cannabisnews.com: Book Smokes Out Marijuana Facts, Myths





Book Smokes Out Marijuana Facts, Myths
Posted by CN Staff on December 17, 2002 at 14:43:07 PT
Undercurrents
Source: Alameda Times-Star 
Few words inspire such a range of reactions, from anger and fear to excitement and laughter. Everybody's got an opinion about pot, and most of those opinions - whether for, against, neutral or incoherent - are based on myths and urban legends that have accumulated over the years. If the federal government would ever commission a thorough, fair study of marijuana's short- and long-term effects, of course, people would have some facts to back up their already vehement opinions on the subject. 
But given the decidedly non-apocalyptic conclusions of the least-biased book I've found on the subject, "Understanding Marijuana: A New Look at the Scientific Evidence," by Mitch Earleywine, the White House is unlikely to commission such a study because the results wouldn't square with the marijuana-focused anti-drug policies in place since the Reagan years. While I sympathize with sick people who find relief in medical marijuana, and while I have known plenty of smart, motivated people who smoke weed recreationally, I'm not the weed-proponent some readers think I am. Why? Because I've seen talented, strong-willed people get hooked, line and sinker, contrary to the myth that pot isn't physically addictive. I've watched college classmates lose their motivation and energy as they degenerate from occasional tokers to wake-and-bake potheads. And no matter how many rappers and professional athletes smoke out, I don't think the oft-repeated "It's no worse than alcohol" is anywhere near adequate justification for legalization. That said, marijuana use is common among young people, and the pot leaf has become a pop-culture icon to the point of kitsch. According to a 1999 study, 19 percent of Americans age 12-17 had tried it, along with 52 percent of Americans age 18-25. Most young people don't buy the old line that marijuana is a "real drug" equivalent to heroin or cocaine, so they write off warnings about its dangers. The significance of Earleywine's book is that instead of finding studies that fit his argument, the author synthesizes every available study on marijuana use and effects - and there have been hundreds, most of them flawed - in a coherent and critical form. And in his dual roles at the University of Southern California, where he's a professor of clinical science and director of clinical training in psychology, Earleywine seems to be a credible guide. So let's cut to the chase. What follows comes courtesy of Earleywine. Smokers will be interested to hear that vaporizers and water pipes (A.K.A. bongs) do not help filter out tar or contaminants, contrary to popular belief. They may cool the smoke, but they also decrease THC content (the active ingredient in marijuana), forcing a user to smoke more to get high, thus canceling out any presumed health benefits. That's not the only myth he dispels. Another is that holding smoke in the lungs for a long time doesn't increase the effect; it just causes an oxygen-deficiency head rush and more tar sticking to the insides of the chest cavity. But that's the trivial stuff. More important to know are the health effects of chronic use. As you might guess, "Marijuana is neither completely harmless nor tragically toxic," Earleywine writes. The bad news, he says, is that chronic use of marijuana can damage the brain's ability to perform complex tasks quickly, and it can mildly alter brain functioning. It can aggravate psychotic disorders and - this is important - interrupt the development of adolescents' brains. Pregnant women shouldn't smoke pot, although the research on that subject is less than conclusive. While high, a marijuana user's concentration and memory are often impaired. Pot smokers tend to be slow and careful drivers, but driving-while-stoned is dangerous because reaction times are slowed - most dramatically when weed is paired with alcohol. Earleywine reports that some pot-smokers also report guilt, paranoia, anxiety and next-day hangovers. The worst episodes of anxiety are reported by those who ingest the drug in food, such as brownies. The good news? Respiratory problems associated with marijuana-smoking tend to be mild. Rumors about new, highly potent strains of marijuana have been overblown, for while some newer strains are two to three times as potent as older strains, most users now smoke less of the stronger stuff to get high, so they don't do themselves any greater harm. Fears about fertility are largely overblown. "Large doses of cannabinoids can cause temporary changes in reproductive hormones and sperm, but these effects reverse with abstinence," Earleywine writes. If you're wondering, he's talking about abstinence from marijuana, not sex. Anyway, there's lots more. And while the book's not particularly well-written and is sometimes rife with scientific jargon, anyone interested in the subject of pot - whether they side with Dennis Peron or Nancy Reagan - will benefit from reading "Understanding Marijuana." It's not the last word on the subject, but it goes a long way in sweeping away the myths and urban legends that have plagued this debate for too long. Undercurrents runs Tuesdays and Fridays. You can contact Rory at:  rlaverty angnewspapers.com Source: Alameda Times-Star (CA) Published: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 Copyright: 2002 MediaNews Group, Inc. and ANG Newspapers Website: http://www.timesstar.com/ Contact: triblet angnewspapers.com Related Articles & Web Site:Understanding Marijuana http://oup-usa.org/isbn/0195138937.htmlText of Mitch Earleywine Interview on NPR http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14712.shtmlThe Roots of Reefer Madnesshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14653.shtmlThe Smoke That Terrifies, Satisfies & Mystifies http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13484.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #15 posted by mayan on December 18, 2002 at 17:09:47 PT
OOPS!
I was quoting Rory Laverty's opinions...not Mr. Earleywine's book! My fault...duh!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by darwin on December 18, 2002 at 14:12:24 PT
Dan Burton
Thanks Mayan, Druid for that link. That was really interesting to see that hearing. Carr's face seemed to turn red and sweaty after Dan brought that up. 
Why is this Dan's last hearing?
The problem is, most these politicians do know the truth, but never say anything until "their last meeting" or after they leave office. IE: Bill Clinton.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by p4me on December 18, 2002 at 12:51:30 PT
Congressman Dan Burton & FreeRepublic.com
This concerns the link the subject Mayan presented with the link and C-span coverage of the statements made by Congressman Dan Burton. There is a link up at FreeRepublic with 471 comments since Tuesday: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/808036/posts1
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by druid on December 18, 2002 at 11:05:15 PT:
link mayan posted
Here's an interesting piece regarding a congressional hearing on Plan Columbia... Drug Legalization Considered On Capitol Hill: http://rense.com/general32/legl.htm
YOU have got to read this and then Watch this hearing at http://video.c-span.org:8080/ramgen/ldrive/e121202_heroin.rm
 
(advance to 1 hour and 18 minutes into the broadcast for Burton's remarks -- this particular exchange is about ten minutes long).
 
Be sure to see Rep. Jan Schakowsky's followup remark to Burton. 
House Government Reform Committee hearing in Congress
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by kanabys on December 18, 2002 at 07:19:48 PT
Thanks Bgreen
I am guessing you have the book. If so, this is so underhanded of this author. The part about the vaporizers I mean, and others. The statements say exactly the opposite.
I really tend to believe the author of the book, not this article. He sounds fairly biased to me.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by BGreen on December 18, 2002 at 04:08:33 PT
Thanks, Dr. Russo
I've already emailed the author with a carbon copy going to the Editor and Managing Editor of his publication.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by Ethan Russo MD on December 18, 2002 at 04:02:20 PT:
Thanks, BGreen
Thanks for ferretting out these distinctions. Mitch is one of the good guys, while this article is inept and inaccurate.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by BGreen on December 17, 2002 at 21:11:57 PT
Rory Laverty Needs A Better Fact Checker
Let's compare some of this authors' comments to the "Text of Mitch Earleywine Interview on NPR" from the link FoM posted.Rory Laverty, the author of this piece, believes in the "A-motivational syndrome:""Why? Because I've seen talented, strong-willed people get hooked, line and sinker, contrary to the myth that pot isn't physically addictive. I've watched college classmates lose their motivation and energy as they degenerate from occasional tokers to wake-and- bake potheads."Now, let's read what Mitch Earleywine said on NPR:"A-motivational Syndrome was this notion that you would somehow smoke cannabis and suddenly not want to do anything for society not want to contribute not want to hold a job and be incapable of setting goals and obtaining them. In both education and in occupational domains the data just don't seem to support this. For example, college students who smoke cannabis get grades that are comparable to college students who do not. Cannabis users seem to earn as much money and pay the same amount of taxes. Those sorts of things all seem to kind of defy the idea of A-motivational Syndrome."How about the misstatement on vaporizers? Here's Rory Laverty's statement:"Smokers will be interested to hear that vaporizers and water pipes (A.K.A. bongs) do not help filter out tar or contaminants, contrary to popular belief. They may cool the smoke, but they also decrease THC content (the active ingredient in marijuana), forcing a user to smoke more to get high, thus canceling out any presumed health benefits."Now, here's what Earleywine says:"However, some of the new harm reduction techniques have developed in order to avoid lung damage. Such as using a vaporizer and things like that, have changed the way people smoke cannabis just in the last few years. And these are sort-of gizmos, if you will, that will heat up cannabis in a way that it doesn't actually smoke but it will provide canabinoids (sic) in a vapor and will allow people to get the drugs effects without exposing them to dangerous tars and carcinogens."I don't need to go on, because this has shown that the author, Rory Laverty, has written a sloppy article rife with personal bias and conflicts with the actual words of Mitch Earleywine. I wonder whether Rory Laverty has even held Earleywines' book in his hands, let alone read it with the comprehension of a 5th grader.
Text of Mitch Earleywine Interview on NPR
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by mayan on December 17, 2002 at 18:40:15 PT
Physically Addictive?
"While I sympathize with sick people who find relief in medical marijuana, and while I have known plenty of smart, motivated people who smoke weed recreationally, I'm not the weed-proponent some readers think I am. Why? Because I've seen talented, strong-willed people get hooked, line and sinker, contrary to the myth that pot isn't physically addictive. I've watched college classmates lose their motivation and energy as they degenerate from occasional tokers to wake-and-bake potheads."You've got to be kidding me! Mr. Earleywine thinks that marijuana is physically addictive? If he believes that old, disproven myth, then his book is certainly somewhat biased. I'll pass on reading this one.Here's an interesting piece regarding a congressional hearing on Plan Columbia...
Drug Legalization Considered On Capitol Hill:
http://rense.com/general32/legl.htmThe way out is the way in -Thomas Kean to Chair 911 Commission:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0212/S00106.htmKISSINGER RESIGNS FROM 9/11 COMMISSION!!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2574741.stmMitchell Resigns From 9/11 Commission! http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGA28TUTM9D.htmlThe 9/11 Conspiracy:
http://members.aol.com/sneiracs/911.htm
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by null on December 17, 2002 at 16:21:40 PT
web searches
As an interesting side note: Lycos released a list of last year's top search terms. After filtering out sex, (which always tops the list... duh.) they posted the results. Our favorite plant came in at #22 - right behind The Bible. We managed to beat out Jennifer Lopez and Star Wars even! We should all do a Lycos search everyday to send it up to the top ten. :)
http://50.lycos.com/
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Nasarius on December 17, 2002 at 15:19:32 PT
Vaporizers
"Further, does that reduce the THC like the guy said?"That seems impossible. If the vaporizer is reaching the boiling point of THC, all THC (and everything with a boiling point under that of THC) will vaporize. With a list of chemicals in cannabis and their boiling points, it should be fairly simple to determine how many contaminants are being filtered by a good vaporizer.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by aocp on December 17, 2002 at 15:15:04 PT
is this a bait-&-switch?
Smokers will be interested to hear that vaporizers and water pipes (A.K.A. bongs) do not help filter out tar or contaminants, contrary to popular belief. They may cool the smoke, but they also decrease THC content (the active ingredient in marijuana), forcing a user to smoke more to get high, thus canceling out any presumed health benefits.Why is he including vaporizers under the functionings of a bong? I'm certainly no expert, but i thought vaporizers reduced the contaminents to near zip due to the vaporizing temperature and the nature of vapor itself. Further, does that reduce the THC like the guy said? I prefer glass bowls, meself, but i do enjoy using vaporizers as a good debating tool. So what's the real deal?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by pokesmotter on December 17, 2002 at 15:11:35 PT:
I have been to alameda!
This is a great story/book review. "'Marijuana is neither completely harmless nor tragically toxic,' Earleywine writes." YES!! It is true"The good news? Respiratory problems associated with marijuana-smoking tend to be mild. Rumors about new, highly potent strains of marijuana have been overblown, for while some newer strains are two to three times as potent as older strains, most users now smoke less of the stronger stuff to get high, so they don't do themselves any greater harm."This is true as well.
I wonder if my family in Alameda read the aritcle??
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Nasarius on December 17, 2002 at 15:08:04 PT
Brains...
"The bad news, he says, is that chronic use of marijuana can damage the brain's ability to perform complex tasks quickly, and it can mildly alter brain functioning."According to whom, I might ask? Every study I've seen on the subject has concluded that long-term neural effects of cannabis are somewhere between negligible and zero.Such as:
http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/references/journal/1999_lyketsos_epidemiology_1/1999_lyketsos_epidemiology_1_text.pdf
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by p4me on December 17, 2002 at 15:05:44 PT
Here we go again
The guy presents reasons why people might not want to use cannabis and he does this by calling it marijuana, but he does not explain why people should be arrested, fined, and imprisoned, much less why you should lose your right to vote, for using it.I did a $4.20 yesterday and one today for kerosine along with a $4.21 which was a overrun. I have 9 attempts with 8 seccesses. And you?1
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment