[Vision2020] Discussing Marijuana via Social Media

Tue Sep 3 13:56:07 PDT 2013

Did you happen to catch Dr. Sanjay Gupta's recent "Weed" documentary?  It
really was quite interesting . . . and discussed how the "anti" crowd really
has been who manipulates the science  J

In case you missed it:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/08/health/gupta-changed-mind-marijuana

Why I changed my mind on weed

By Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN Chief Medical Correspondent

updated 8:44 PM EDT, Thu August 8, 2013

(CNN) -- Over the last year, I have been working on a new documentary called
"Weed." The title "Weed" may sound cavalier, but the content is not.

I traveled around the world to interview medical leaders, experts, growers
and patients. I spoke candidly to them, asking tough questions. What I found
was stunning.

Long before I began this project, I had steadily reviewed the scientific
literature on medical marijuana from the United States and thought it was
fairly unimpressive. Reading these papers five years ago, it was hard to
make a case for medicinal marijuana. I even wrote about this in a TIME
magazine article, back in 2009, titled "Why I would Vote No on Pot
<http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1552034,00.html> ."

Well, I am here to apologize.

I apologize because I didn't look hard enough, until now. I didn't look far
enough. I didn't review papers from smaller labs in other countries doing
some remarkable research, and I was too dismissive of the loud chorus of
legitimate patients whose symptoms improved on cannabis.

Instead, I lumped them with the high-visibility malingerers, just looking to
get high. I mistakenly believed the Drug Enforcement Agency listed marijuana
as a schedule 1 substance <http://www.justice.gov/dea/druginfo/ds.shtml>
because of sound scientific proof. Surely, they must have quality reasoning
as to why marijuana is in the category of the most dangerous drugs that have
"no accepted medicinal use and a high potential for abuse."

They didn't have the science to support that claim, and I now know that when
it comes to marijuana neither of those things are true. It doesn't have a
high potential for abuse, and there are very legitimate medical
applications. In fact, sometimes marijuana is the only thing that works.
Take the case of Charlotte Figi
<http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/07/health/charlotte-child-medical-marijuana/inde
x.html> , who I met in Colorado. She started having seizures soon after
birth. By age 3, she was having 300 a week, despite being on seven different
medications. Medical marijuana has calmed her brain, limiting her seizures
to 2 or 3 per month.

I have seen more patients like Charlotte first hand, spent time with them
and come to the realization that it is irresponsible not to provide the best
care we can as a medical community, care that could involve marijuana.

We have been terribly and systematically misled for nearly 70 years in the
United States, and I apologize for my own role in that.

I hope this article and upcoming documentary will help set the record
straight.

On August 14, 1970, the Assistant Secretary of Health, Dr. Roger O. Egeberg
wrote a letter recommending the plant, marijuana, be classified as a
schedule 1 substance, and it has remained that way for nearly 45 years. My
research started with a careful reading of that decades old letter. What I
found was unsettling. Egeberg had carefully chosen his words:

"Since there is still a considerable void in our knowledge of the plant and
effects of the active drug contained in it, our recommendation is that
marijuana be retained within schedule 1 at least until the completion of
certain studies now underway to resolve the issue."

Not because of sound science, but because of its absence, marijuana was
classified as a schedule 1 substance. Again, the year was 1970. Egeberg
mentions studies that are underway, but many were never completed. As my
investigation continued, however, I realized Egeberg did in fact have
important research already available to him, some of it from more than 25
years earlier.

High risk of abuse

In 1944, New York Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia commissioned research
<http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/lag/lagmenu.htm>  to be
performed by the New York Academy of Science. Among their conclusions: they
found marijuana did not lead to significant addiction in the medical sense
of the word. They also did not find any evidence marijuana led to morphine,
heroin or cocaine addiction.

We now know that while estimates vary, marijuana leads to dependence in
around 9 to 10% of its adult users. By comparison, cocaine, a schedule 2
substance <http://www.justice.gov/dea/druginfo/ds.shtml>  "with less abuse
potential than schedule 1 drugs" hooks 20% of those who use it. Around 25%
of heroin users become addicted.

The worst is tobacco, where the number is closer to 30% of smokers, many of
whom go on to die because of their addiction.

There is clear evidence that in some people marijuana use can lead to
withdrawal symptoms, including insomnia, anxiety and nausea. Even
considering this, it is hard to make a case that it has a high potential for
abuse. The physical symptoms of marijuana addiction are nothing like those
of the other drugs I've mentioned. I have seen the withdrawal from alcohol,
and it can be life threatening.

I do want to mention a concern that I think about as a father. Young,
developing brains are likely more susceptible to harm from marijuana than
adult brains. Some recent studies suggest that regular use in teenage years
leads to a permanent decrease in IQ. Other research hints at a possible
heightened risk of developing psychosis.

Much in the same way I wouldn't let my own children drink alcohol, I
wouldn't permit marijuana until they are adults. If they are adamant about
trying marijuana, I will urge them to wait until they're in their mid-20s
when their brains are fully developed.

Medical benefit

While investigating, I realized something else quite important. Medical
marijuana is not new, and the medical community has been writing about it
for a long time. There were in fact hundreds of journal articles, mostly
documenting the benefits. Most of those papers, however, were written
between the years 1840 and 1930. The papers described the use of medical
marijuana to treat "neuralgia, convulsive disorders, emaciation," among
other things.

A search through the U.S. National Library of Medicine this past year pulled
up nearly 20,000 more recent papers
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=medical+marijuana> . But the
majority were research into the harm of marijuana, such as "Bad trip due to
anticholinergic effect of cannabis
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23906840> ," or "Cannabis induced
pancreatitits <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23892868> " and "Marijuana
use and risk of lung cancer <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23846283> ."

In my quick running of the numbers, I calculated about 6% of the current
U.S. marijuana studies investigate the benefits of medical marijuana. The
rest are designed to investigate harm. That imbalance paints a highly
distorted picture.

The challenges of marijuana research

To do studies on marijuana in the United States today, you need two
important things.

First of all, you need marijuana. And marijuana is illegal. You see the
problem. Scientists can get research marijuana from a special farm in
Mississippi, which is astonishingly located in the middle of the Ole Miss
campus, but it is challenging. When I visited this year, there was no
marijuana being grown.

The second thing you need is approval, and the scientists I interviewed kept
reminding me how tedious that can be. While a cancer study may first be
evaluated by the National Cancer Institute, or a pain study may go through
the National Institute for Neurological Disorders, there is one more
approval required for marijuana: NIDA, the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
It is an organization that has a core mission of studying drug abuse, as
opposed to benefit.

Stuck in the middle are the legitimate patients who depend on marijuana as a
medicine, oftentimes as their only good option.

Keep in mind that up until 1943, marijuana was part of the United States
drug pharmacopeia. One of the conditions for which it was prescribed was
neuropathic pain
<http://www.webmd.com/pain-management/guide/neuropathic-pain> . It is a
miserable pain that's tough to treat. My own patients have described it as
"lancinating, burning and a barrage of pins and needles." While marijuana
has long been documented to be effective for this awful pain
<http://www.jwatch.org/ac200704300000001/2007/04/30/marijuana-painful-periph
eral-neuropathy#sthash.e8PMYHlU.dpuf> , the most common medications
prescribed today come from the poppy plant, including morphine, oxycodone
and dilaudid.

Here is the problem. Most of these medications don't work very well for this
kind of pain, and tolerance is a real problem.

Most frightening to me is that someone dies in the United States every 19
minutes from a prescription drug overdose
<http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/14/health/gupta-accidental-overdose> , mostly
accidental. Every 19 minutes. It is a horrifying statistic. As much as I
searched, I could not find a documented case of death from marijuana
overdose.

It is perhaps no surprise then that 76% of physicians recently surveyed
<http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/drugs/poll-76-percent-of-doctors-appr
ove-of-medical-marijuana-for-advanced-cancer-pain>  said they would approve
the use of marijuana to help ease a woman's pain from breast cancer.

When marijuana became a schedule 1 substance, there was a request to fill a
"void in our knowledge." In the United States, that has been challenging
because of the infrastructure surrounding the study of an illegal substance,
with a drug abuse organization at the heart of the approval process. And
yet, despite the hurdles, we have made considerable progress that continues
today.

Looking forward, I am especially intrigued by studies like those in Spain
and Israel looking at the anti-cancer effects of marijuana
<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090401181217.htm>  and its
components. I'm intrigued by the neuro-protective study by Lev Meschoulam in
Israel, and research in Israel and the United States on whether the drug
might help alleviate symptoms of PTSD
<http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/01/the-case-for-treating-pts
d-in-veterans-with-medical-marijuana/251466/> . I promise to do my part to
help, genuinely and honestly, fill the remaining void in our knowledge.

Citizens in 20 states and the District of Columbia have now voted to approve
marijuana for medical applications, and more states will be making that
choice soon. As for Dr. Roger Egeberg, who wrote that letter in 1970, he
passed away 16 years ago.

I wonder what he would think if he were alive today.

From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
On Behalf Of Darrell Keim
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 1:32 PM
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: [Vision2020] Discussing Marijuana via Social Media

I enjoyed this article about why talking drug use prevention is so difficult
on the internet.  Certainly matches my own findings.  My father was also
roundly attacked when he lobbied against M legalization in his state.

This article from Sue Rusche of What About The Children campaign was
published to show just how inane are comments from the drug user community
on the internet. The sad part is that many young people use Facebook and
Twitter and can be easily influenced by the comments they read on these and
similar sites.  Parents need to educate their youngsters so that they know
how biased and full of untruths such comment from drug users can be. NDPA

<http://www.butwhataboutthechildren.org/?p=1079> Don't Expect to Learn
Anything True about Marijuana From Internet Commenters

Six days after The Huffington Post published my latest article, browsers had
logged in 156 comments. The post was titled
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sue-rusche/marijuana-legalization-pr_b_288476
5.html> Marijuana Legalization Proponents Deny Health Harms Just Like the
Tobacco Industry Did; 153 of the 156 comments proved the point. 

Just 30 people made 80 percent (125) of the comments. Contributing the most
were  <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/truthaboutmmj?action=comments>
truthaboutmmj (19);
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/kevin_hunt2012?action=comments> kevin
hunt2012 (12);
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Andrew_swanteni?action=comments>
Andrew swanteni (9);
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Blows_Against_the_Empire?action=commen
ts> Blows Against the Empire and
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/ConnieInCleveland?action=comments>
ConnieInCleveland (6 each);
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/RMForbes?action=comments> RMForbes,
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/SchumannFu?action=comments>
SchumannFu, and
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Volteric?action=comments> Volteric (5
each);  <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/JohnThomas?action=comments>
JohnThomas,  <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Tomaniac?action=comments>
Tomaniac, and
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/WowFolksAreDumb?action=comments>
WowFolksAreDumb (4 each);
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/average_dude?action=comments> average
dude,  <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/FlyingTooLow?action=comments>
FlyingTooLow,
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/JD_Salinger?action=comments> JD
Salinger,
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Matthew_Fairbrother?action=comments>
Matthew Fairbrother,
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/McMike55?action=comments> McMike55,
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/moldy?action=comments> moldy,
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Paul_Paul?action=comments> Paul Paul,
and  <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/susierr?action=comments> susierr
(3 each). Eleven people contributed 2 comments each; 28 contributed 1 each.
Only one person,
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Jan_Beauregard?action=comments> Jan
Beauregard, PhD, a Virginia
<http://ipivirginia.com/2012/10/jan-beauregard/> psychotherapist whose
specialties include addictive disorders, agreed that marijuana has health
harms. She contributed three comments. 

Clicking a link in a commenter's name will take you to
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/your-huffpost-experience_b
_260666.html> Huff Post's Social News and a collection of all the comments
that person has made about Huff Post stories. Commenters
<http://www.butwhataboutthechildren.org/?paged=1> apply for a spot on Social
News by linking it to their Facebook accounts, which magnifies Huff Post's
reach. Call it Huff Post squared. Huff Post cubed occurs if commenters also
link Social News to their Twitter accounts.
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/introducing-huffpost-badg_
b_557168.html> Huff Post awards badges to commenters based on the number of
comments they make on Huff Post's stories and the number of Facebook Friends
and Twitter Followers they have. The more comments, friends, and followers,
the higher level badges they earn.
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/WowFolksAreDumb?action=comments>
WowFolksAreDumb, for example, who must hold some kind of record, has written
more than 10,000 comments since joining Social News in May 2012 and has
earned four badges-Level 2 Networker, Level 2 Superuser, Level 1 Crime
Solver, and Moderator. 

Huff Post has brilliantly tapped into social media to expand its audience
exponentially. But this brave new world comes at a cost. Few editors live in
this world. Opinions triumph over facts. Quantity trumps quality. Truth
loses. 

Juxtapose this with two major problems of current science: 1) the public
cannot access most published studies and 2) scientific disciplines are so
specialized that  <http://www.butwhataboutthechildren.org/?paged=1> public
access would hardly matter. A PhD is needed to understand the complexity of
new knowledge scientists are developing today, and a PhD in one discipline
does not guarantee understanding of knowledge developed in another.
Scientists can't speak each other's languages anymore, so specialized have
various disciplines become. An astronomer couldn't explain the genome to you
any better than a geneticist could explain the cosmos. 

Without access to comprehensible science, science illiteracy rules,
particularly in the area of the science that underlies addictive drugs.
Perhaps the most puzzling argument that runs through many of the comments
about my post is one that rejects later work which contradicts earlier
studies.
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/WowFolksAreDumb?action=comments>
WowFolksAreDumb, for example, writes, "According to Dreher 1994, there are
no prenatal or neonatal differences between babies from mothers who did use
cannabis during pregnancy and babies from mothers who did not." In addition
to the 2012 study I wrote about, more than 50 other studies about the
harmful effects of marijuana on the developing fetus have been published
since 1994, but
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/WowFolksAreDumb?action=comments>
WowFolksAreDumb claims the 1994 study negates them all.
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/maxpost?action=comments> Maxpost,
Midnight Toker, goes a step further. He interprets Dreher's study to mean:
"Pregnant women SHOULD smoke DOPE!!!" 

Commenters attacked all the studies I wrote about, particularly the study
indicating a link between marijuana use and testicular cancer.
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Steven_Hager?action=comments> Steve
Hager dismissed it this way: "I believe the testicular cancer study involved
6 people, maybe it was only 3. Worthless, really." That study actually
involved 163 young men diagnosed with testicular cancer and a control group
of 292 healthy men of the same age and ethnicity and asked them about their
drug use. The investigators found that compared to those who had never used
marijuana, men who had used the drug were twice as likely to have testicular
cancer. It's difficult to understand why Mr. Hager couldn't trouble himself
to check how many people were involved in the study since I provided links
to both the account of it published by Science Daily and the abstract of the
study itself. Both clearly state the number of research subjects.

The collision of social media with current, complex science produces a chasm
where scientific truth can be manipulated easily - and aggressively. I
emailed Dr. Beauregard to thank her for supporting the marijuana science I
had written about. She emailed back, "I have found many of the same facts,
but the comments are more than I can stand and the backlash is horrific. I
only posted a few things and have had literally over 50 people email me with
hostile, emotional comments based on personal experience as a user." 

And that, in a nutshell, is the heart of the problem. When it comes to
marijuana, users dominate not just Huff Post, but the Internet as well. They
relentlessly assault anyone who reports that a marijuana study might show a
detrimental effect. Few have time to put up with this, not therapists like
Dr. Beauregard who treats marijuana addiction, not scientists who conduct
the studies, not writers who report the science. With marijuana, what takes
place on the Internet is a shouting match; those who shout loudest win.

After this experience, I've learned something else about the drug: marijuana
not only makes you lie, it makes you rude.

Source:  <http://www.nationalfamilies.org/> www.nationalfamilies.org
<http://www.butwhataboutthechildren.org/?author=2> National Families in
Action March 29, 2013 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130903/7c692f94/attachment-0001.html>