WHATFG
Well-Known Member
Here we go again. Another week, another massive study by top doctors and scientists finding very limited medicinal value to marijuana. In an age when liberal politicians such as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson claim to be implementing “evidence-based” public policy, I find it odd that they have such a blind spot when it comes to pot.
A new report by the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine — The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids: The Current State of Evidence and Recommendations for Research — that reviewed the results of 10,700 studies on the medicinal qualities of marijuana concluded that there is “conclusive or substantial evidence that cannabis or cannabinoids are effective” in treating only three conditions: chronic pain in adults, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and patient-reported multiple sclerosis spasticity symptoms (although there was “limited” evidence of “clinician-measured” spasticity relief).
The report, drafted by a committee headed by Harvard medical school professor Dr. Marie McCormick, reached similar conclusions to a review of the research on medical marijuana published in June by the Journal of the American Medical Association. It found “moderate-quality” evidence that pot controls pain and MS spasticity.
An editorial accompanying the JAMA research argued that the political agenda to legitimize “medical” marijuana — which in Vancouver includes bumbling attempts by City Hall to regulate pot shops and the federal government’s plan to legalize marijuana — was pushing ahead without adequate research into whether marijuana was effective or safe.
The National Academies report also listed the significant harms of marijuana, including:
• “substantial evidence” that smoking pot causes “worse respiratory symptoms and more frequent bronchitis episodes”;
• increased risk of motor vehicle crashes;
• moderate evidence of increased risk of overdose injuries, including respiratory distress among children;
• substantial evidence that pot use by pregnant women results in newborns with lower birth weights;
• moderate evidence it causes impairment of “the cognitive domains of learning, memory and attention” with acute use;
• substantial evidence linking cannabis use with the “development of schizophrenia or other psychoses”; and
• substantial evidence linking increases in cannabis use frequency with “progression to problem cannabis use”.
With all that, how can any responsible public official rush into loosening controls on marijuana without thoroughly considering the negative impacts on people and society, especially when the loudest chorus for the policy change is coming from the mostly illegal marijuana industry that stands to massively profit? Why is anyone listening to them and their claims?
The new study, for example, found “limited evidence” that cannabis is effective at treating weight loss in HIV/AIDS patients, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, dementia, glaucoma, depression, cancer, anorexia, irritable bowel syndrome, epilepsy … and on an on.
For the most part, the medical marijuana industry is a fraud. It’s making false claims to sell pot because people like to get high. I just wish everyone would own up to that fact. And I say that as someone who has long support decriminalization because with so many people using marijuana it makes no sense saddling people with criminal records over relatively innocuous behaviour. But that’s a far cry from legalizing the drug, or celebrating its use as so many people now do.
Look at Colorado. In almost any way it can be measured, increased marijuana use is causing a host of societal problems, including higher rates of marijuana-impaired driving, pot use by teenagers and young adults, school drop-out rates, marijuana-related hospital visits, and accidental exposure of the drug to children.
I’m not interested in launching a new form of reefer madness, but doesn’t government have a responsibility to discourage behaviour that isn’t good for people? Surely, Canada or Vancouver are not improved — and people are not leading as productive and significant lives as possible — with increased drug use.
It is hard for me and others to reconcile the stern warnings on Health Canada’s website about the dangers of pot use, especially by young people, with a decriminalization policy that everyone knows will expand its use.
There was some good news in the new U.S. study. Marijuana use is, according to the best current evidence, not linked to lung, head or neck cancers, the triggering of heart attacks, strokes or pregnancy complications for mothers, to list a few.
The authors also listed a multitude of conditions and outcomes for which the current research does not provide answers one way or the other, leading them to call on the U.S. federal government to make changes to their drug laws so that more research on marijuana and its effects can be conducted.
That, at least, is something those for and against marijuana can likely agree upon.
A new report by the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine — The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids: The Current State of Evidence and Recommendations for Research — that reviewed the results of 10,700 studies on the medicinal qualities of marijuana concluded that there is “conclusive or substantial evidence that cannabis or cannabinoids are effective” in treating only three conditions: chronic pain in adults, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and patient-reported multiple sclerosis spasticity symptoms (although there was “limited” evidence of “clinician-measured” spasticity relief).
The report, drafted by a committee headed by Harvard medical school professor Dr. Marie McCormick, reached similar conclusions to a review of the research on medical marijuana published in June by the Journal of the American Medical Association. It found “moderate-quality” evidence that pot controls pain and MS spasticity.
An editorial accompanying the JAMA research argued that the political agenda to legitimize “medical” marijuana — which in Vancouver includes bumbling attempts by City Hall to regulate pot shops and the federal government’s plan to legalize marijuana — was pushing ahead without adequate research into whether marijuana was effective or safe.
The National Academies report also listed the significant harms of marijuana, including:
• “substantial evidence” that smoking pot causes “worse respiratory symptoms and more frequent bronchitis episodes”;
• increased risk of motor vehicle crashes;
• moderate evidence of increased risk of overdose injuries, including respiratory distress among children;
• substantial evidence that pot use by pregnant women results in newborns with lower birth weights;
• moderate evidence it causes impairment of “the cognitive domains of learning, memory and attention” with acute use;
• substantial evidence linking cannabis use with the “development of schizophrenia or other psychoses”; and
• substantial evidence linking increases in cannabis use frequency with “progression to problem cannabis use”.
With all that, how can any responsible public official rush into loosening controls on marijuana without thoroughly considering the negative impacts on people and society, especially when the loudest chorus for the policy change is coming from the mostly illegal marijuana industry that stands to massively profit? Why is anyone listening to them and their claims?
The new study, for example, found “limited evidence” that cannabis is effective at treating weight loss in HIV/AIDS patients, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, dementia, glaucoma, depression, cancer, anorexia, irritable bowel syndrome, epilepsy … and on an on.
For the most part, the medical marijuana industry is a fraud. It’s making false claims to sell pot because people like to get high. I just wish everyone would own up to that fact. And I say that as someone who has long support decriminalization because with so many people using marijuana it makes no sense saddling people with criminal records over relatively innocuous behaviour. But that’s a far cry from legalizing the drug, or celebrating its use as so many people now do.
Look at Colorado. In almost any way it can be measured, increased marijuana use is causing a host of societal problems, including higher rates of marijuana-impaired driving, pot use by teenagers and young adults, school drop-out rates, marijuana-related hospital visits, and accidental exposure of the drug to children.
I’m not interested in launching a new form of reefer madness, but doesn’t government have a responsibility to discourage behaviour that isn’t good for people? Surely, Canada or Vancouver are not improved — and people are not leading as productive and significant lives as possible — with increased drug use.
It is hard for me and others to reconcile the stern warnings on Health Canada’s website about the dangers of pot use, especially by young people, with a decriminalization policy that everyone knows will expand its use.
There was some good news in the new U.S. study. Marijuana use is, according to the best current evidence, not linked to lung, head or neck cancers, the triggering of heart attacks, strokes or pregnancy complications for mothers, to list a few.
The authors also listed a multitude of conditions and outcomes for which the current research does not provide answers one way or the other, leading them to call on the U.S. federal government to make changes to their drug laws so that more research on marijuana and its effects can be conducted.
That, at least, is something those for and against marijuana can likely agree upon.
