1. Dear Drugs-Forum readers: We are a small non-profit that runs one of the most read drug information & addiction help websites in the world. We serve over 4 million readers per month, and have costs like all popular websites: servers, hosting, licenses and software. To protect our independence we do not run ads. We take no government funds. We run on donations which average $25. If everyone reading this would donate $5 then this fund raiser would be done in an hour. If Drugs-Forum is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online another year by donating whatever you can today. Donations are currently not sufficient to pay our bills and keep the site up. Your help is most welcome. Thank you.

The Media Should Stop Pretending Marijuana's Risks Are a Mystery

By Basoodler, Dec 22, 2013 | Updated: Dec 22, 2013 | | |
  1. Basoodler
    Speaking recently with the Los Angeles Times, UCLA professor and former Washington state "pot czar" Mark Kleiman implied that we as a society are largely ignorant when it comes to the subject of weed.

    Speaking with Times columnist Patt Morrison, Kleiman stated, “I keep saying we don't know nearly as much about cannabis as Pillsbury knows about brownie mix.”

    Kleiman’s allegation—that the marijuana plant and its effects on society still remains largely a mystery—is a fairly common refrain. But it is far from accurate.

    Despite the US government's nearly century-long prohibition of the plant, cannabis is nonetheless one of the most investigated therapeutically active substances in history. To date, there are over 20,000 published studies or reviews in the scientific literature referencing the cannabis plant and its cannabinoids, nearly half of which were published within the last five years according to a keyword search on PubMed Central, the US government repository for peer-reviewed scientific research. Over 1,450 peer-reviewed papers were published in 2013 alone. (By contrast, a keyword search of "hydrocodone," a commonly prescribed painkiller, yields just over 600 total references in the entire body of available scientific literature.)

    What information do these thousands of studies about cannabis provide us? For starters, they reveal that marijuana and its active constituents, known as cannabinoids, are relatively safe and effective therapeutic and/or recreational compounds. Unlike alcohol and most prescription or over-the-counter medications, cannabinoids are virtually nontoxic to health cells or organs, and they are incapable of causing the user to experience a fatal overdose. Unlike opiates or ethanol, cannabinoids are not classified as central nervous depressants and cannot cause respiratory failure. In fact, a 2008 meta-analysis published in the Journal of the Canadian Medical Association reported that cannabis-based drugs were associated with virtually no elevated incidences of serious adverse side-effects in over 30 years of investigative use.

    Studies further reveal that the marijuana plant contains in excess of 60 active compounds that likely possess distinctive therapeutic properties. One recent review* identified some 30 separate therapeutic properties—including anti-cancer properties, anti-diabetic properties, neuroprotection, and anti-stroke properties—influenced by cannabinoids other than THC. While not all of these effects have been replicated in clinical trials, many have.

    A recent review by researchers in Germany reported that between 2005 and 2009 there were 37 controlled studies assessing the safety and efficacy of cannabinoids, involving a total of 2,563 subjects. Most recently, a summary of FDA-approved, University of California trials assessing the safety and efficacy of inhaled cannabis in several hundred subjects concluded: “Based on evidence currently available the Schedule I classification is not tenable; it is not accurate that cannabis has no medical value, or that information on safety is lacking.”

    By contrast, many legally approved medications are brought to market on the basis of far fewer trials involving far fewer total participants.

    Finally, we know that Western civilization has been consuming cannabis as both a therapeutic agent and a relaxant for thousands of years with relatively few adverse consequences, either to the individual user or to society. No less than the World Health Organization commissioned a team of experts to compare the health and societal consequences of marijuana use compared to other controlled substances, including alcohol, nicotine and opiates. After quantifying the harms associated with each substance, researchers concluded: “Overall, most of these risks (associated with marijuana) are small to moderate in size. In aggregate they are unlikely to produce public health problems comparable in scale to those currently produced by alcohol and tobacco. On existing patterns of use, cannabis poses a much less serious public health problem than is currently posed by alcohol and tobacco in Western societies.”

    Does this mean that consuming marijuana is altogether without risk or that scientific investigations shouldn’t continue into the plant’s pharmacology? Of course not. But it is clear that we now know as much, if not more, about pot than we know about the actions of alcohol, tobacco and many prescription pharmaceuticals. And most certainly we know enough about cannabis, as well as the failures of cannabis prohibition, to stop arresting adults who consume it responsibly.

    Story Link
    December 20th 2013

    Resources linked - COLOR CODED for easy identification

    1. The adverse effects of cannabinoids: implications for use of medical marijuana (doi: 10.1503/cmaj.080585 CMAJ June 17, 2008 vol. 178 no. 13 1685-1686) full - PDF

    2. recent review - pdf

    3. Review on clinical studies with cannabis and cannabinoids 2005-2009 --pdf

    4. Medical Marijuana: Clearing Away the Smoke -- pdf


  1. Basoodler
    I figured this would provide ammo for those members who find themselves debating facts with the anti-drug folks

    You pretty much throw a wrench into their "tow the dea line" arguments by quoting peer reviewed scientific studies Hell you may win the argument just by mentioning one

    Unless of coarse they go "Jesus " on you. At that point you may as well make some shit up that sounds good. Because there is no basis to the argument anyway.
  2. venkecske
    I doubt that a mere citing of figures of papers referenced by PubMed Central would truly reflect our knowledge let alone understanding of a particular drug. Remember, marijuana contains about 100 (some major, some minor) cannabinoids described so far and probably most publications relate to biochemical analytical methods. And, of course, there is the issue of quantity / quality. Anyway, here is an enumeration of the number of hits for selected drugs from the same source (the number of publications in parentheses is for 2013) as of Dec 23, 2013. Note, that studies done before 1964, the year when THC was characterized, are of little value.

    "marijuana or marihuana or cannabis or cannabinoid" 31,711 (2,291)

    psilocybin/psilocin 707 (23)
    cannabidiol 1,177 (128)
    opium 2,777 (80)
    Viagra/sildenafil 5,543 (415)
    LSD/lysergic acid diethylamide 6,551 (219)
    tetrahydrocannabinol 6,924 (293)
    methamphetamine 9,302 (609)
    cannabis 12,492 (894)
    ketamine 13,595 (749)
    heroin 15,089 (573)
    marijuana/marihuana 19,584 (1,375)
    nicotine 34,131 (2,065)
    cocaine 34,139 (1,632)
    morphine 48,222 (1,732)
    tobacco 86,228 (5,251)
    alcohol 759,922 (23,330)
  3. kumar420
    You raise some good points, but you overlook the fact that people are generally intolerant of most kinds of drug use, no matter how well-armed you come to the argument. The average person believes the government is right about all things relating to illegal drug use, and frankly doesn't care about the laws, punishments and side effects in that particular area. While this mentality of dont-ask-dont-tell is beginning to change, its going to take a hell of alot more than a few reliable scientific studies proving weed is non toxic, non cancerous, for the most part not very addictive, as well as having a myriad of medicinal properties to convince a willfully ignorant public that it should be legalised and taxed worldwide.

    this doesn't even begin to touch how difficult its going to be to get alcohol, tobacco and pharmaceutical lobbies to go along with legalisation. Shit, they've been funding anti-cannabis campaigns since the 18th century and making billions because they are the only entities that mass produce these sought-after items, and if cannabis enters the ring, their sales will plummet.

    so its not just ignorance that has to be fought, but greed as well.
To make a comment simply sign up and become a member!