human. Similarly, in rats, the intravenous self-administration of the synthetic cannabinoid Win 55,212-2 also occurred in a biphasic manner, with a maximum response occurring at 12 ug/kg[113] The self-regulated, controlled use of low drug doses is not characteristic of addictive drugs of abuse.

Additional cannabinoid involvement in reward behavior is suggested by the increased activity of dopaminergic neurons stimulated with psychoactive cannabinoids [114]. This pathway is shared by other major drugs of abuse including, morphine, ethanol, and nicotine [115]. However, the production of glucocorticoid hormones that are normally produced in response to stress [116], are suppressed by cannabinoids [117]. Are cannabinoids addictive, is pleasure addictive, or is a low stress state addictive?

Cannabinoids and Stress

Stress and reward are complicated components of addictive behavior. How does repeated use of THC influence these states? A recent study examines this question by measuring glucose utilization in different areas of the rat brain following repeated treatment with THC [118]. After 7 and 21 days of THC treatment, THC no longer resulted in reduced glucose utilization in many areas of the brain typically affected by a single THC dose (most cortical, thalamic, and basal ganglia regions). In contrast, glucose utilization in other areas of the brain remained unaltered (nucleus accumbens, mediodorsal thalamus, basolateral amygdala, portions of the hippocampus and median raphe). Thus while the effects of THC on body temperature and locomotor activity become resistant to repeated THC administration, those areas involved in many higher brain functions remain responsive to THC. This differential adaptation to THC administration is consistent with a low addictive potential. The best evidence that demonstrates the absence of an addictive response to cannabis use is the fact that most people who use it do not continue to use it, and stop using it without any effort.
...
Most people who use cannabis in their youth stop using it as their lives progress. Most do so as a natural part of their development. They do so without outside intervention or help. They do so without ever having become heroin users, schizophrenic, or motivationally compromised. These facts indicate that for the majority of people who try marijuana, it is not addictive, does not lead to heroin use, nor is it a trigger for the onset of psychological problems. However, due to the complexity of cannabinoid activities, it is likely that in a small percentage of the population, cannabis use may foster problems. The biology presented in this paper suggests that such individual differences should be expected. We must learn to identify individuals who would be negatively affected by cannabis use; they are the people that an intelligent drug policy would help to identify and assist. In contrast, our policy criminalizes the majority of users and further harms them, perhaps psychologically as well as medically, through its repercussions. ...  The use of cannabis – and any mind-altering drug – by young developing minds rightfully remains an area of focus and concern.
...
Endocannabinoids modulate the pro-inflammatory TH1 response by up-regulating the anti-inflammatory Th2 response.

The last line in my quoted selection is especially interesting, but the portion of the article which described immuno-responses had much more medical jargon that most. click over and read it for a full understanding.... basically "cannabis is good for inflammatory symptoms, but bad for fighting infections that require inflammatory reposes". Cannabinoids can also rein in runaway inflammatory responses, such as the immune system attacking the body, etc.

Now, stress and chronic muscle-tension have been linked to chronically elevated levels of inflammation all over the body (I note that youth cannabis users tend to have VERY stressful environments and the view that they have very few options to release that stress.. at least, from what I've read and from RWHN's anecdotal evidence).

As an adult, if you're burnt out from the rat race and your body aches and you have knots in your back that haven't loosened up in a week, a joint is good medicine. If you have pneumonia, it's probably not the best thing for you.

Here is another video of Dr. Melamede talking about the medical effects of the cannabinoid system: http://youtu.be/bEp9Ic_-xhs

The only reason I can see for the diversion of the medical discussion around cannabis into the rhetoric and emotion filled fight over legalization is so that certain factions can keep control of the Narrative. Probably because cannabis prohibition, as it stands, is an income stream for them.

Some people are making a profit by putting other people in jail because those other people attempted to resolve chronic low-level pain on their own terms (One of the Cali med-pot collective owners recently said "All cannabis use is medicinal cannabis use"... I'm not ready to buy that completely but I'd probably say "Most"...).

I personally find the prohibitionists' stance on cannabis abhorrent, and think that institutionalizing this though process does far more harm to the next generation (& society as a whole) than experimentation with cannabis (done by currently uneducated youth) has done. This is (of course) an opinion.

[AFK]

http://healthland.time.com/2012/01/10/study-smoking-marijuana-not-linked-with-lung-damage/

But I think this caveat is important:

It is more difficult to estimate the potential effects of regular heavy use, because this pattern of use is relatively rare in our study sample; however, our findings do suggest an accelerated decline in pulmonary function with heavy use and a resulting need for caution and moderation when marijuana use is considered.

The average person in this study smoked marijuana only 2-3 times per month and they were comparing that to people who smoke 8 cigarrettes a day.  I'm a little suspicious as to how representative that is of the average marijuana user in the U.S., or anywhere.  I mean, if we go by the anecdotal evidence posted in this thread, it would seem your average user smokes a bit more often than 2-3 times per month.     And someone who is addicted/dependent, whatever you want to call it, is definitely smoking more often than 2-3 times per month.     As for the rest of your post, I'm not keen on the idea of self-medication, which does tend to influence a lot of drug use, not just marijuana use.  People pop pills they aren't supposed to be taking to help relieve stresses in their lives, but that initial benefit isn't going to be much of a benefit after they become addicted, dependent, and then THAT turns into another stress point in their lives.     Taking medicines is something that should happen under the advice of a trained medical professional.  If a kiddo or adult really has that much disruptive stress in their lives, I'm not sure smoking up is really going to help, especially if there is an underlying mental condition that is being ignored. 

[Triple Zero]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/21/mayans-demand-global-legalisation-of-hallucinogens-or-they-will-stop-time-in-2012

SHIT JUST GOT REAL

[East Coast Hustle]

ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE, GO.

I know a lot of pot smokers who describe themselves as dependant on the drug. I agree with this, based on my observation of them with and without it. It's kind of surprising to me to read that, knowing a lot of stoners, anyone can not know any they would consider addicted.

Maybe New Zealand has better weed.

So when they don't have any pot, do they start sweating and shaking and vomiting?

Do the cravings ever get SO BAD that they resort to robbery or burglary to get their fix?

Or are they just irritable and cranky because their routine has been broken and they're weak-minded little bitches?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE, GO.

I know a lot of pot smokers who describe themselves as dependant on the drug. I agree with this, based on my observation of them with and without it. It's kind of surprising to me to read that, knowing a lot of stoners, anyone can not know any they would consider addicted.

Maybe New Zealand has better weed.

So when they don't have any pot, do they start sweating and shaking and vomiting?

Do the cravings ever get SO BAD that they resort to robbery or burglary to get their fix?

Or are they just irritable and cranky because their routine has been broken and they're weak-minded little bitches?

I'm hopelessly enslaved to caffiene.

And I do know a couple of people who HAVE to smoke weed...But I think that's just Pavlov stuff.  They're the same sort of people that would get addicted to TV.

[East Coast Hustle]

Exactly. There's a huge difference between a drug that creates dependency in the people who use it and people who create a dependency on anything that helps them get through another day in their miserable life, whether that's pot, TV, sex, shopping, or whatever.

[Xooxe]

TV is the weirdest shit, though. I haven't owned one in years and any time I see one I still get lost in whatever happens to be on, no matter how little I care. Pigeons take part in more involving psychology experiments.

[Dysfunctional Cunt]

Exactly. There's a huge difference between a drug that creates dependency in the people who use it and people who create a dependency on anything that helps them get through another day in their miserable life, whether that's pot, TV, sex, shopping, or whatever.

THIS!!! 

[LMNO]

I'm getting the feeling that some people here think that psychological addiction is an exaggerated case of poor willpower, and not a "real" illness.

The jury is still out, for me.

[East Coast Hustle]

I'm getting the feeling that some people here think that psychological addiction is an exaggerated case of poor willpower, and not a "real" illness.

This is exactly what I think. If the dependency is not physical in nature, you have the power to choose to stop at any time. If you can't bring yourself to do that, how is that a disease? There's no pathology involved. Just lack of self-control.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Exactly. There's a huge difference between a drug that creates dependency in the people who use it and people who create a dependency on anything that helps them get through another day in their miserable life, whether that's pot, TV, sex, shopping, or whatever.

Yep.

So, while it is possible for someone to be dependent on marijuana, I think that's a function of the person and not the drug, as opposed to, say, meth, which will addict ANYONE who uses it.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

TV is the weirdest shit, though. I haven't owned one in years and any time I see one I still get lost in whatever happens to be on, no matter how little I care. Pigeons take part in more involving psychology experiments.

TVs induce a receptive state in humans.  This is established fact.

I zone right the fuck out.  I didn't just throw away my teevee because it was full of crap, I did it as a defensive measure.

[Dysfunctional Cunt]

I'm getting the feeling that some people here think that psychological addiction is an exaggerated case of poor willpower, and not a "real" illness.

The jury is still out, for me.

I think that some people are able to just walk away from almost anything, pott, alcohol, cocaine and so forth.  Whereas another person may be addicted after the first toke, take or snort.  I think some people just have addictive personalities and will be addicted, like ECH said, to just about anything. 

Not saying the addiction is not very real, it is.  Is it poor will power?  I don't know.  I guess I think that.  I look at morbidly obese people and I think, like almost everyone, they need to put down the fucking twinkie.  Is that addiction not psychological? 

Are we more sympathetic to people who are psychologically addicted to drugs and alcohol than we are to those addicted to food or something else?  I think we may be.  As for it being a real illness, eh, I won't go there.  I'm not a Doctor of anything.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'm getting the feeling that some people here think that psychological addiction is an exaggerated case of poor willpower, and not a "real" illness.

The jury is still out, for me.

Nope.  I'm just arguing the cause of the illness.

[AFK]

Thinking as a Discordian, isn't the distinction between physical and psychological somewhat arbitrary on a certain level?

I mean, the brain is part of our biology, is it not?