cannabisnews.com: Health Canada 'Misleading' on Risks of Pot





Health Canada 'Misleading' on Risks of Pot
Posted by FoM on January 24, 2002 at 08:25:29 PT
By Mark Kennedy, Vancouver Sun 
Source: Vancouver Sun 
Health Canada is delivering a "misleading" message to the public about the health risks associated with smoking marijuana for medicinal purposes, says a doctors' group.The charge is made in a report to be released today by Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada. The group says it believes Canadians being allowed to smoke marijuana -- as part of clinical trials and special exemptions for the sick -- are not sufficiently aware of the risk of lung disease and cancer.
"At this point in time, we know more about the harm caused by marijuana smoke than we do about the benefits," says the report."Numerous studies have found that marijuana smoke produces pulmonary damage similar to that produced by tobacco smoke, only more severe." The report says that smoking two to three marijuana cigarettes a day is estimated to have the same effect as smoking 20 or more tobacco cigarettes a day.Among the major findings of previous research cited by the report:- Marijuana produces 50 per cent more tar than the same weight of strong tobacco.- Marijuana smoke contains 70 per cent more benzopyrene than tobacco smoke.- Marijuana smokers tend to inhale the smoke much more deeply into their lungs and hold it in their lungs four times longer than with cigarettes.The report says major health agencies, including Health Canada, the American National Institutes of Health, and the U.S. Institute of Medicine, have all explicitly recognized the severity of these risks.Indeed, Health Canada's own public documents do make mention of the risks. Some side effects were outlined in regulations prepared last year to legally allow some sick people to smoke marijuana to alleviate symptoms of certain diseases. Among them, said the government, were respiratory problems."Marijuana causes lung damage similar to that caused by tobacco smoke," said the department. "These long-term risks must be considered in long-term use by patients with chronic diseases. They may be of lesser concern where short-term use of marijuana is being proposed."However, the report by Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada says: "Health Canada's emphasis on the lack of determinate evidence about the safety of marijuana is at best misleading, at worst unethical."Source: Vancouver Sun (CN BC)Author: Mark KennedyPublished: Wednesday, January 23, 2002Copyright: The Vancouver Sun 2002Contact: sunletters pacpress.southam.caWebsite: http://www.vancouversun.com/Related Articles & Web Sites:Health Canadahttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/Medical Marijuana Information Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/medical.htm Medicinal Pot Smoke Dangerous, MDs Sayhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11830.shtmlDoctors Cautioned When Prescribing Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11823.shtml
END SNIP -->
Snipped
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #14 posted by Lehder on January 25, 2002 at 08:11:42 PT
we need a symbol for stigmatizing drug warriors
Truth and facts may persuade the tiny numbers who miraculously retain semi-rational minds in the US, but these cannot overpower the barrier of money or especially the deep emotional appeal of drug-war religion. That religion offers a way for the mentally and emotionally stunted to feel better about themselves by persecuting others. The innocents who are scapegoated by drug-war religion symbolize all that Americans fear - and indeed should fear at the hands of our government: voilent crime, homelessness, unemployment, diseases like cancer and AIDS, prison. The religion called "war on drugs" offers deep emotional satisfaction to those 'useful idiots' eager and desperate to believe and promote drug war propaganda out of a false struggle for personal survival, yet it serves only those with financial interest in the DEAth cult. Cultists become amenable to reason only after their emotionally based beliefs have been shattered by personal trauma such as finding themselves or their families victims of DEAth. We need a second way, beyond truth or reason, to attack the drug war .I think DdC was right a while ago:Not until we start stigmatizing wod junkie DEAth worshipers as the fascist they are will the media and citizens then turn their tides.Beyond truth and facts we need a stigmatizing symbol that can be applied to drug warriors. We have to humiliate them, and we have to do this in a very simple and catchy way that appeals to Americans. A symbol that connects the drug war to our overpopulated prisons would be ineffective. Americans are extremely and, again, emotionally pro-incarceration and pro-punishment no matter how unjustified; their love for prison and prosecution outshines their imagined love for children.But few Americans like cancer, and a symbol (or slogan) that holds drug warriors accountable for pushing cancer - as they effectively do - would insult drug warriors and stigmatize as they deserve. That's the symbol and slogan we have to be sticking onto lamp poles instead of mj leaves and 420 stickers. I'm thinking of something on the order of the smiley face or Asterix, the French symbol of national struggle that has been usurped by McDonalds for pushing junk food ( http://commondreams.org/headlines02/0124-03.htm ).I bet that a few million spent on Madison Avenue to invent the right symbol would do as much for our cause as the same millions spent on another state medical mj campaign. Or maybe you can dream it up. I'm keeping it in mind and hope you will too.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by Ethan Russo MD on January 25, 2002 at 04:38:11 PT:
My LTE
Responses of Ethan Russo, MD, editor-in-chief of Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics to:    THINK ON IT** I am afraid that the review of the literature undertaken by this group was apparently somewhat superficial and selective. There is a great deal of information to support the relative safety of cannabis in chronic use. Francis Young, the Administrative Law Judge of the US DEA concluded that cannabis was one of the safest drugs known to man, and should be removed from Schedule I (Young 1988). His decision was over-ruled by a political figure.
	Contrary to the impression given here, a great deal of study on chronic cannabis has been undertaken. Three whole books have been written on the subject, funded by the US government, no less. These examined the chronic use of cannabis in Jamaica (Ganja in Jamaica (Rubin and Comitas 1975)), Greece (Hashish: Studies of Long-term Use (Stefanis, Dornbush, and Fink 1977), and Costa Rica (Cannabis in Costa Rica (Carter 1980)). Results were very surprising to the sponsoring bodies in that it was very difficult to tell the cannabis smokers from non-smoking controls with respect to any measures. Their lung function was good, their neuropsychological status was unimpaired, they remained fertile, had normal endocrine functions, etc. 
	The Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics is just about to publish an extensive review of cannabis toxicity I wrote with my colleagues (Russo et al. 2002) with a focus on 4 of the remaining 7 patients in the FDA Investigational New Drug (IND) Program, who have smoked National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) cannabis for many, many years. They are all doing well. 2 of the 4 previously required intravenous narcotics (heroin and Dilaudid) to control their symptoms of pain and spasm. Both now employ cannabis as their only pain medicine. One of them is working full-time as a stockbroker. One patient with MS has less spasm on cannabis, walks better, sees better, and feels better emotionally. One with glaucoma retains vision on cannabis 2 decades after she expected to be blind.
	As far as side effects, 2 of the 4 patients have some decrease in pulmonary function of mild to moderate degree, one is borderline, and one is normal. They smoke a low grade NIDA cannabis that is weak, and laden with stems and seeds. That is the likely reason that their results were worse than the foreign studies. 
	All 4 patients showed some degree of effect on their concentration and short-term memory during testing, but that is very much expected in any population of chronic pain and ill subjects. All retain good long-term memory and executive functions.
	None of the patients have attributable effects of cannabis on their MRI, EEG, chest X-rays, or any of their blood tests for hematological or endocrine parameters.
	We hear propaganda about cannabis containing more tar and carcinogens than tobacco. Again, NIDA cannabis is poorly manicured, weak, and full of extraneous material that makes this the case. That not withstanding, none of the IND patients have had cancer from their treatment. The work of Dr. Tashkin’s group at UCLA demonstrates that cannabis smokers do not tend to develop emphysema the way cigarette smokers do (Tashkin et al. 1997), and in fact, the THC in cannabis prevents the accumulation of carcinogens (Roth et al. 2001)! 
It remains true that chronic cannabis smoking produces coughing and bronchitis symptoms. However, using true medical grade cannabis can help to avoid problems. Dr. Wayne Hall of Australia has studied cannabis extensively, and has been critical of it. Nevertheless, he said the following to the House of Lords (Lords 1998)(p. 221):Indeed, it is conceivable that increased potency may have little or no adverse effect if users are able to titrate their dose to achieve the desired state of intoxication. If users do titrate their dose, the use of more potent cannabis products would reduce the amount of cannabis material that was smoked, thereby marginally reducing the respiratory risks of cannabis smoking. 	
There have been claims that cannabis increases the incidence of head and neck cancers, but large epidemiological studies have not demonstrated this (Sidney et al. 1997). In fact, cannabis helps kill brain and breast tumor cells.** Cannabis is a synergistic blend of different components, much like Ginkgo biloba. This makes cannabis a better medicine, greater than the sum of its parts (McPartland and Russo 2001).** I agree that smoking is not the ideal delivery system, but vapourisation (Gieringer 2001), sublingual sprays and other methods are available (Whittle, Guy, and Robson 2001). Cannabis will be an excellent and effective, safe medicine for many Canadians in the future. Carter, William E. 1980. Cannabis in Costa Rica : A study of chronic marihuana use. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues.Gieringer, D. H. 2001. Cannabis "vaporization": A promising strategy for smoke harm reduction. Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics 1 (3-4):(in press).Lords, House of. 1998. Cannabis: the scientific and medical evidence: Evidence. London: House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, Stationery Office.McPartland, J. M., and E.B. Russo. 2001. Cannabis and cannabis extracts: Greater than the sum of their parts? Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics 1 (3-4):103-132.Roth, M. D., J. A. Marques-Magallanes, M. Yuan, W. Sun, D. P. Tashkin, and O. Hankinson. 2001. Induction and regulation of the carcinogen-metabolizing enzyme CYP1A1 by marijuana smoke and delta (9)-tetrahydrocannabinol. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol 24 (3):339-44.Rubin, Vera D., and Lambros Comitas. 1975. Ganja in Jamaica: A medical anthropological study of chronic marihuana use, New Babylon, studies in the social sciences; 26. The Hague: Mouton.Russo, E.B., M.L. Mathre, A. Byrne, R. Velin, P.J. Bach, J. Sanchez-Ramos, and K.A. Kirlin. 2002. Chronic cannabis use in the Compassionate Investigational New Drug Program: An examination of benefits and adverse effects of legal clinical cannabis. Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics 2 (1):(in press).Sidney, S., J. E. Beck, I. S. Tekawa, C. P. Quesenberry, and G. D. Friedman. 1997. Marijuana use and mortality. Am J Public Health 87 (4):585-90.Stefanis, C.N., R.L. Dornbush, and M. Fink. 1977. Hashish : Studies of long-term use. New York: Raven Press.Tashkin, D. P., M. S. Simmons, D. L. Sherrill, and A. H. Coulson. 1997. Heavy habitual marijuana smoking does not cause an accelerated decline in FEV1 with age. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 155 (1):141-8.Whittle, B.A., G.W. Guy, and P. Robson. 2001. Prospects for new cannabis-based prescription medicines. Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics 1 (3-4):(in press).Young, FL. 1988. In the Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition. Washington, DC: Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by E_Johnson on January 24, 2002 at 22:50:02 PT
Marijuana and spectral evidence in the modern age
I think that the demonization so-called "marijuana high" is based on a modern reenactment of what was called spectral evidence during the Witch Hunts.Spectral evidence was purely in the minds of the beholders, that is, it had no physical manifestation other than people saying it had happened. For example, a witness on the stand testifying against an accused witch would suddenly cry out in pain and swear that the witch had sent a demon to pinch or otherwise attack the witness on the stand.No physical test could detect the presence of this demon. Well, because it was demonic, but of course!Yes but of course, many innocent people were put to gruesome deaths on the strength of this legal evidence in legal court proceedings that were proceded over by the most learned and educated secular and religious bureaucrats and minions of the age.In the so-called modern age that we are in now, we are too civilized to hunt witches, that's why we have marijuana instead.Every attempt to nail down some extreme physical or mental dusfunction caused by the mythic marijuana "high" has failed. Yet we still hear of the evil demon ghost of the marijuana "high" in the courtroom of public opinion, pinching the Prohibitionists and making them cry out for blood revenge.And once again, the most learned secular and religious bureaucrats of our times and their educated minions are ruining innocent lives for the sake of the whole spectral charade.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by FoM on January 24, 2002 at 19:23:54 PT
CorvallisEric
That is different. Eye drops now. Physically dysfunctional high? I've never seen anything like that. I checked out the other link off of the link you left and it has a lot of good news so here it is.http://www.nzdf.org.nz/update/index.htm
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by CorvallisEric on January 24, 2002 at 19:09:15 PT
research in New Zealand
Auckland University's Liggins Institute aims to develop a cannabis-like substance that will relieve symptoms but not give patients a "physically dysfunctional high".The drug would be administered as eye drops or through an inhaler to eliminate the risk of lung cancer associated with cannabis use.
slightly more
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by i420 on January 24, 2002 at 14:30:34 PT
Stop the lies.
Oh but it's okay for us to breath all kinds of MORE harmful substances everyday. Many people are diagnosed with cancer that never ever smoked in their lives. Stop the lies.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by Ethan Russo MD on January 24, 2002 at 13:10:03 PT:
Here is a Bigger Target
These folks have a PDF at their WWW site:http://www.smoke-free.ca/pdf_1/psc-position-on-marijuana.PDFIt suffers the usual problems of inadequate review, and selective application thereof. I suspect CNews readers will wish to set the authors straight on various points.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by Sam Adams on January 24, 2002 at 12:02:02 PT
the truth falls on deaf ears
I've done a lot of thinking on the medical marijuana issue, and I've realized a few things. Many of us wonder why, time after time, blatant lies and disinformation are accepted, or science is ignored, when it comes to medical MJ. We get frustrated because we KNOW the truth and it seems obvious (especially with internet resources like pubmed)The unfortunate reality is that the cannabis issue cannot be compared to other issues in health and medicine and pharmacy. A more accurate analogy is to religion. People CHOOSE to believe certain ideas or concepts when it comes to the cannabis plant, just as they choose religious beliefs.For instance, many millions of Christians in the U.S. believe wholeheartedly, without any doubt in their minds, that God created the Earth and everything in it in 7 days. No amount of evolution studies, or evidence, or FACTS will dissuade them - their thoughts are not determined by scientific criteria. They have decided what they want to believe.So where does that leave us? Out of luck? No. I think there are other very effective strategies. I think that instead of science and scientific evidence, COMPASSION is the key. It's much easier to convince people that the sick and dying should get whatever drug they want than it is to "prove" that medical cannabis is effective and safe.That's why ballot questions are so effective - they don't ask "is cannabis safe" or "is cannabis effective", they ask simply, should the sick and dying get ____? You could fill in the blank with whatever you want.  The government hasn't spent the last 80 years programming everyone to not have compassion. They've programmed everyone to hate cannabis.  We don't have the political resources for a frontal assault on that position - it's too well-fortified. But we can pull an end-around and appeal to people's sense of compassion.That's why it would be nice if Soros & company pitched in for just a couple more states.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by E_Johnson on January 24, 2002 at 10:39:23 PT
Doctors are SHOCKINGLY uniformed!!!
What is wrong with the people in this profession? Doesn't anyone ever bother to read the research before they open their big fat privileged mouths?The THC in marijuana tar appears to have the power to block the carcinogenic activity of the aryl hydrocarbon carcinogens in marijuana AND tobacco tar!!http://my.webmd.com/content/article/1728.57309http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11245634&dopt=AbstractSomeone needs to grab these people by the back of the neck and force them to READ THIS RESEARCH.This study ought to have been big news. It says something pretty damned amazing.Look at the willful and deliberate ignorance we have here. These doctors obviously didn't even do the most cursory literature review beofre taking a huge public stand with their suppositions and the extrapolations they beloieve they can make from their suppositions.Well sorry guys, but your extrapolations aren't Nature, they are just thoughts in your minds. To find out the truth it is best to check with Nature herself, and Nature has a few surprises for humans when it comes to THC.Well somebody in Canada needs to take a huge public stand with the facts on THC and smoking.Because these doctors are doing a lot of damage with their lazy-assed ignorant ways of holding a press conference first and searching the literature for the actual data later.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Sam Adams on January 24, 2002 at 10:02:07 PT
2 questions for the docs...
Hmmm, looks like these guys got mixed up and took the "Hypocrites' Oath" to become licensed physicians...1) How many people, in all the history of Mankind, have died from these deleterious effects of cannabis?2) How many people, in the last year, have died from taking over-the-counter meds? How many have died from prescription meds?I was going to make another statement comparing the relationship between doctors and the pharmaceutical industry to a certain sexual position, but in the the interest of good taste I will refrain.....
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by p4me on January 24, 2002 at 09:15:45 PT
more crap
 "Health Canada's emphasis on the lack of determinate evidence about the safety of marijuana is at best misleading, at worst unethical."The fact that the medical community does not speak to the medicinal value of marijuana is totally misleading and unethical. The government position on MMJ is a lie or as the Cnews community says, it is the big lie.People that have chronic pain and conditions are not interested in a detail like this even if it is true. They have immediate concerns and not what will happen in thirty years. Besides that if the corrupted government did not try to put people in jail for paraphanalia or criminally charge them for paraphanalia there would be a lot more vaporizers. Of course everyone could have high grade medical MJ which could reduce the amount of MJ needed by a third. I am not arguing science. I am arguing let us talk about the big picture and not the frame that it is hung in.Free the weed and send all 535 of our misguide Congressmen home. Conspiracy by Congress to increase the national debt that will be paid "by the children" for a war on MJ that is no more than a war against the citizens of America for the benefit of the alcohol and pill industries. Think of the children. Think of the 50 million people with chronic pain. Think of the taxpayer. Think of the criminal justice system that is over burdened and corrupted by the excess profits caused by prohibition. Think of anybody and everybody but not the monied people that like things the way they are. It is less than 4 months until the primary in May. Send a signal that the parties had better change position or everyone down to dogcatcher can be replaced. Vote against all incumbents and let us see the change that will happen. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Ethan Russo MD on January 24, 2002 at 09:12:12 PT:
Try This
Whittle, B.A., G.W. Guy, and P.J. Robson. 2001. Prospects for new cannabis-based prescription medicines. Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics 2(3-4): 183-205.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Jose Melendez on January 24, 2002 at 08:43:59 PT:
quotes to debunk
"Like tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke causes severe lung damage." said Dr. Atul Kapur. Dr. Kapur is an
          emergency medicine physician in Ottawa and president of Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada.
          "Someone who smokes two or three marijuana cigarettes per day likely faces the same risk of lung-cancer
          risk as a pack-a-day cigarette smoker."
He must not have heard about polonium and nicotine...
"Health Canada gets no brownie points for its decision to provide sick Canadians with cancer-causing
          marijuana joints instead of safer forms of marijuana," said Dr. Jim Walker, an Ottawa dermatologist and a
          member of PSC's executive board.
Seems to me that here we here on cannabisnews.com have several times pointed to evidence that marijuana is not cancer causing, but possibly might shrink tumors... 
Where were these doctors on tobacco?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Jose Melendez on January 24, 2002 at 08:36:12 PT:
found the paper
I have not read this yet, but here is the link to the Physicians for a (some) Smoke Free Canada position paper on marijuana:
http://www.smoke-free.ca/pdf_1/psc-position-on-marijuana.PDF
Smoke free? Sure. What are YOU smoking?
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment