The return of reefer madness
> The U.S. drug czar's office is running ads implying that smoking
marijuana
> can lead to insanity. But pushing dubious science is no way to
persuade
> teenagers not to do drugs.
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> By Maia Szalavitz
>
> Sept. 19, 2005 | Parents who read the New York Times or Newsweek
this
past
> summer could be forgiven for freaking out when they came across a
full-page
> ad warning them about the effects of marijuana on their teenagers. If
the
> kids were off somewhere sparking up a joint, the federally funded
message
> seemed to say, they were at risk for severe mental illness. Were
those
> parents hallucinating, or was Reefer Madness, long since debunked,
suddenly
> a real problem to be reckoned with?
>
> The latest salvo in the never-ending war on drugs, the ads, which
also ran
> in magazines like the Nation and the National Review, bore a stark
warning.
> Under the headline "Marijuana and Your Teen's Mental Health," the
bold-faced
> subhead announced: "Depression. Suicidal Thoughts. Schizophrenia."
>
> "If you have outdated perceptions about marijuana, you might be
putting
your
> teen at risk," the text went on. It warned that "young people who use
> marijuana weekly have double the risk of depression later in life"
and
that
> "marijuana use in some teens has been linked to increased risk for
> schizophrenia." It followed with the sneering question, "Still think
> marijuana's no big deal?"
>
> The rhetoric is alarming. But the research data used to support the
ad
> campaign is hazy at best. Though carefully worded, the campaign blurs
the
> key scientific distinction between correlation and causation. The ad
uses
> some correlations between marijuana use and mental illness to imply
that
the
> drug can cause madness and depression. Yet these conclusions are
unproven
by
> current research. And several leading researchers are highly
skeptical of
> them.
>
> Scare tactics in the war on drugs have been around at least as long
as
Harry
> J. Anslinger, the federal drug warrior of the 1930s famed for his
ludicrous
> pronouncements about the dangers of marijuana. But they're widely
regarded
> as ineffective in deterring teen drug use. In fact, some research
suggests
> they may actually increase experimentation. If anything, experts say,
the
> latest ad campaign's overblown claims could damage credibility with
teens,
> undermining warnings about other, more dangerous illicit substances.
With
> medical marijuana a matter of renewed national debate, and with
evidence
> emerging that there may be no connection between marijuana and lung
cancer
> -- a key strike against the drug's use in the past -- the
government's new
> campaign smacks more of desperation than science.
>
> Spearheaded by the Office of National Drug Control Policy, better
known as
> the "drug czar's" office, the ad campaign ran in print during May and
June;
> it continues today on the federal government's Web site, Parents: The
> Anti-drug. There are plans to roll out more print, television and
radio
ads,
> according to an ONDCP spokesperson, if Congress approves the agency's
> current $150 million appropriations request this month.
>
> At the press conference launching the mental illness campaign in May,
the
> Bush administration's drug czar, John Walters, emphasized, "New
research
> being conducted here and abroad illustrates that marijuana use,
particularly
> during the teen years, can lead to depression, thoughts of suicide,
and
> schizophrenia."
>
> While the launch was attended by a former director of the National
Institute
> on Drug Abuse, the current occupant of the office, Dr. Nora Volkow,
did
not
> attend or speak, nor did her deputies. This is unusual: The National
> Institute on Drug Abuse is the federal agency responsible for
scientific
> research on the medical effects of drugs, so a campaign about
marijuana's
> health effects would ordinarily feature at least one top
representative
> discussing the science. The agency's name does not appear on the list
of
> organizations endorsing the ad.
>
> David Murray, special assistant in the drug czar's office, says that
the
> National Institute on Drug Abuse was "involved in every aspect" of
the
> planning of the campaign and "cleared and vetted" the statements in
the ad
> and on the Web site. He says the drug czar's office didn't want to
include
> more than one federal agency in the endorsements, adding that Volkow
was
out
> of the country at the time of the launch.
>
> "Our research provides most of the evidence undergirding the campaign
and
we
> certainly support its goals," says Dr. Wilson Compton, director of
the
> Division of Epidemiology, Services and Prevention Research at the
National
> Institute on Drug Abuse. But Compton concedes that the findings cited
in
the
> ad are "not completely established" and that experts consider them
> "controversial" and worth further investigation.
>
> According to Murray, the latest available data shows that the
consumption
of
> cannabis is a key risk factor for the development of serious mental
illness.
> With regard to schizophrenia, the campaign cites one study of nearly
50,000
> Swedish soldiers between the ages of 18 and 20, published in the
British
> Medical Journal in 2002, which found that those who had smoked pot
more
than
> 50 times had a rate of schizophrenia nearly seven times as high as
those
who
> did not use marijuana at all.
>
> The American Psychiatric Association is one of the major groups
backing
the
> campaign; a spokesperson referred to part of the group's policy
statement
as
> the reason for its endorsement: "The American Psychiatric Association
is
> concerned and opposed to the use of drugs and alcohol in children."
>
> Yet leading experts in psychiatric epidemiology (whom the APA
recommended
> contacting, but who do not officially speak for the organization) are
far
> from convinced about causal connections between marijuana and serious
mental
> illness. One key problem, they say, is that it's very difficult to
determine
> whether pot smoking predisposes people to schizophrenia or whether
early
> symptoms of schizophrenia predispose people to smoking pot -- or
whether
> some third factor causes some people to be more vulnerable to both.
>
> In the Swedish study, for example, when factors already known to
increase
> risk for schizophrenia were removed, such as a childhood history of
> disturbed behavior, the connection between marijuana use and risk for
the
> disease was substantially reduced. Just one or two additional unknown
> influences could potentially wipe out the apparent
marijuana-schizophrenia
> link, according to Dr. William Carpenter, a professor of psychiatry
and
> pharmacology at the University of Maryland. Carpenter noted in a
letter
> published in the British Journal of Psychiatry in October 2004 that
the
same
> genes that predispose someone to schizophrenia might also predispose
them
to
> substance abuse, but that drug use might start earlier simply because
many
> people start using drugs in their teen years, while schizophrenia
most
> commonly begins in the early 20s.
>
> Perhaps the strongest piece of evidence to cast doubt on a causal
connection
> between marijuana and schizophrenia is a long flat-line trend in the
> disease. While marijuana use rose from virtually nil in the 1940s and
'50s
> to a peak period of use in 1979 -- when some 60 percent of high
school
> seniors had tried it -- schizophrenia rates remained virtually
constant
over
> those decades. The same remains true today: One percent or fewer
people
have
> schizophrenia, a rate consistent among populations around the world.
This
is
> in stark contrast to studies linking tobacco smoking with lung
cancer,
where
> rises in tobacco use were accompanied by rising rates of lung cancer.
>
> "If anything, the studies seem to show a possible decline in
schizophrenia
> from the '40s and the '50s," says Dr. Alan Brown, a professor of
psychiatry
> and epidemiology at Columbia University. "If marijuana does have a
causal
> role in schizophrenia, and that's still questionable, it may only
play a
> role in a small percent of cases."
>
> For the tiny proportion of people who are at high risk for
schizophrenia
> (those with a family history of the illness, for example), experts
are
> united in thinking that marijuana could pose serious danger. For
those
> susceptible, smoking marijuana could determine when their first
psychotic
> episode occurs, and how bad it gets. A study published in 2004 in the
> American Journal of Psychiatry of 122 patients admitted to a Dutch
hospital
> for schizophrenia for the first time found that, at least in men,
marijuana
> users had their first psychotic episode nearly seven years earlier
than
> those who did not use the drug. Because the neurotransmitters
affected by
> marijuana are in brain regions known to be important to
schizophrenia,
there
> is a plausible biological mechanism by which marijuana could harm
people
> prone to the disorder. Both Brown and Carpenter say that people with
> schizophrenia who smoke pot tend to have longer and more frequent
psychotic
> episodes, and find it very difficult !
> to quit using the drug.
>
> Of course, the U.S. government's current ad campaign targets a much
broader
> population than those highly vulnerable to schizophrenia, fanning
fears
> based on a statistically rare scenario.
>
> The campaign also declares that today's pot is more potent than the
pot
> smoked by previous generations, implying heightened risk. Fine
sinsemilla
> may seem more prevalent than ditchweed nowadays, but there is debate
over
> whether today's average smoker is puffing on stronger stuff than the
average
> stoner of the 1970s, as Daniel Forbes detailed in Slate. And, as
Forbes
> showed, the drug czar's office has grossly exaggerated the numbers on
this
> issue in the past.
>
> Meanwhile, UCLA public policy expert Mark Kleiman has pointed out
that
> federally funded research by the University of Michigan shows that
since
the
> 1970s the level of high reported by high school seniors who smoked
marijuana
> has remained "flat as a pancake." In other words, even if today's
kids are
> smoking more potent stuff, they don't get higher than their folks did
--
> like drinking a few whiskey shots rather than multiple mugs of beer,
they
> use less of the good stuff to achieve the same effect.
>
> With regard to depression, evidence of a causal role for marijuana is
even
> murkier. In general, depression rates in the population did rise
sharply
> during the time period in which marijuana use also skyrocketed. But
there
> were so many other relevant sociological factors that marked the last
half
> of the 20th century -- rising divorce rates, the changing roles of
women,
> economic shifts, and better diagnoses of psychiatric conditions, to
name a
> few -- that scientists have rarely focused on marijuana as a
potential
cause
> for the increase in depression.
>
> Murray maintains that scientists have simply overlooked marijuana in
their
> search for explanations. One study published in the Archives of
General
> Psychiatry in 2002, by New York University psychiatry professor
Judith
Brook
> and several colleagues, found that early marijuana use increased the
risk
of
> major depression by 19 percent. But that's not a substantial amount,
> according to Brook. And though the association remained after other
factors
> were controlled for, such as living in poverty, it weakened further.
"I
> wouldn't say that it's causal," Brook says. "It's an association. It
appears
> to contribute."
>
> The campaign selectively uses another piece of data, citing an
Australian
> study published in the British Medical Journal in 2002 to assert that
for
> teens, weekly marijuana use doubles the risk of depression. What that
study
> found was that the risk doubled for teens who smoke marijuana weekly
or
more
> frequently. And it found that depression rates increased
substantially in
> girls but not in boys. It also noted that "questions remain about the
level
> of association between cannabis use and depression and anxiety and
about
the
> mechanism underpinning the link."
>
> Moreover, a June 2005 study by researchers at University of Southern
> California, using the Center for Epidemiologic Studies' Depression
Scale,
> found that marijuana use was in fact associated with lower levels of
> depression. Because the research was conducted using an Internet
survey,
> it's possible that the most severely depressed people did not
participate;
> nonetheless the study of more than 4,400 people found that both heavy
pot
> smokers and moderate users reported less depression than did
nonusers.
>
> Dr. Myrna Weissman, a psychiatrist and leading epidemiologist of
depression
> at Columbia University, sums up the current research and her view of
> marijuana's role in depression rates this way: "I can't imagine that
it's
a
> major factor."
>
> The distortion of science under the Bush administration is, of
course,
> nothing new.
>
> "This is just more red-state culture-war politics," says UCLA's
Kleiman,
of
> the latest anti-marijuana campaign. He notes that since the
government
> measures success in the war on drugs by a reduction in the number of
drug
> users -- rather than by declines in drug-related harm or addiction --
> marijuana is the obvious drug to go after. According to the most
recent
> National Survey on Drug Use and Health from 2003, approximately 25
million
> Americans reported using marijuana over the previous year; compared
with
> approximately 6 million users of cocaine and 1 million users of
> methamphetamine -- both far more addictive substances -- marijuana is
a
big,
> soft target.
>
> Yet, for a public desensitized to fear-mongering antidrug messages, a
> campaign touting selected statistics from tenuous studies seems
especially
> tone deaf, if not irresponsible.
>
> "If I tell my 15-year-old that he's going to have a psychotic episode
if
he
> smokes pot, but he knows that his older brother already smokes pot
and is
> fine, is he going to believe me when I tell him that methamphetamine
damages
> the brain?" asks Mitch Earleywine, an associate professor of
psychology at
> the State University of New York at Albany, who coauthored the USC
study.
> Amphetamine psychosis is an established effect of taking large doses
of
that
> class of drugs; warnings about it appear on the labeling of
prescription
> amphetamines. "What's going to happen," says Earleywine, "is we're
going
to
> lose all credibility with our teens."
>
> The drug czar's office may soon face a full-blown credibility problem
of
its
> own regarding its fight against marijuana. Drug warriors have always
had
at
> least one powerful argument to fall back on when other attacks
against
> marijuana seem to go up in smoke -- but in the face of a new study,
that
may
> no longer be the case.
>
> Previous research has pointed to the notion that smoking marijuana
could
> cause cancer, the same way tobacco smoking has been incontrovertibly
linked
> with cancer and death. The Institute of Medicine, charged by Congress
with
> settling scientific debates, said in its last major report on the
subject
in
> 1999 that the fact that most users smoke marijuana is a primary
reason to
> oppose its use as medicine.
>
> But that reasoning was called into question in late June, when Dr.
Donald
> Tashkin of the UCLA School of Medicine presented a large,
case-control
study
> -- of the kind that have linked tobacco use with increases in lung
cancer --
> at an annual scientific meeting of the International Cannabinoid
Research
> Society in Clearwater, Fla. Tashkin is no hippie-dippy marijuana
advocate:
> His earlier work has been cited by the drug czar's office itself,
because
> his research showed that marijuana can cause lung damage. The new
study,
> however, found no connection between pot smoking -- even by heavy
users --
> and lung cancer. In fact, among the more than 1,200 people studied,
those
> who had smoked marijuana, but not cigarettes, appeared to have a
lower
risk
> for lung cancer than even those who had smoked neither.
>
> The new research has not yet been peer reviewed, but it appears
congruent
> with earlier studies that found no link between marijuana and
increased
> cancer risk. If the data holds up to further scrutiny and testing,
one can
> only speculate what new ad campaign the drug czar's office might cook
up.
> Marijuana may not make most people crazy, but this latest discovery
could
> really drive the old drug warriors bonkers.
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> About the writer
> Maia Szalavitz is the author of the forthcoming book "Tough
Love
> America: How the 'Troubled Teen' Industry Cons Parents and Hurts
Kids"
> (Riverhead, 2005). She has also written for the New York Times, Elle,
> Redbook and other publications.
>
>
>
> The U.S. drug czar's office is running ads implying that smoking
marijuana
> can lead to insanity. But pushing dubious science is no way to
persuade
> teenagers not to do drugs.
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> By Maia Szalavitz
>
> Sept. 19, 2005 | Parents who read the New York Times or Newsweek
this
past
> summer could be forgiven for freaking out when they came across a
full-page
> ad warning them about the effects of marijuana on their teenagers. If
the
> kids were off somewhere sparking up a joint, the federally funded
message
> seemed to say, they were at risk for severe mental illness. Were
those
> parents hallucinating, or was Reefer Madness, long since debunked,
suddenly
> a real problem to be reckoned with?
>
> The latest salvo in the never-ending war on drugs, the ads, which
also ran
> in magazines like the Nation and the National Review, bore a stark
warning.
> Under the headline "Marijuana and Your Teen's Mental Health," the
bold-faced
> subhead announced: "Depression. Suicidal Thoughts. Schizophrenia."
>
> "If you have outdated perceptions about marijuana, you might be
putting
your
> teen at risk," the text went on. It warned that "young people who use
> marijuana weekly have double the risk of depression later in life"
and
that
> "marijuana use in some teens has been linked to increased risk for
> schizophrenia." It followed with the sneering question, "Still think
> marijuana's no big deal?"
>
> The rhetoric is alarming. But the research data used to support the
ad
> campaign is hazy at best. Though carefully worded, the campaign blurs
the
> key scientific distinction between correlation and causation. The ad
uses
> some correlations between marijuana use and mental illness to imply
that
the
> drug can cause madness and depression. Yet these conclusions are
unproven
by
> current research. And several leading researchers are highly
skeptical of
> them.
>
> Scare tactics in the war on drugs have been around at least as long
as
Harry
> J. Anslinger, the federal drug warrior of the 1930s famed for his
ludicrous
> pronouncements about the dangers of marijuana. But they're widely
regarded
> as ineffective in deterring teen drug use. In fact, some research
suggests
> they may actually increase experimentation. If anything, experts say,
the
> latest ad campaign's overblown claims could damage credibility with
teens,
> undermining warnings about other, more dangerous illicit substances.
With
> medical marijuana a matter of renewed national debate, and with
evidence
> emerging that there may be no connection between marijuana and lung
cancer
> -- a key strike against the drug's use in the past -- the
government's new
> campaign smacks more of desperation than science.
>
> Spearheaded by the Office of National Drug Control Policy, better
known as
> the "drug czar's" office, the ad campaign ran in print during May and
June;
> it continues today on the federal government's Web site, Parents: The
> Anti-drug. There are plans to roll out more print, television and
radio
ads,
> according to an ONDCP spokesperson, if Congress approves the agency's
> current $150 million appropriations request this month.
>
> At the press conference launching the mental illness campaign in May,
the
> Bush administration's drug czar, John Walters, emphasized, "New
research
> being conducted here and abroad illustrates that marijuana use,
particularly
> during the teen years, can lead to depression, thoughts of suicide,
and
> schizophrenia."
>
> While the launch was attended by a former director of the National
Institute
> on Drug Abuse, the current occupant of the office, Dr. Nora Volkow,
did
not
> attend or speak, nor did her deputies. This is unusual: The National
> Institute on Drug Abuse is the federal agency responsible for
scientific
> research on the medical effects of drugs, so a campaign about
marijuana's
> health effects would ordinarily feature at least one top
representative
> discussing the science. The agency's name does not appear on the list
of
> organizations endorsing the ad.
>
> David Murray, special assistant in the drug czar's office, says that
the
> National Institute on Drug Abuse was "involved in every aspect" of
the
> planning of the campaign and "cleared and vetted" the statements in
the ad
> and on the Web site. He says the drug czar's office didn't want to
include
> more than one federal agency in the endorsements, adding that Volkow
was
out
> of the country at the time of the launch.
>
> "Our research provides most of the evidence undergirding the campaign
and
we
> certainly support its goals," says Dr. Wilson Compton, director of
the
> Division of Epidemiology, Services and Prevention Research at the
National
> Institute on Drug Abuse. But Compton concedes that the findings cited
in
the
> ad are "not completely established" and that experts consider them
> "controversial" and worth further investigation.
>
> According to Murray, the latest available data shows that the
consumption
of
> cannabis is a key risk factor for the development of serious mental
illness.
> With regard to schizophrenia, the campaign cites one study of nearly
50,000
> Swedish soldiers between the ages of 18 and 20, published in the
British
> Medical Journal in 2002, which found that those who had smoked pot
more
than
> 50 times had a rate of schizophrenia nearly seven times as high as
those
who
> did not use marijuana at all.
>
> The American Psychiatric Association is one of the major groups
backing
the
> campaign; a spokesperson referred to part of the group's policy
statement
as
> the reason for its endorsement: "The American Psychiatric Association
is
> concerned and opposed to the use of drugs and alcohol in children."
>
> Yet leading experts in psychiatric epidemiology (whom the APA
recommended
> contacting, but who do not officially speak for the organization) are
far
> from convinced about causal connections between marijuana and serious
mental
> illness. One key problem, they say, is that it's very difficult to
determine
> whether pot smoking predisposes people to schizophrenia or whether
early
> symptoms of schizophrenia predispose people to smoking pot -- or
whether
> some third factor causes some people to be more vulnerable to both.
>
> In the Swedish study, for example, when factors already known to
increase
> risk for schizophrenia were removed, such as a childhood history of
> disturbed behavior, the connection between marijuana use and risk for
the
> disease was substantially reduced. Just one or two additional unknown
> influences could potentially wipe out the apparent
marijuana-schizophrenia
> link, according to Dr. William Carpenter, a professor of psychiatry
and
> pharmacology at the University of Maryland. Carpenter noted in a
letter
> published in the British Journal of Psychiatry in October 2004 that
the
same
> genes that predispose someone to schizophrenia might also predispose
them
to
> substance abuse, but that drug use might start earlier simply because
many
> people start using drugs in their teen years, while schizophrenia
most
> commonly begins in the early 20s.
>
> Perhaps the strongest piece of evidence to cast doubt on a causal
connection
> between marijuana and schizophrenia is a long flat-line trend in the
> disease. While marijuana use rose from virtually nil in the 1940s and
'50s
> to a peak period of use in 1979 -- when some 60 percent of high
school
> seniors had tried it -- schizophrenia rates remained virtually
constant
over
> those decades. The same remains true today: One percent or fewer
people
have
> schizophrenia, a rate consistent among populations around the world.
This
is
> in stark contrast to studies linking tobacco smoking with lung
cancer,
where
> rises in tobacco use were accompanied by rising rates of lung cancer.
>
> "If anything, the studies seem to show a possible decline in
schizophrenia
> from the '40s and the '50s," says Dr. Alan Brown, a professor of
psychiatry
> and epidemiology at Columbia University. "If marijuana does have a
causal
> role in schizophrenia, and that's still questionable, it may only
play a
> role in a small percent of cases."
>
> For the tiny proportion of people who are at high risk for
schizophrenia
> (those with a family history of the illness, for example), experts
are
> united in thinking that marijuana could pose serious danger. For
those
> susceptible, smoking marijuana could determine when their first
psychotic
> episode occurs, and how bad it gets. A study published in 2004 in the
> American Journal of Psychiatry of 122 patients admitted to a Dutch
hospital
> for schizophrenia for the first time found that, at least in men,
marijuana
> users had their first psychotic episode nearly seven years earlier
than
> those who did not use the drug. Because the neurotransmitters
affected by
> marijuana are in brain regions known to be important to
schizophrenia,
there
> is a plausible biological mechanism by which marijuana could harm
people
> prone to the disorder. Both Brown and Carpenter say that people with
> schizophrenia who smoke pot tend to have longer and more frequent
psychotic
> episodes, and find it very difficult !
> to quit using the drug.
>
> Of course, the U.S. government's current ad campaign targets a much
broader
> population than those highly vulnerable to schizophrenia, fanning
fears
> based on a statistically rare scenario.
>
> The campaign also declares that today's pot is more potent than the
pot
> smoked by previous generations, implying heightened risk. Fine
sinsemilla
> may seem more prevalent than ditchweed nowadays, but there is debate
over
> whether today's average smoker is puffing on stronger stuff than the
average
> stoner of the 1970s, as Daniel Forbes detailed in Slate. And, as
Forbes
> showed, the drug czar's office has grossly exaggerated the numbers on
this
> issue in the past.
>
> Meanwhile, UCLA public policy expert Mark Kleiman has pointed out
that
> federally funded research by the University of Michigan shows that
since
the
> 1970s the level of high reported by high school seniors who smoked
marijuana
> has remained "flat as a pancake." In other words, even if today's
kids are
> smoking more potent stuff, they don't get higher than their folks did
--
> like drinking a few whiskey shots rather than multiple mugs of beer,
they
> use less of the good stuff to achieve the same effect.
>
> With regard to depression, evidence of a causal role for marijuana is
even
> murkier. In general, depression rates in the population did rise
sharply
> during the time period in which marijuana use also skyrocketed. But
there
> were so many other relevant sociological factors that marked the last
half
> of the 20th century -- rising divorce rates, the changing roles of
women,
> economic shifts, and better diagnoses of psychiatric conditions, to
name a
> few -- that scientists have rarely focused on marijuana as a
potential
cause
> for the increase in depression.
>
> Murray maintains that scientists have simply overlooked marijuana in
their
> search for explanations. One study published in the Archives of
General
> Psychiatry in 2002, by New York University psychiatry professor
Judith
Brook
> and several colleagues, found that early marijuana use increased the
risk
of
> major depression by 19 percent. But that's not a substantial amount,
> according to Brook. And though the association remained after other
factors
> were controlled for, such as living in poverty, it weakened further.
"I
> wouldn't say that it's causal," Brook says. "It's an association. It
appears
> to contribute."
>
> The campaign selectively uses another piece of data, citing an
Australian
> study published in the British Medical Journal in 2002 to assert that
for
> teens, weekly marijuana use doubles the risk of depression. What that
study
> found was that the risk doubled for teens who smoke marijuana weekly
or
more
> frequently. And it found that depression rates increased
substantially in
> girls but not in boys. It also noted that "questions remain about the
level
> of association between cannabis use and depression and anxiety and
about
the
> mechanism underpinning the link."
>
> Moreover, a June 2005 study by researchers at University of Southern
> California, using the Center for Epidemiologic Studies' Depression
Scale,
> found that marijuana use was in fact associated with lower levels of
> depression. Because the research was conducted using an Internet
survey,
> it's possible that the most severely depressed people did not
participate;
> nonetheless the study of more than 4,400 people found that both heavy
pot
> smokers and moderate users reported less depression than did
nonusers.
>
> Dr. Myrna Weissman, a psychiatrist and leading epidemiologist of
depression
> at Columbia University, sums up the current research and her view of
> marijuana's role in depression rates this way: "I can't imagine that
it's
a
> major factor."
>
> The distortion of science under the Bush administration is, of
course,
> nothing new.
>
> "This is just more red-state culture-war politics," says UCLA's
Kleiman,
of
> the latest anti-marijuana campaign. He notes that since the
government
> measures success in the war on drugs by a reduction in the number of
drug
> users -- rather than by declines in drug-related harm or addiction --
> marijuana is the obvious drug to go after. According to the most
recent
> National Survey on Drug Use and Health from 2003, approximately 25
million
> Americans reported using marijuana over the previous year; compared
with
> approximately 6 million users of cocaine and 1 million users of
> methamphetamine -- both far more addictive substances -- marijuana is
a
big,
> soft target.
>
> Yet, for a public desensitized to fear-mongering antidrug messages, a
> campaign touting selected statistics from tenuous studies seems
especially
> tone deaf, if not irresponsible.
>
> "If I tell my 15-year-old that he's going to have a psychotic episode
if
he
> smokes pot, but he knows that his older brother already smokes pot
and is
> fine, is he going to believe me when I tell him that methamphetamine
damages
> the brain?" asks Mitch Earleywine, an associate professor of
psychology at
> the State University of New York at Albany, who coauthored the USC
study.
> Amphetamine psychosis is an established effect of taking large doses
of
that
> class of drugs; warnings about it appear on the labeling of
prescription
> amphetamines. "What's going to happen," says Earleywine, "is we're
going
to
> lose all credibility with our teens."
>
> The drug czar's office may soon face a full-blown credibility problem
of
its
> own regarding its fight against marijuana. Drug warriors have always
had
at
> least one powerful argument to fall back on when other attacks
against
> marijuana seem to go up in smoke -- but in the face of a new study,
that
may
> no longer be the case.
>
> Previous research has pointed to the notion that smoking marijuana
could
> cause cancer, the same way tobacco smoking has been incontrovertibly
linked
> with cancer and death. The Institute of Medicine, charged by Congress
with
> settling scientific debates, said in its last major report on the
subject
in
> 1999 that the fact that most users smoke marijuana is a primary
reason to
> oppose its use as medicine.
>
> But that reasoning was called into question in late June, when Dr.
Donald
> Tashkin of the UCLA School of Medicine presented a large,
case-control
study
> -- of the kind that have linked tobacco use with increases in lung
cancer --
> at an annual scientific meeting of the International Cannabinoid
Research
> Society in Clearwater, Fla. Tashkin is no hippie-dippy marijuana
advocate:
> His earlier work has been cited by the drug czar's office itself,
because
> his research showed that marijuana can cause lung damage. The new
study,
> however, found no connection between pot smoking -- even by heavy
users --
> and lung cancer. In fact, among the more than 1,200 people studied,
those
> who had smoked marijuana, but not cigarettes, appeared to have a
lower
risk
> for lung cancer than even those who had smoked neither.
>
> The new research has not yet been peer reviewed, but it appears
congruent
> with earlier studies that found no link between marijuana and
increased
> cancer risk. If the data holds up to further scrutiny and testing,
one can
> only speculate what new ad campaign the drug czar's office might cook
up.
> Marijuana may not make most people crazy, but this latest discovery
could
> really drive the old drug warriors bonkers.
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> About the writer
> Maia Szalavitz is the author of the forthcoming book "Tough
Love
> America: How the 'Troubled Teen' Industry Cons Parents and Hurts
Kids"
> (Riverhead, 2005). She has also written for the New York Times, Elle,
> Redbook and other publications.
>
>
>
