COSMOS magazine

Get COSMOS Teacher's Notes
  • Add this story to stumbleupon
  • Add this story to Yahoo Buzz
  • Add this story to Digg
  • Add this story to reddit
  • Add this story to Slashdot
  • Add this story to newsvine
  • Add this story to facebook
  • Add this story to technorati
  • Add this story to del-icio-us
  • Add this story to furl

Feature - print

Marijuana: What science has to say

Single page print view

Marijuana: What science has to say

Cannabis literature from Holland, where it's legal to buy small quantities of the drug for personal use.

Does this prove marijuana causes schizophrenia? "The jury is still out," says Iversen. "The problem is that only a small proportion of people smoke heavily, and only a small proportion of people develop schizophrenia – we're dealing with vanishingly small numbers."

Given the large increase in the number of people who use marijuana over the past 30 years, as well as its increased potency, if marijuana was causing schizophrenia we should see an increased number of cases. But estimates by Hall and others show that the rate has stayed at about one per cent.

Many researchers believe the most plausible explanation of this data is that marijuana does not trigger schizophrenia in those who would otherwise not develop it. Rather, marijuana use brings on symptoms earlier and more severely in patients who would get the disease anyway. Says Castle, "It seems to be the straw that breaks the camel's back."

To find out who these susceptible people are, a New Zealand study looked to their genes. The study showed that people who carried a particular variety of a gene called catechol-o-methyl transferase (a gene involved in the synthesis of the brain chemical dopamine), were about 11 times more likely to develop schizophrenia if they used marijuana.

But in most cases of schizophrenia, researchers can't pinpoint the genes responsible. The best guide as to who is most at risk from smoking marijuana is a family history of mental illness or existing psychotic symptoms.

MARIJUANA USE has also been linked to depression. A 2002 study published in the British Medical Journal by George Patton, of the Centre for Adolescent Health at the University of Melbourne, showed that marijuana use doubled the risk of later depression and anxiety in teenage girls.

Other studies, like a 2005 paper in the journal Addictive Behaviours by Thomas Denson at the University of Southern California and Mitch Earleywine of the University of Albany found the opposite: it was entitled "Decreased depression in marijuana users." Wayne Hall agrees that the link between marijuana and depression is even more open to question than that between marijuana and psychosis.

See our boxout that goes with this feature – Medical Marijuana, read the full article here.

As for addiction, the common wisdom is that marijuana is not an addictive drug. The laboratory rat will attest to that: put heroin, cocaine or amphetamines into its water bottle and the rat will keep coming back. Put the main active component of marijuana, THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) in its food and it won't.

Yet, scan through the scientific journals and the academic literature and you'll find a surprising term: 'marijuana dependence'.

"Whether or not there is a cannabis dependence syndrome is one of the most contested claims in the cannabis policy debate," admits Hall.

Adds Paul Dillon, a spokesman for Australia's National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC): "If you talk about a drug of dependence, that heightens attention and the chance that the legal ramifications will be upped. A lot of people simply don't consider marijuana to be that harmful."

According to Earleywine, author of the books Understanding Marijuana, and the soon-to-be-published Pot Politics, the changes in terminology – which evolved from 'physical addiction' to 'psychological dependence' to 'dependence' – might have been an attempt to get marijuana labelled as a true drug of addiction.

"The bottom line is that marijuana never quite qualified as such, so they started making distinctions. Nobody ever liked the 'psychological dependence' idea, as it was meaningless and [people] started applying it to running and love and everything else. Rumour has it that the whole thing was all about getting marijuana users diagnosed as dependent."

But addiction is characterised not just by a craving for more or increased physiological tolerance to exposure, but also by withdrawal symptoms. "People were still trying to find marijuana withdrawal after 4,000 years of use," notes Earleywine.

On the other hand, Hall says that the changing perception of marijuana from a non-addictive drug to a drug of dependence was just a natural consequence of the passage of time. "This is what we saw when cocaine and amphetamines started being used. They weren't considered addictive drugs. Cannabis is just repeating history."

For a snapshot of what marijuana dependence actually looks like, take a visit to one of the burgeoning clinics in Britain, the United States, Australia and Amsterdam. According to a 2001 study by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, the fraction of patients who attended drug clinics for marijuana dependence rose sharply, from
4 per cent to some 21 per cent over 10 years.

"There's no question that some people get into strife and can't stop," says Hall. "A dependent marijuana smoker is like a heavy drinker or smoker: they are chronically intoxicated and spend as much as 25 per cent of their income on it. Often we look at people in their early 30s, who may have smoked daily for 15 years without knowing there was a problem. Then they try to stop, and they can't. Other typical cases are young boys in juvenile detention or in the mental health service. They smoke
20 to 30 bongs a day, every day."

Controversial or not, the terminology change does not seem to have been part of a conspiracy to demonise marijuana. In the 1970s, the World Health Organisation pushed for a terminology change to remove the stigma attached to the word 'addict'. And as new drugs came out of fields and laboratories and into widespread use, the term 'addiction' became outdated because it was specifically tailored to the use of heroin and opium (known jointly as opiates). When amphetamines or cocaine came along in the late 1970s, they didn't fit this description, and so were not considered harmful drugs. Eventually, says Hall, their harmful effects became apparent. And better checklists were required.

Over the past 20 years or so, several checklists have come and gone. The latest and most widely used is the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, currently in its fourth version and generally abbreviated as DSM IV. This checklist looks at the broad impact of the drug on the person's life as well as the psychological and physical fallout. For instance, does it disrupt their professional or personal life? Do people use it despite knowing it causes them problems? Do they spend a great amount of time and money trying to get the drug? Do they find it difficult to give up? There are seven items on the checklist; if the user scores three of them in the previous 12 months, they are considered dependent.

On this radar screen, marijuana certainly makes an appearance. According to Hall, about one in 10 people who sample marijuana will become dependent on it. But let's keep things in perspective: for cigarettes the comparable figure is one in three, for alcohol one in six, and for heroin it's one in four.

Looked at this way, marijuana is but a minor offender. However, given the large number of marijuana users, the figures start to climb. According to a 2001 study by Wendy Swift at NDARC, an estimated 300,000 Australians are marijuana dependent. Certainly the briefing information for the Australian National Cannabis Strategy, an attempt to come up with a plan for dealing with cannabis that delivered its report in May 2006, describes cannabis as "second only to heroin use in terms of healthy years of life lost ... there were more disability-adjusted healthy years of life lost in 1996 due to cannabis use and dependence than [due to] HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C."

Still, according to Earleywine, "that alarming equation smacks of statistical hand waving; a few assumptions turned into an equation that sounds more alarming than it really is. Marijuana withdrawal symptoms are things like irritability and not having the munchies [food cravings]. Of all the things I'd rather have, cannabis dependence is way above those others." As to the evidence that cannabis causes significant losses of time in employment or in relationships (the so-called 'amotivational syndrome'), Earleywine contests the data. He cites his own study on a group representing the general population – Internet users – that was published in January 2006 in the journal Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy. It showed that regular marijuana users didn't necessarily take more sick days or earn less money.

The Mardigrass Festival campaigns for the legislation of marijuana as well as offering five days of cannabis-based activities in the New South Wales town of Nimbin.(Image: Nimbin Hemp Embassy)

AS TIME HAS passed, cannabis dependence syndrome has been described not only in humans, but in rats too. In the past, rats were reassuring because they didn't get addicted to THC when it was added to their food. But according to the traditional rat test, nicotine isn't addictive either – and anyone who has tried to give up smoking tobacco will certainly disagree with that. So could it be that there's something wrong with the test?

Just as people are now given a different test to measure dependence, so are rats. If rats are put in a cage with a red and a green room, and they are injected with THC only in the green room, they will end up spending more time in the green room. Arguably, it mimics the behaviour of a dependent person: they change their life activities to acquire the substance. On this test, rats are revealed as forming dependence on both nicotine and cannabis.

Readers' comments

Prohibition is a Crime!

There is a lot of discussion about Cannabis consumption being associated with mental disorders. I find it vexing to say the least that the trauma's of Prohibition are never factored in to the debate or any study done on Cannabis. If these researchers had ever been searched in the street, raided in their homes, insulted by the police, had their homes turned upside down, put through the courts, verbally abused by magistrates and judges, then fined or jailed, then go back to the world and try to explain all this to friends, family, colleagues and employers, they might have some idea of why it is that people who consume cannabis can end up feeling depressed. And after you've been through all that you really need a smoke to calm your nerves. If we really care about people who show signs of depression, mental disorders, psychotic illnes, schizophrenia, then why is it that the first thing that we do to them when we find them is through the law book at them and put them through all that. You say you want to help people who are down on there luck yet the first priority of 'Prohibition' is to punish them and make their life so much harder for them. Who are you trying to fool.

marijuana

Dear Cosmos (Dave Shiflett & Elizabeth Finkel or otherwise)

Looking for connections on the internet for marijuana I found your names and email so I write for advice and maybe a job or a connection.

I'm wondering what would be a good degree to study to help work and legalize marijuana as I believe marijuana is the miracle medicine, if only people had the knowledge of the daily benefits of it. I've done a course in the Arts, Integration and business, and am now pursuing marijuana as a medicine for all humans. I've done a lot of reading, research, studies and experiments myself, and with others being people who like it for recreational use or people who are sick and on tablets which are only ruining them as I've seen outcomes and no solutions.

Recent news has shown cough medicines have killed children in the past, this is where I believe marijuana is also harmless for children as it has also never before killed a grown adult, and I've found research it was used on children also as a medicine many years ago.

I went to the May 2007 Marijuana Mardigrass in Australia Nimbin and had very good outcomes and information, and had a really good time too and noticed no violence or anything to fear.

If we can connect/meet/talk somehow I'd love to share information and work to help in the process of legalizing marijuana for the benefit of all our sakes.

I hope to hear from you and for Victory to finally be done.

Thankyou
Antonia Likisiotis

email: toniaa1@xxxxxxxxxxx
Phone: 0402xxxxxx

Edit: personal details removed

Marijuana reply

Antonia,

Im completely with you on this subject and have no doubts about the use of marijuana. I have just started an honours course in molecular drug designing in South Australia at university.

I believe that this course is going to help me to understrand exactly what marijuana does to the brain of adults and children. Maybe i will find that the drug is more complicated or more simple than what we know in todays science but one thing that will stay the same is my stand. Pot, in my opinion is far from extremely harmfull (as the government likes to put it) to humans. Although it is not harmless either, purely from the fact that inhaling smoke and in particular carbon monoxide onto your lungs is not good for you.

Good luck with your research,
i would be honoured if we could speak over e-mail or on msn about this subject.

Sincerely yours ,
Dustin

email: dustin_301@hotmail.com

prohibition is a crime

so true paul, ive smoked the herb for 27 years, the only time i feel paranoid is if and when i have contact with the police, and yes i do feel depressed at times because im viewed as a criminal,when i know im not. i believe the war on drugs antagonises mental illness, some people who have mental health issues avoid help because they understand thier choice to use cannabis will be viewed by health professionals with a negative bias,focusing on the drug use not the underlying issues.(i see doctors as an arm of the state, blindly accepting laws whether right or wrong).my view is a lot of drug users may have been abused(sexually,physically or emotionally)as children, only to be abused by the state with their punitive drug war when adults.prosecuted drug users are just Victims many times over.Hate and ideology should be replaced with peace and compassion. we shouldn't allow the government to use prisons to treat the mentaly ill,or push illconcieved political ideology down our throats. It's such an irony that we consider places like the US or australia as free countries, they are anything but.

Silly

I found it unbelievably hilarious to see the anti marijuana advertisement, depicting the number plate "cannabis- a paranoid state" im sure drinking coffee would make you fairly paranoid if every time you drank it, you thought the police were going to arrest you.

enough said

Marijuana and alcohol should

Marijuana and alcohol should be treated the same, they are both drugs that people take in order to make life more bearable. I guarantee if alcohol was to be outlawed again, there would be an uproar. Marijuana wasn't considered dangerous until propaganda brain washed America. People didn't question, they figured that the government knew what they were doing, and they trusted them. Not a single death has been related to marijuana use and nor will it ever, why? because marijuana users who use it on the weekends to celebrate a hard weeks work, tend to be extremely cautious. Like any drug, there are people who know when and when not to use. People who cannot control their drinking or smoking should not be using at all, PERIOD. Even though alcohol is legal, it has many risks that are not associated with marijuana. Alcohol impairs, while marijuana relaxes and many people have different preferences. Some people just don't like to get drunk and turn into an idiot for a few hours, some just want to sit back, relax and think. Also, science has blessed us thinkers with some hope, the vaporizer. For those who don't know yet, a vaporizer simply vaporizers the THC crystals off of the plant material giving you a smokeless high, therefore eliminating the need to smoke the plant. When the user is done, they throw the plant material in the garbage. Another way to harmlessly take marijuana is to ingest it, new studies have shown that ingesting marijuana has no negative physical long term affects.

thank you for letting me post my thoughts, and I hope this has enlightened people who are unfamiliar with marijuana.

The true crime is not using

The true crime is not using such a perfect medicine with over 4,000 of documented use and the fact that tobacco is legal which causes over 450,000 death a year and weed which only is responsible for 0 deaths a year look up info about weed at webmd .com

Marijuana

Dear Cosmos,
Can we all please call it by it's proper english name. HEMP.... If you look up Marijuana in my 1946 Edition Oxford Dictionary it says and I quote "Dried Indian HEMP used to make 'doped cigarettes'.
I cannot understand the mentality that puts hemp in the same pigeon hole as heroin,cocaine and amphetamines. Even comparing it to alchohol does hemp a dis-service. I like the 'about as harmful as aspirin' quote on your web page. You can die of overdose from Paracetemol but not THC.
One of my sisters was beaten for years by her alchoholic husband. I have observed during my 48 years of life that reactions to drug related deaths are given huge headlines by the news media but alchohol related deaths are somehow acceptable. One of my work acquaintances died of schlerosis of the liver at age 21. He had been drinking heavily since age 14. The only mention of his death was in the Obituaries. I have seen marriages break up because of every conceivable reason except hemp smoking. I'm sure that other people have seen it but not many I'll bet.

For those who don't know, American Foriegn Policy dictates that if you want any kind of help from them your country must prohibit hemp. What does that mean? If you want fibre to make a product you have to use a synthetic fibre. Which country produces more synthetic fibre than anyone else? America of course. The whole reason it was called Marijuana (a Mexican colloquialism) was to confuse their own farmers who had been growing it since before the USA was a country. When Pearl Harbor was bombed in 1941 the Dupont company had to inform the U.S. military that it could not supply enough synthetic fibre for the war effort, so what did the American Government do, it started the "Hemp for Victory" campaign. Suddenly American farmers were asked to grow 'hemp' for tents and ropes etc.Cannot stand hypocrites.
In my opinion companies like Dupont are the main protagonists of modern hemp laws. If hemp fibre was once again widely used for canvas, rope, heshion, denim fibre and the like, synthetic fibre companies and the cotton industry in general would loose huge profits. If the cotton growers swapped to hemp they would still get those profits, probably more because hemp is less labour and chemically intensive. When I was young everything was packaged in heshion.Potatoes,apples,oranges,carpets all sorts of things.
Hemp is a hardy plant with a million uses (and many millions of users). Plastic is the current fibre with a million uses. Please don't get me wrong, without plastis most medical procedures could not be done and all sorts of essential services and products would not exist, but in 1943 Henry Ford made a plastic car body from hemp. That little fact seems to have been forgotten.
Planet Earth cannot degrade polymers. The fibres separate but do not degrade. I would be much happier carrying my groceries home in heshion bags rather than plastic ones (and I do) and I'm sure some people would be VERY happy to wipe their bums with paper made from hemp, (if you get my meaning).
Hemp could save a lot of environmental damage but who cares eh?

Re Cannabis versus Hemp

I totally agree with the hypothesis that large-scale hemp production is heavily influenced by the multinationals in favour of the more chemically intensive Cotton and Nylon-Synthetics industry.
It's the chemical derived from the female flowering tops is used medicinally and is the source of marijuana and hashish.
The word hemp is used in combination for several other kinds of fiber plants, notably Manila hemp and sisal hemp. The true hemp plant is related to the hop,
Hemp was a popular fiber because it is strong and grows quickly; it produces 250% more fiber than cotton and 600% more fiber than flax when grown on the same land.
The Declaration of Independence was printed on hemp paper.
It was used to make canvas, and the word canvas itself derives from cannabis
Manila yielded better rope. Burlap, made from jute, took over the sacking market. The paper industry began using wood pulp. The carpet industry switched over to wool, sisal, and jute, then nylon. Netting and webbing applications were taken over by cotton and synthetics.

Industrial Hemp should be harvested before it flowers. This early cropping is done because fibre quality declines if flowering is allowed and prevents the source of drug material.
In these strains of industrial hemp the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) are almost negligible.

Cannabis is the genus favoured by medical practitioners.
Cannabis for non-drug purposes (especially ropes and textiles) was then already well known as hemp.

Synthetics especially nylon and other polymers are dependent on huge quantities of petrochemicals either as a solvent in their production or as fuel for the actual production. Nylon, polymex, polyamitride, viscous, polyester, acrylic- the list goes on.
If hemp, jute or flax were to be substituted- which as cellulose fibres are many times stronger than the synthetics, it would totally erase any incentive for a synthetic.
True- we do need synthetics for specific tasks- but many mundane and basic goods can be manufactured easily with natural fibres.
Do not forget that the medieval and Renaissance of Europe was built on a wool-jute-hemp-linen economy.
Cotton is incredibly dependent on agricultural chemicals such as pesticides, herbicides, fungicides and fertilizer. In many areas, cotton simply could not grow without chemical assistant- in terms of pestcide and fertiliser.
The entire cotton mega-industry is a major earner for the agricultural chemical giants like Monsanto.
Summarily- I think you hit the nail right on the head. Like most things in this world basic economics rather than ideologies are the basis of all conflict.

My comment above on industrial hemp

All that being said about industrial hemp- I ccompletely disagree with any legalization of cannabis.
It has documented side effects which do create massive costs to society- the tax paying kind as opposed to the stereotypically marginally employed or low-income stoner- yes we all know that there are a few exceptions- but statistically the bell-curve is known to best represent population demographic info- HENCE- the centre of the bell-curve is on low-income groups- who do not subsidise their own health care nor illegitimate offspring and higher income groups should not be burdened by other demographics' poor choices or control of will power.