Pot Advocates Overreach Themselves

L.A. set to close most marijuana dispensaries.

Medical marijuana advocates in Los Angeles appear to have overreached themselves, angering the City Council by establishing more than a thousand medical marijuana dispensaries in commercial and residential neighborhoods around the city.

According to a report by Jennifer Steinhauer in the New York Times, a board member for the neighborhood council in Studio City called the 13 dispensaries in her 3.5 square miles-neighborhood “unbelievable.”

The City Council struck back hard on Tuesday, passing a city ordinance that would “shutter the majority of the nearly 1,000 medical marijuana dispensaries in Los Angeles and make the use of marijuana in the remaining outlets illegal,” according to the New York Times article. Claiming that Los Angeles now had more marijuana dispensaries than Starbucks outlets, Councilman Ed Reyes, chairman of the planning and land-use management committee, called the situation “out of control.”

Two years ago, Los Angeles imposed a moratorium on the establishment of new dispensaries, pending further study. But medical marijuana advocates flouted the temporary ban with impunity. According to the article, “The measure, which passed on a 9-to-3 vote, imposes strict rules on the location of the dispensaries — essentially moving them to more densely industrial zones — and restricts their hours. The ordinance, which city officials acknowledge would be difficult to enforce, will limit the number of dispensaries to 70….”

According to the Los Angeles Times :  “In a 9-3 vote, the Los Angeles City Council today gave its final approval to an ordinance that will shut down hundreds of medical marijuana dispensaries and impose strict rules on the location and operation of the dispensaries that are allowed. The ordinance, which the council first began discussing more than 4 1/2 years ago, will cap the number of dispensaries at 70 but make an exception to allow all those that registered with the city in 2007 and have remained open. City officials believe that number is around 150.”

Photo Credit: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2010085782_lapot18.html

If You’ve Seen One Drug Czar....

The language of drug politics.

In a May 29 post on his Salon blog, Drug WarRant, Peter Guither deftly deconstructs the language of drug czarism, and its corrosive effect on rational dialog over drug policy:

--So far, there has been little or no discussion of marijuana from the newest drug czar, Obama’s man Gil Kerlikowske, now director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. “I've got to admit that it's a nice change from the reefer madness reign of Walters,” Guither writes. “Maybe Kerlikowske is following my mother's age-old advice... If you can't say something nice (and he can't by law), then don't say anything at all.”

--Prescription drugs are “the new crack.” To his credit, Guither worries about this new emphasis, and where it is likely to lead: “The prescription drug "epidemic" will be an excuse to further crack down on diversion, which will end up continuing the focus on pain doctors who prescribe large amounts of pain medication, with DEA agents deciding they know more than doctors. The result will be even more people suffering, unable to get the pain medication that actually makes life possible for thousands of people.”

--Drugs cause crime. As proof, Kerlikowske cites the statistic that half the men arrested in ten major U.S. cities tested positive for some sort of illegal drug, as reported by USA Today. From this data, Kerlikowske concludes that there is “a clear link between drugs and crime.” Guither notes that “There's a lot of reasons that people who have been arrested would tend to test positive for illicit drug use than the general population..... A very large percentage of arrests are for drug crimes, which naturally skews the population. Then there are socio-economic factors and a lot more.”

However, what the new drug czar is implying, writes Guither, is that drugs cause crime. “But implying that drugs cause crime is a lie. And that's what drug czars do.”

Kerlikowske has also come out in favor of greater use of drug courts as an alternative to prison sentences. Bill Piper, director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance Network, told USA Today he agreed that drug use should be seen as a public health issue, but that “people shouldn't have to get arrested to get treatment."

Photo Credit: Lifehype Magazine

addiction drugs medical marijuana

Marijuana Legalization Is Coming, Says Pollster

Nate Silver reads the numbers.

Last month, I missed this crucial article, penned by the inestimable Nate Silver. Silver, you may recall, is the numbers nerd who shamed all conventional pollsters during the run-up to the presidential election—and then proceeded to predict the Electoral College vote with perfect accuracy.

So when Nate Silver takes a hard look at statistics having to do with American sentiment about marijuana legalization, it behooves us to take his findings seriously. In an April 5 post called “Why Marijuana Legalization is Gaining Momentum,” on his FiveThirtyEight.com blog, Silver lays out the inevitable chronology.

“Back in February, we detailed how record numbers of Americans -- although certainly not yet a majority -- support the idea of legalizing marijuana,” Silver writes. “It turns out that there may be a simple explanation for this: an ever-increasing fraction of Americans have used pot at some point in their lifetimes.”

According to Silver’s number crunching, the peak pot year in anyone’s life is on or about age 20—duh—with most people reaching some sort of usage plateau between the ages of 30 and 50. The important point, Silver writes, has to do with the fraction of adults who have used. This is a dual-peaked distribution, “with one peak occurring among adults who are roughly age 50 now, and would have come of age in the 1970s, and another among adults in their early 20s. Generation X, meanwhile, in spite of its reputation for slackertude, were somewhat less eager consumers of pot than the generations either immediately preceding or proceeding them.”

Furthermore, reports of lifetime usage drop off precipitously after 55. “About half of 55-year-olds have used marijuana at some point in their lives, but only about 20 percent of 65-year-olds have.”

What does this tell us? While there is certainly not an exact correspondence between people who have smoked pot and people who support legalization, Silver ventures to guess that the link is fairly strong. What we have here, he argues, is a “fairly strong generation gap when it comes to pot legalization. As members of the Silent Generation are replaced in the electorate by younger voters, who are more likely to have either smoked marijuana themselves or been around those that have, support for legalization is likely to continue to gain momentum.”

Photo: Minnesotaindependent.com

addiction drugs medical marijuana

Time for a Sales Tax on Sinsemilla?

Will states let marijuana revenue go up in smoke?

As California State Assembly member Tom Ammiano put it: “What if California could raise hundreds of millions of dollars in new revenue to preserve vital state services without any tax increase?”

That question is likely to hook any state legislature’s attention these days. When times are tough, you go with your strengths. In California, one of those strengths is the nation’s most robust homegrown marijuana industry—virtually all of it off the books at present.

Reeling from a $42 billion budget deficit, the California government has been slashing deeply into state spending. The marijuana industry, variously estimated at anywhere between $4 and $14 billion per year, is the state’s largest cash crop.

Is this any time to be turning down a couple of billion dollars a year in potential state revenue? The question of marijuana decriminalization may begin to be seen under a different light, as cash-strapped states look in every corner for ways to add revenue.

The Marijuana Control, Regulation and Education Act, introduced in the California legislature last week, would legalize the possession and sale of marijuana for people over 21—with a hefty sales tax similar to the taxes imposed on the sale of alcohol and cigarettes. The bill would prohibit open street sales or sales near schools. Marijuana wholesalers would be charged several thousand dollars up front to distribute the crop, and an individual sales fee of $50 per ounce at the retail level would be applied.

Proponents of the bill claimed it would generate more than $1 billion annually, according to a report by Stu Woo in the Wall Street Journal. The California chapter of NORML estimates that the take for the Golden State could be as high as $2.5 billion a year, when excise taxes, savings in law enforcement expenditures, and spinoff industries like coffee houses are taken into account.

Ammiano, the Democrat from San Francisco who introduced the bill, told Salon: “I do have support from a lot of colleagues, who say, ‘Oh my God, I think this is great, but I don’t think I can vote for it.’” In an opinion piece for the San Francisco Chronicle, Ammiano wrote that his reason for introducing the bill was to begin “a rational public policy discussion about how best to regulate the state’s largest cash crop, estimated to be worth roughly $14 billion annually. Placing marijuana under the same regulatory system that now applies to alcohol represents the natural evolution...” In addition, Ammiano suggests, “Regulation allows common-sense controls and takes the marijuana industry out of the hands of unregulated criminals.”

A lobbyist for California police groups told the Wall Street Journal that the bill was “based on a fallacious assumption that if we could only legalize marijuana, that we will have fiscal and social Shangri-La.”

Nonetheless, more than a dozen states have signaled a willingness to move toward more liberal marijuana enforcement policies recently. All of these efforts eventually collide with competing federal statutes, making the possession and sale of marijuana potentially a federal crime. As with the issue of gay marriage, it is possible that states will continue to push back, resisting federal efforts to nullify state changes in marijuana enforcement policy.

Photo Credit: Forest Service Drug Control Program

addictiondrugsmedical marijuana

Obama Set to Name New Drug Czar

Seattle police chief gets the nod.

Drug reformers, hoping for the appointment of a public health official, expressed initial dismay at the news that President Barack Obama will nominate Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske as the nation’s new “drug czar.”

As the president’s evident choice to head up the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), Kerlikowske is not known for highlighting drug issues in national law enforcement circles, notes the Drug War Chronicle. “While we’re disappointed that President Obama seems poised to nominate a police chief instead of a major public heath advocate as drug czar,” said Drug Policy Alliance’s Ethan Nadelmann, “we’re cautiously optimistic that Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske will support Obama’s drug policy reform agenda.”

According to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, “He’s likely to be the best drug czar we’ve seen, but that’s not saying much,” Nadelmann said. “At least we know that when talk about needle exchanges and decriminalizing marijuana arrests, it’s not going to be the first time he’s heard about them.”

For those worried about a radical change in the nation’s drug policy, Seattle City Councilman Nick Licata sought to assure citizens that Kerlikowske is “not on a platform arguing for decriminalization of drugs or radical drug reform measures.”

A spokesperson for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) told the Post-Intelligencer: “I would imagine that being a chief law-enforcement officer makes it very difficult for someone to speak out in favor of more progressive drug laws and drug policies.” However, former Seattle Police Chief and drug reform advocate Norm Stamper insisted that Kerlikowske was more inclined to support “research-driven and evidence-based conclusions about public policy.”

In “Advice for the New Drug Czar,” an article for the online edition of The American Prospect, drug policy experts Mark Kleiman of UCLA and Harold Pollack of the University of Chicago laid out their recommendations for Kerlikowske. Here is an example of their thinking:

--“You’ll be told that we have a national strategy resting on three legs: enforcement, prevention, and treatment. Don’t believe it. There is no coherent strategy. Enforcement, prevention and treatment are the names of three quarrelling constituency groups whose pressures you will sometimes need to resist....”

--“There are some real ‘drug wars’ raging: in Afghanistan, in Columbia, and in northern Mexico. Those wars matter terribly to the countries involved, but no outcome of those wars is likely to make the drug situation in the United States noticeably better or worse.”

--“Treatment needs to be more accessible and more accountable. Good news: even lousy treatment has benefits greater than its costs. Bad news: much of the treatment actually delivered is, in fact, pretty lousy. Demand to see results, and insist on rigorous evaluations. Focus resources on effective programs. It’s an outrage to have addicts dying of overdoses while on waiting lists for methadone treatment.”

--“Most primary care providers never perform highly cost-effective screening and brief intervention, because they’re neither trained for it nor paid for it. Many don’t think that dealing with drug abuse is in their job description; it needs to be.”

--“’Drug Czar’ is a silly title.”


Photo Credit: www.pbs.org

medical marijuana

Obama’s Emerging Drug Program

President to lift ban on needle exchanges.

While reformers are far from pleased with the initial rollout of President Obama’s drug policy agenda, treatment activists can at least point to a significant change in the federal stance on clean needle exchange programs. Unlike former President Bush, who supported a ban on federal funding of such public health programs, Obama’s agenda, as spelled out at Whitehouse.gov, calls for rescinding the ban in an effort to save lives by reducing the transmission of HIV/AIDS. "The President," according to the agenda, "supports lifting the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users."

Opponents of needle exchange say the effort is similar to the medical marijuana movement—a stealth strategy for the legalization of drugs. However, as I wrote in an earlier post, the administration’s support of needle exchange is a timely recognition that cities like Vancouver and San Francisco are already experimenting with the notion of safe drug injection sites. (Part of the argument in favor of such sites is the opportunity for clean needle exchanges.)

Under the heading “Civil Rights,” the White House web site has also signaled support for the expanded use of drug courts to allow non-violent offenders into “the type of drug rehabilitation programs that have proven to work better than a prison term in changing bad behavior.” The agenda also calls for the reduction of sentencing inequities (“President Obama and Vice President Biden believe the disparity between sentencing crack and powder-based cocaine is wrong and should be completely eliminated”).

An article in Drug War Chronicle notes that “reformers may find themselves pleased with some Obama positions, but they will be less happy with others. The Obama administration wants to reduce inequities in the criminal justice system, but it is also taking thoroughly conventional positions on other drug policy issues.”

To wit, marijuana. Activists were hoping for a clear demonstration of support for the use of medical marijuana. So far, that hasn’t happened. Marijuana is not mentioned at all in the relevant sections of the online policy agenda, though the document is known to be a work in progress.

Nonetheless, it might be well to heed the advice offered by the U.K.’s Transform Drug Policy Foundation: “Lifting the disgraceful needle exchange funding ban is a good start considering we are only in day one—and the generally pragmatic tone bodes well. Can we be cautiously optimistic? Yes we can.”

Graphics Credit: Pharmacy Exchange

medical marijuana

A Dubious Choice for Drug Czar

Obama should just say no to Congressman Ramstad.

At the Huffington Post, Maia Szalavitz deconstructs the exaggerated outcome data being used by Minnesota Teen Challenge (MNTC) to document the supposed effectiveness of their addiction treatment program. Plenty of treatment programs inflate their success numbers, knowingly or unknowingly, by using flawed statistics to support their arguments. Often--as in this case--there is no control group, thereby making firm statements about the “success” of a treatment all but impossible to prove.

So why bother pointing out such obvious problems in the case of Minnesota Teen Challenge? Primarily, Szalavitz writes, because “the sole sponsor of an earmark providing $235,000 to Minnesota Teen Challenge, a branch of a national anti-addiction group which believes that recruiting people into the Assemblies of God ministry will cure their addiction,” was none other than Jim Ramstad (R-Minnesota) a populist conservative Obama is considering as the nation’s new “Drug Czar.”

(Earlier this year, Congressman Ramstad came out in opposition to plans for the crescent-shaped Flight 93 Memorial Project, arguing that the design had “Islamic features.”)

NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, gives Ramstad a grade of 30, indicating a “hard-on-drugs” stance. Ramstad, an alcoholic in recovery, backs expanded drug testing for federal employees, and beefed-up military patrols along the Mexican border in order to battle “drugs and terrorism.”

Unfortunately for the country’s hard drug addicts, Ramstad is also adamantly opposed to such things as needle exchange programs and medical marijuana.

No word yet from Ramstad on sentencing issues or the matter of addiction treatment rather than incarceration.

medical marijuana

Michigan, Massachusetts Pass Marijuana Proposals

Voters bolster medical marijuana movement—or do they?

On November 4, both Michigan and Massachusetts passed harm reduction measures aimed at eliminating stiff penalties for possession of small amounts of marijuana. Opponents vowed to keep fighting.

In Michigan, on a vote of 63% to 37%, voters passed Proposal 1, allowing for the physician-supervised possession and use of cannabis. However, the initiative did not go as far as allowing for licensed medical dispensaries, as California has done. Nonetheless, this was not a happy outcome for the President’s Office of National Drug Control Policy and its director, John P. Walters, who campaigned strenuously against the measure, calling it an “abomination” and said it was likely to lead to marijuana shops in every neighborhood. For its part, the Michigan Coalition for Compassionate Care said that passage of the proposal would mean that “seriously ill Michiganders who use medical marijuana with their doctors’ recommendation will no longer face the threat of arrest and jail.”

Similar scare tactics failed to deter the electorate of Massachusetts, where 65% of voters came down in favor of Question 2, which calls for rolling back penalties for possession of small amounts of marijuana to traffic-fine levels—a strategy which was adopted successfully, if briefly, by Oregon, Alaska, and other states some 35 years ago.

As in Michigan, a full-on campaign against the measure painted a picture of dire consequences for Massachusetts, such as a surge of workplace safety issues and traffic accidents. According to the Marijuana Policy Project, the state’s District Attorneys predicted an epidemic of teen marijuana use. State authorities have the ability to amend the new statute under state law.

Michigan and Massachusetts now become the 13th and 14th states to offer some protection for the medical use of marijuana. Both propositions were heavily endorsed by major newspapers in both states. The city of Fayetteville, Arkansas, as well as Hawaii County in Hawaii, passed ballot measures designed to make marijuana enforcement a low priority for local law officers.

Meanwhile, in California a proposition designed to divert greater numbers of drug offenders from jail to treatment, while decriminalizing the possession of up to an ounce of marijuana by anybody, went down to defeat. Supporters of Proposition 5 had argued that the change was necessary because of serious overcrowding in California’s state jail systems. (See Addicts, Alcoholics Overwhelm Prison System).

Here's a brief roundup of drug-related propositions on last week's ballots:
Marijuana Policy Project

Graphic Credit: Michigan Coalition for Compassionate Care

medical marijuana

Drugs on the Ballot

States to vote on drug policy proposals.

The Drug War Chronicle has done an excellent job of rounding up the various drug policy initiatives that will appear on state ballots in November. The majority of these initiatives concern marijuana decriminalization, medical marijuana, and prison sentencing reform. The Drug War Chronicle reports in its October 3 issue that the pace of drug policy initiatives has slowed, compared to the beginning of the decade, when medical marijuana initiatives were on the ballot in dozens of states.

While California voters will be asked to strengthen their support of medical marijuana and lessen penalties for possession, voters in Michigan and Massachusetts will have the opportunity to follow California’s lead with marijuana decriminalization initiatives of their own. Michigan’s Proposition 1 would legalize the use of marijuana with a doctor’s recommendation, and would also allow a medical necessity defense when marijuana cases are being prosecuted. According to the Chronicle, a recent poll showed that 66 per cent of Michigan voters favored the proposal. In Massachusetts, Question 2 on the ballot would legalize the possession of up to an ounce of marijuana.

California’s Proposition 5 builds on the original work Proposition 36, the 2002 initiative that kicked off the medical marijuana movement in that state. Proposition 5 would divert drug offenders into treatment rather than prison, expand prison rehab programs, and decriminalize possession of an ounce or less.

In Oregon, a medical marijuana initiative is slated for the 2010 election. This year, Ballot Measures 61 and 57 attempt to move things in the opposite direction by imposing stiff mandatory minimum prison sentences for a variety of drug offenses.

There are also some municipal policy initiatives up for a vote this year, including Measure JJ in Berkeley, California. The measure seeks to “broaden and regularize medical marijuana access” through additional dispensaries and uniform operating rules. Fayetteville, Arkansas has a grassroots initiative that would mandate adult marijuana possession as “the lowest law enforcement priority.”

Finally, voters on the Big Island of Hawaii will confront Ballot Question 1, which in essence prohibits law enforcement from spending any money to enforce laws against adult marijuana possession. The Drug War Chronicle says that the initiative was the product of “Project Peaceful Sky, a local grassroots organization whose name alludes to the disruption of tranquility caused by law enforcement helicopters searching for marijuana.”

medical marijuana

Bill to Legalize Marijuana Offered in U.S. House

Rep. Frank seeks to end Fed war on pot.

Nobody expects it to pass except its most ardent enthusiasts, but H.R. 5843, a bill "To Eliminate Most Federal Penalties for Possession of Marijuana for Personal Use, and for Other Purposes," sponsored by Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and Rep Ron Paul (R-TX), was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on April 17. It is not the first such attempt, nor is it likely to be the last.

The bill would remove federal penalties for personal possession of up to 100 grams of marijuana, or roughly 3 1/2 ounces. Not-for-profit transfers of up to an ounce of pot would also be legal under the statutes. A civil penalty of $100 would be levied for public use of marijuana.

The bill would not affect federal laws prohibiting major drug dealing, nor would it interfere with or hinder federal agencies prosecuting the cultivation and export of cannabis. In addition, the bill does not seek to alter the legal status of marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug under the Controlled Substances Act.

The bill is an a rational attempt to break through the confusion surrounding the various laws passed in at least twelve states that allow people to use marijuana for certain medical purposes. The confusion reached a peak last year when several medical marijuana dispensaries--operating legally under California statutes--were raided and their owners arrested by Federal drug enforcement authorities. The message from the hard-line Feds was: Even if it's legal in your state, it's not legal to us.

Rep. Frank has taken on this issue before. In 1970, he filed a bill to decriminalize marijuana in Massachusetts. He has also argued before NORML--the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws--that such issues rightly belong to the states.

In a letter to the Providence Journal, Frank also vowed to introduce a new version of his "State's Right to Medical Marijuana Act," which he has offered as legislation "every year since 1997."

"If the laws I am proposing pass," Frank explains at Daily Kos, "states will still be free to treat marijuana as they wish. But I do not believe that the federal government should treat adults who choose to smoke marijuana as criminals. Federal law enforcement is a serious business, and we should be concentrating our efforts in this regard on measures that truly protect the public."

Rep. Frank said on "Real Time with Bill Maher" that the new bill could be called the "Make Room for the Serious Criminals" act.

In a prepared statement, Rep. Frank said: "I think it is poor law enforcement to keep on the books legislation that establishes as a crime something which in fact society does not seriously wish to prosecute." The Massachusetts congressman added that "having federal law enforcement agents engaged in the prosecution of people who are personally using marijuana is a waste of scarce resources better used for serious crimes."

Sarah Rubenstein of The Wall Street Journal reports that groups such as the Massachusetts branch of D.A.R.E. and the Drug Enforcement Administration continue to oppose the legalization of marijuana because it would signal to children that the drug is benign.

Frank also noted in his letter to the Providence Journal that "bipartisan amendments have been introduced by my colleagues, Representatives Maurice D. Hinchey (D-NY) and Dana Rohrbacher (R-CA) every year since 2003 to preclude the use of federal funding to prosecute medical-marijuana patients by the Department of Justice. Each time the amendment has been voted on, it has failed in the House."

Photo Credit: Medical Marijuana Blog

medical marijuana

Marijuana Fact and Fiction

Why cannabis research is a good idea.

There is little doubt among responsible researchers that marijuana--although it is addictive for some people--is sometimes a clinically useful drug. However, there is little incentive for commercial pharmaceutical houses to pursue research on the cannabis plant itself, since they cannot patent it.

The use of marijuana in the treatment of glaucoma is well established. As for the relief of nausea caused by chemotherapy, the precise “antiemetic” mechanism has not yet been identified, but several studies show that marijuana works at least as well as the popular remedy Compazine for controlling nausea. Cancer patients have used marijuana successfully to increase appetite and combat severe weight loss.

Yet another intriguing possibility centers on Huntington’s chorea, the single-gene disease researchers spent years chasing down. Early data from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), reported in Science News, showed a loss of THC receptors in the brains of Huntington’s sufferers.

Queen Elizabeth believed that marijuana tamed her menstrual cramps back in the 16th Century, but there is no clinical and little anecdotal evidence to support this notion. Perhaps the anti-anxiety and mood elevating effects associated with marijuana are useful for menstrual irritation and mood swings, just as they are sometimes perceived to be useful by those suffering from depression.

The typical joint rolled in paper contains roughly 0.5 grams of plant matter, of which anywhere from 1 to 15 per cent is THC. THC content varies widely because some genetic strains of cannabis are more potent than others. This fact has led to intense debate in the United Kingdom over the issue of so-called “Skunk” marijuana. Skunk is not a new, lethally potent form of pot, but rather a shorthand term for describing one of several strains of strong, aromatic female marijuana plants. Most of the potent forms of marijuana for sale are hybrids resulting from cross-pollination of various strains. Of itself, “Skunk” marijuana is no more or less dangerous than other potent and popular varietals, such as “White Widow” or "Hawaiian Haze."

The half-life of marijuana is fairly short—about 50 hours for inexperienced users, and about half that for experienced users. However, THC and its metabolites are fat soluble, and are therefore easily stored in fatty tissue. Other drugs clear the system much more efficiently. The marijuana high may be history, but the metabolites live on--for up to 30 days. Blood tests can confirm THC in the body, but cannot reliably determine how recently the marijuana was smoked. There is no marijuana analysis kit comparable to the Breathalyzer test for alcohol. Drivers under the influence of cannabis may suffer some perceptual impairment. They tend to drive more slowly and take fewer risks, compared to drivers under the influence of alcohol. Possibly, cannabis smokers are hyperaware of the modest motor impairments they exhibit under the influence. Heavy drinkers are often unaware that there is anything wrong with their driving at all, as their sometimes-vociferous arguments with police officers and state troopers can attest.

As with cigarettes, chronic pot smoking can lead to chronic bronchitis. We don’t know for certain whether heavy marijuana use causes lung cancer, but it seems safe to assume that smoking vegetable matter in any form is not compatible with the long-term health of lung tissue. Patients with risk factors for cardiovascular disease are well advised not to smoke anything. Marijuana smoking can raise the resting heart rate as much as 30 per cent in a matter of minutes, and while there is no present evidence of harmful effects from this, we will have to monitor the situation more closely as pot-smoking and former pot-smoking Baby Boomers enter their cardiovascular disease years.

Other patients for whom marijuana is definitely not indicated include those suffering from respiratory disorders--asthma, emphysema, or bronchitis. In addition, schizophrenics or anyone at genetic risk for schizophrenia should shun pot, as it has been known to exacerbate or precipitate schizophrenic episodes—though it does not, as is commonly rumored, cause schizophrenia.

The evidence for significant impairment of cognitive function is equivocal—heavy marijuana use does not, like alcohol, result in gross structural brain damage. Numerous studies have addressed the possibility of subtler impairments in memory, attention, and the retention of new information. The extent to which such alterations are transient as opposed to long term is still under scientific debate.

Cannabis augments the effects of morphine in animal studies, thus allowing for a lower dose of opiates. Pain relief may be a primary attribute of anandamide—the brain’s own THC. Rats given the drug were less sensitive to pain than their non-drugged counterparts, as detailed in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Drug companies may have closed the book on marijuana spin-offs too early. It would not be surprising if pills to selectively increase the amount of anandamide in the brain will one day augment or offer an alternative to existing anti-anxiety medications or pain relievers. On the other hand, a substance that blocks anandamide might find use as an agent to help combat memory loss.

Graphic: http://www.seedsman.com/en/health

For more, see: The Chemical Carousel: What Science Tells Us About Beating Addiction © Dirk Hanson 2008, 2009.

Related Posts: Anandamide: The Brain's Own Marijuana

medical marijuana

Anandamide: The Brain’s Own Marijuana

Anxiety and the THC receptor.

Several years ago, molecular biologists identified the elusive brain receptor where THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, did its work. Shortly after that discovery, researchers at Hebrew University in Jerusalem identified the body’s own form of THC, which sticks to the same receptors, in pulverized pig brains. They christened the internally manufactured substance “anandamide,” after the Sanskrit ananda, or bliss.

Anandamide has a streamlined three-dimensional structure that THC mimics, and both molecules slipped easily across the blood-brain barrier. Anandamide is a short-lived, fragile molecule, and does not produce a dramatic natural high, unlike a surge of endorphins, or dopamine—or the THC in a joint. In 2001, researchers at the Keck Center for Integrative Neuroscience at the University of California-San Francisco found evidence that THC may perform a signaling function in neurons containing GABA and glutamate. It appears that marijuana increases dopamine and serotonin levels through the intermediary activation of opiate and GABA receptors.

However, anandamide has a number of other effects, particularly on movement and cognition. Because of this, the “bliss molecule” moniker is a bit misleading. THC and its organic cousin make an impressive triple play in the brain: They effect movement through receptors in the basal ganglia, they alter sensory perception through receptors in the cerebral cortex, and they impact memory by means of receptors in the hippocampus.

It was left for animal physiologist Gary Weesner of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to answer the burning question: “How do pigs use their anandamide?” While studying the possibility of using anandamide as a sedative for animals, Dr. Weesner discovered that pigs treated with anandamide tended to have lower body temperature, slower respiration, and less movement—all of which are signs of a calmer porcine state of mind.

So much for pigs. What does anandamide do in the human brain? For starters, we can look toward those controversial indications for which marijuana is already being prescribed: anxiety relief, appetite enhancement (compounds similar to anandamide have been discovered in dark chocolate) suppression of nausea, relief from the symptoms of glaucoma, and amelioration of certain kinds of pain. U.S. pharmaceutical houses, Pfizer in particular, worked with THC for years, seeking profitable patents. But Pfizer never succeeded in separating out the various pharmacological effects of marijuana, and in the end, their efforts were limited to the manufacture of synthetic THC.

Ten years ago, scientists at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) uncovered preliminary evidence that cannabis may afford a measure of protection from brain cell damage due to stroke. An Israeli pharmaceutical company announced plans to test a synthetic marijuana derivative for the treatment of strokes and brain injury. There are few effective treatments for stroke, the third leading killer in the United States.

The question of short-term memory loss under the influence of pot appears to have been answered by related research. Findings from the Neurosciences Institute in San Diego show that cannabinoids are capable of blocking new memory formation in animal brain tissue. If anandamide receptors trigger a form of forgetfulness, this may be part of the brain’s system of filtering out unimportant or unpleasant memories—a vital function, without which we would all be overwhelmed by irrelevant and unprovoked memories at every turn.

For example, the brain’s own cannabis may help women “forget” the pain and stress of childbearing, allowing them to concentrate on the immediate needs of the newborn. Other animal research suggests that the uterus grows anandamide receptors in heavy concentrations before embryo implantation. Still other studies show that newborn kittens and monkeys have more marijuana receptors in the cortex than adults do, so it is possible that anandamide may play some role in setting up the development of cortical function in infants.

For more, see earlier posts:
Marijuana Withdrawal
Is Marijuana Addictive?

Photo Credit: National Institute of Drug Abuse

medical marijuana

Medical Marijuana Can Get You Fired

California Supreme Court sides with Feds.

The California Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that employers have the right to fire workers who test positive for marijuana—even if the pot is being used in line with California’s medical marijuana statutes.

In a 5-2 decision, the Court said that a Sacramento company had the right to fire an employee who tested positive for marijuana on a routine drug test, even though the employee had a letter from his physician recommending the use of marijuana for chronic pain due to a back injury suffered in the Air Force.

Justice Kathryn Werdegar, writing for the majority, made clear the legal tangle created when California voters passed an initiative in 1996 allowing the use of marijuana for medical purposes: “No state law could completely legalize marijuana for medical purposes because the drug remains illegal under federal law, even for medical users.”

Last year, a San Francisco federal court ruled that a woman with a brain tumor did not have a fundamental right of access to marijuana for medical treatment. In addition, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) shut down several medical marijuana dispensing centers and made several arrests for felony distribution. Yesterday’s ruling bolsters the contention that federal law trumps state statutes.

The Pacific Legal Foundation filed a brief in support of the employer’s position in the case. “What are they supposed to do?” said Pacific Legal Foundation’s Deborah LaFetra. “Employers are held liable all the time when drunk or stoned employees cause trouble, either in the workplace or driving home.”

A spokesperson for Americans for Safe Access, a medical marijuana advocacy group based in Oakland, said they would go back to the California State legislature seeking to protect workers who use pot for medical reasons. According to the group, at least 200,000 workers in California may now be using marijuana under a doctor’s recommendation. “We remain confident that there will be a day when medical marijuana patients are not discriminated against in the workplace,” the spokesperson said.

photo credit: In These Times
http://www.inthesetimes.com

medical marijuana