What's so Wrong with Pot? the Real Dangers of Marijuana

Not long ago, I was asked, "Look, what is your problem with marijuana, anyway?" This is not a question I enjoy having to answer, especially with friends. Sometimes I get preachy. Sometimes I get defensive. Sometimes I get emotional. But the bottom line is that I don't really like being around it. I hate its smell and the way my friends get stupid while high on it. I am also peeved that somewhat superior attitude they sometimes get because they use and I refuse (as if I'm missing out on something special somehow) and the nervousness I feel that someone will call the police and I'll be arrested because they're my friends. But the latest conversation I had on this subject really got me thinking when the question arose. What is it, really, that's you think is so bad about pot? So I decided to look into that green weed, cannabis sativa, and try to find a good, solid answer to that question for the next time I get asked. And, well, I found an answer. It just wasn't the one I was expecting.

We've all seen the ads that have been publicized lately. Those "Parents: the Antidrug" commercials are everywhere. We hear lurid tales of how smoking pot leads to gross negligence, bad driving, and date rape, and we see ads designed to scare parents and high-risk teens straight. We thus receive images of marijuana users as dropouts and losers, unmotivated to do anything accept sit in front of a TV watching "Spongebob Squarepants" all day.

However in my research I found that the real danger of marijuana use isn't any of those things. Rather, the greatest risk is simply getting arrested. Because marijuana is perceived as a dangerous and addictive drug with no medical benefits, the government pursues a "Zero Tolerance" policy which punishes all forms of use instead of actual destructive uses. This policy distorts information presented about the drug, prevents or retards research into possible medical benefits, victimizes users who are otherwise normal, law-abiding citizens, and is generally more disruptive to the lives of users than the drug itself. But what can we do about those things? Should we adjust our classification of marijuana to a less dangerous drug? Or maybe focus the attention on preventing actual abuses instead of blanket condemnation? Before we answer, let's review what I've discovered

To start with, the facts prove that marijuana is actually much less dangerous than popularly depicted. Like any medicine, cannabis is by no means completely harmless, but research suggests that it has much less potential for dependence and fewer long-term side effects than nicotine or alcohol (Grinspoon et al 34, Earleywine 143-165, National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse). And no one has ever died from an overdose of THC, the active ingredient in pot (National Commission, Earleywine 143-144). Research suggests that a fatal dose would require roughly 450 times a normal dose, far more than any normal person could smoke (Earleywine 144). There is also concern over "amotivational syndrome," the idea that marijuana leads to lethargy and apathy (National Commission, Drug Enforcement Administration, Beddow, Rey et al. 24). Yet it appears that such effects are the outcomes of social lifestyle choices than a direct effect of the drug (Earleywine 209). Additionally, people worry about the possibility of marijuana use leading to experimentation with other, much more harmful drugs such as cocaine or heroin (DEA). In contrast, research suggests that any link between marijuana use and experimentation with other drugs is not a causal effect, but rather a symptom of deeper problems (Grinspoon, et al 31).

The thought that marijuana is addictive is another very common misconception, probably because marijuana is the single most used illicit drug in the United States. Studies have estimated that as many as 76 million people in the United States have tried Cannabis at least once in their lives (Earleywine 30), and this statistic provides much of the government's rationale for focusing their efforts on marijuana use rather than other illicit substances. However, using the drug once in one's lifetime does not guarantee that the person will continue to do so. Think of it this way: of those 76 million people only around 9% are regular users (Rey et al 20).

Of course, with any substance, there is the potential for misuse, but terms such as addiction and dependence are somewhat subjective and politically influenced; at one point homosexuality was defined as a mental illness, just as substance abuse is treated today (Earleywine 43-44). And even by current standards, no study has been able to prove that cannabis causes physical dependence or tolerance, and withdrawal symptoms are generally mild (Novak 222, Earleywine 37-38).

Some would argue that there is the phenomenon of psychological dependence; indeed, despite the low number of repeat users, misuse can and does happen. However, this is not an accurate indicator of a problem because the term "psychological dependence" is applied just as often to such diverse activities as video games, sexual intercourse, and television viewing. There is vigorous debate as to whether or not these activities cause dependence or are symptoms of something else. Proving that a cause creates a specific effect requires three criteria: that the cause and the effect occur together, that the cause precedes the effect, and that all alternative causes are ruled out (Earleywine 50-51). Otherwise, the relationship between the two is merely a correlation. In the case of marijuana, such criteria have not been fulfilled. Hence, we could say just as easily that addictively-inclined people are just as attracted to marijuana as to television, or sex, or other things. (Novak 225).

This is not to say that cannabis does not have real, physical effects on the body. In fact, one of the major debates raging over the use of marijuana is over it's medical applications, as well as the potential drawbacks and side effects of use. The Drug Enforcement Agency of America contends that smoked marijuana has no measurable medical benefits and our FDA has not approved smoked marijuana as treatment for any disease or condition; however, the illegal nature of the drug and the political bias against it makes this result hardly surprising (DEA).

So what are the health effects of marijuana? Cannabis is useful in combating nausea and vomiting, which is of special importance for those undergoing treatments for AIDS and chemotherapy for cancer (Earleywine, 180-182). It also is effective in increasing appetite and defending against unhealthy weight loss that can come from disorders such as AIDS (Earleywine 182-183). Marijuana has additionally been used to alleviate chronic pain associated with cancer, arthritis and glaucoma (171-179). Cannabis's effects on spasticity, seizures, and insomnia also have been studied, though more research is needed to determine the efficacy of the substance on these conditions.

In contrast, there are two arguments that are generally presented in opposition to the use of medical marijuana. First, the DEA reports that that medical marijuana already exists, in the form of Dronabinol, the active ingredient of the drug Marinol (DEA). Yet this is not technically true. Marijuana contains over 400 chemical compounds, 66 of which are unique to the species itself (Earleywine 121-122). Dronabinol is a synthetic version of only one of them, THC. The other 65 compounds, or "cannabinoids," generally receive less study, but it is likely that several of them interact with the body in various ways, and a study of the various effects these compounds have in combination with each other certainly is warranted.

The second main argument against the use of medical marijuana is that safer and more effective treatments exist. There are several problems with this assertion, however. To illustrate one example of this, think of how the illegal nature and political hatred of the drug impairs research into possible health benefits. Not enough studies have been done on the medical uses of cannabis to warrant such a blanket assertion. Second, the effectiveness of alternative treatments fails to take into account that while some alternative treatments may, in fact, work better, the cost of such treatments may be prohibitive (Earleywine 194). For instance, some antiemetic (anti-nausea) treatments for chemotherapy can cost between $35 to $400, and even dronabinol, the synthetic THC, can run $50 to $100 per treatment (Earleywine 181). The same amount of THC from common marijuana would cost under $20 on the black market, and possibly much less if legal sanctions were listed (Earleywine 181). Patients also claim that the chief benefit of smoked marijuana is the speed of the body's absorption of the drug and the ability to regulate dosages more effectively. Dronabinol is taken orally and must pass through the bloodstream before being fully effective, a process that takes hours. In contrast, inhaled THC is absorbed immediately into the bloodstream through the capillaries inside the lungs (Earleywine, Beddow).

The largest issue with marijuana use in the United States, however, is not the effects of the drug on the body, but the zero-tolerance policy adopted by the government to combat marijuana use. The concern is admirable, but the policies are ludicrously harsh and are based on misconceptions and even outright exaggeration. Many of these arguments stem from concerns about morality and values issues rather than focusing on treatment and reduction of actual harm, and may be counterproductive.

Most of the moral arguments state that any drug use at all is immoral and corrupt. This was a position I held myself for many years, and am only now beginning to question. There is a tendency to view any drug use at all as "abuse," regardless of the consequences to individuals and society at large (Novak 217-218). Former Drug Czar Bill Bennett once stated that "Drug use is dangerous and immoral" (Lowrey 76). Dangerous can be proven; immorality is much more subjective. And, as shown above, marijuana use (as opposed to say, cocaine or legal drugs like alcohol) is not especially dangerous for the average user.

Nonetheless, harsh steps are taken to prevent use. Nonetheless, these steps may actually be counterproductive. Public service announcements that exaggerate the dangers of marijuana are generally ineffective at deterring marijuana use, since nearly everyone's experience with the drug is at odds with the message being sent (Lowrey, 178). Above all, the exaggeration may actually encourage a "Gate-way effect," tempting those who, after realizing that anti-marijuana ads do not represent reality, begin to question whether other drugs with much more harmful effects are "not so bad" (Novak 218). Since one of the main arguments against marijuana use is the thought that it will lead to other drug use, this is obviously a problem.

So what can be done? Several solutions present themselves. The main argument against marijuana use seems to be socially based. Fear of the drug's spread and disagreement over values has led to punishments that do not fit the crime. One way to combat this would be to follow the model of decriminalization adopted by the Netherlands, which allows small amounts of possession for personal use. But that does not address the values concerns which fuel most of the controversy over marijuana use. Some advocates call for tougher, no-holds-barred enforcement of marijuana laws on the books. Yet such a change is a harsh and unnecessary step that might result in abuses of civil rights, taken in the name of enforcing laws that are already more harmful than the crimes they are supposed to reduce.

Resultantly, a better suggestion would be to change the classification of cannabis from Schedule 1 (the most restrictive category) and move it to Schedule 2. Schedule 2 classification means that the drug is still considered to have a high potential for abuse, but it has recognized medical applications and can be prescribed by doctors. This would allow more testing to take place on the medical benefits and side effects of the use of marijuana. And while I do not wish to promote the use of narcotics for recreational purposes, the current measures taken to curb drug use focus on all uses, and do not adequately address actual problems with those who abuse the drug rather than simply use it.

In order to adopt positive change, we need to support limited decriminalization legislation. We should also support research and large-scale studies of medical cannabis use. We can carry out both aims by writing letters to our congressmen and other representatives. We can also support medical research and the decriminalization of medical marijuana though our votes and by supporting related initiatives. Of course, to begin all these solutions, we must make ourselves more aware of the facts, examining sites on both sides of the argument. And we must realize, just like I have, that the use of marijuana is a debate about values and moral stances more than facts, and learn to tolerate views that may be different than our own.

I think, having considered things more widely, I have a good answer for my friends. It certainly wasn't the one I was expecting. But how about you? What's your answer?

Works Cited

Carroll, Jamuna, ed. Marijuana, Opposing Viewpoints series (unnumbered)

Detroit: Greenhaven Press-Thomson Gale, 2006

Articles from source used:

Rey, Joseph M.; Martin, Andres, Krabman, Peter, "Marijuana Use Is Harmful", Pg. 19-27

Grinspoon, Lester; Bakalar, James B.; Russo, Ethan, "Marijuana Use Is Not Usually Harmful", Pg. 28-40

Lowrey, Richard, "The War on Drugs Punishes Too Harshly", Pg 72-77 and

"Anti-Marijuana Public Service Announcements are ineffective", Pg 178-181

"The DEA Position On Marijuana." 30 November 2006.

Earleywine, Mitch, Understanding Marijuana: A New Look At The Scientific Evidence

Oxford: Oxford UP, 2002

Marijuana: Its Effects on Mind and Body. Dir. Matthew Beddow, Narr. Donald Robert Jasinski, M.D.. Videocassette, Schlessinger Video Productions, 1991.

""Medical" Marijuana: The Facts" 30 November 2006.

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/ongoing/marinol.html>

Novak, William, High Culture: Marijuana in the Lives of Americans

New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1980.

United States. National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse. Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding. Raymond Shafer, Chair, March, 1972. 20 November 2006