Why Not Legalize Mary Jane?

[Palehorse]

(marijuana - global prevalence)
(2008) "Globally, the number of people who had used cannabis at least once in 2008 is estimated between 129 and 191 million, or 2.9% to 4.3% of the world population aged 15 to 64. ... National experts in many parts of the world perceive cannabis use to be either stabilizing or increasing, although about 15 countries reported a decrease in 2007 and 2008."

2007) "The global number of people who used cannabis at least once in 2007 is estimated to be between 143 and 190 million persons. The highest levels of use remain in the established markets of North America and Western Europe, although there are signs from recent studies that the levels of use are declining in developed countries, particularly among young people."

(2004) "Cannabis remains by far the most commonly used drug in the world. An estimated 162 million people used cannabis in 2004, equivalent to some 4 per cent of the global population age 15-64. In relative terms, cannabis use is most prevalent in Oceania, followed by North America and Africa. While Asia has the lowest prevalence expressed as part of the population, in absolute terms it is the region that is home to some 52 million cannabis users, more than a third of the estimated total. The next largest markets, in absolute terms, are Africa and North America."

Source: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, "World Drug Report 2010" (United Nations: Vienna, Austria, 2010), p. 194.
http://www.unodc.org/documents/wdr/WDR_2010/World_Drug_Report_2010_lo-re...
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, "World Drug Report 2009" (United Nations: Vienna, Austria, 2009), p. 89.
http://www.unodc.org/documents/wdr/WDR_2009/WDR2009_eng_web.pdf
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, "World Drug Report 2006, Volume 1: Analysis" (United Nations: Vienna, Austria, 2006), p. 23.
http://www.unodc.org/pdf/WDR_2006/wdr2006_volume1.pdf

(2007 - risk of arrest) "To provide a sense of the intensity of enforcement, we calculated the risk a marijuana user faces of being arrested for possession. If calculated per joint consumed, the figure nationally is trivial—perhaps one arrest for every 11,000–12,000 joints.4 However, the relevant risk may be the probability of being arrested during a year of normal consumption. Since marijuana is mostly consumed by individuals who use it at least once a month,5 we estimated the risk that such individuals face. We know from prior studies (e.g., Reuter, Hirschfield, and Davies, 2001) that these risks are higher for youth. Table 2.2 presents separate estimates for those aged 12–17 and for the entire population 12 and over. We observe that the annual risk of misdemeanor arrest for those 12–17 (6.6 percent) is more than twice the rate for the full population (3.0 percent)."

Source: Kilmer, Beau; Caulkins, Jonathan P.; Pacula, Rosalie Liccardo; MacCoun, Robert J.; Reuter, Peter H., "Altered State? Assessing How Marijuana Legalization in California Could Influence Marijuana Consumption and Public Budgets" Drug Policy Research Center (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2010), p. 8.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/2010/RAND_OP315.pdf

(2006 - marijuana treatment admissions by the criminal justice system) "More than half (58 percent) of primary marijuana admissions were referred to treatment through the criminal justice system."

Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies. Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS): 1996-2006. National Admissions to Substance Abuse Treatment Services, DASIS Series: S-43, DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 08-4347, Rockville, MD, 2008, p. 41.
http://wwwdasis.samhsa.gov/teds06/teds2k6aweb508.pdf

(1992-2002 - marijuana treatment admissions) "... between these years [1992 and 2002] the rate of substance abuse treatment admissions reporting marijuana as their primary substance of abuse3 per 100,000 population increased 162 percent. Similarly, the proportion of marijuana admissions increased from 6 percent of all admissions in 1992 to 15 percent of all admissions reported to the Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) in 2002.

"During this time period, the percentage of marijuana treatment admissions that were referred from the criminal justice system increased from 48 percent of all marijuana admissions in 1992 to 58 percent of all marijuana admissions in 2002."

Source: "Differences in Marijuana Admissions Based on Source of Referral: 2002," The DASIS Report (Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies, June 5, 2005), pp. 1-2.
http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k5/MJreferrals/MJreferrals.pdf

(marijuana and safety) When examining the health affects of marijuana use, the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse concluded,

"A careful search of the literature and testimony of the nation's health officials has not revealed a single human fatality in the United States proven to have resulted solely from ingestion of marihuana. Experiments with the drug in monkeys demonstrated that the dose required for overdose death was enormous and for all practical purposes unachievable by humans smoking marihuana. This is in marked contrast to other substances in common use, most notably alcohol and barbiturate sleeping pills."

The World Health Organization reached the same conclusion in 1995.

Source: Shafer, Raymond P., et al, Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding, Ch. III, (Washington DC: National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, 1972);
http://druglibrary.net/schaffer/Library/studies/nc/ncc3.htm
Hall, W., Room, R. & Bondy, S., WHO Project on Health Implications of Cannabis Use: A Comparative Appraisal of the Health and Psychological Consequences of Alcohol, Cannabis, Nicotine and Opiate Use, August 28, 1995, (Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, March 1998).
http://www.druglibrary.net/schaffer/hemp/general/who-index.htm

(marijuana and cognition) "In conclusion, our meta-analysis of studies that have attempted to address the question of longer term neurocognitive disturbance in moderate and heavy cannabis users has failed to demonstrate a substantial, systematic, and detrimental effect of cannabis use on neuropsychological performance. It was surprising to find such few and small effects given that most of the potential biases inherent in our analyses actually increased the likelihood of finding a cannabis effect."

Source: Grant, Igor, et al., "Non-Acute (Residual) Neurocognitive Effects Of Cannabis Use: A Meta-Analytic Study," Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society (Cambridge University Press: July 2003), 9, p. 687.
http://www.csdp.org/research/348art2003.pdf

(marijuana and cognition) "The results of our meta-analytic study failed to reveal a substantial, systematic effect of long-term, regular cannabis consumption on the neurocognitive functioning of users who were not acutely intoxicated. For six of the eight neurocognitive ability areas that were surveyed. the confidence intervals for the average effect sizes across studies overlapped zero in each instance, indicating that the effect size could not be distinguished from zero. The two exceptions were in the domains of learning and forgetting."

Source: Grant, Igor, et al., "Non-Acute (Residual) Neurocognitive Effects Of Cannabis Use: A Meta-Analytic Study," Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society (Cambridge University Press: July 2003), 9, p. 685.
http://www.csdp.org/research/348art2003.pdf

(marijuana and cognition) "Current marijuana use had a negative effect on global IQ score only in subjects who smoked 5 or more joints per week. A negative effect was not observed among subjects who had previously been heavy users but were no longer using the substance. We conclude that marijuana does not have a long-term negative impact on global intelligence. Whether the absence of a residual marijuana effect would also be evident in more specific cognitive domains such as memory and attention remains to be ascertained."

Source: Fried, Peter, Barbara Watkinson, Deborah James, and Robert Gray, "Current and former marijuana use: preliminary findings of a longitudinal study of effects on IQ in young adults," Canadian Medical Association Journal, April 2, 2002, 166(7), p. 887.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC100921/pdf/20020402s00015p88...

(marijuana and cognition) "Although the heavy current users experienced a decrease in IQ score, their scores were still above average at the young adult assessment (mean 105.1). If we had not assessed preteen IQ, these subjects would have appeared to be functioning normally. Only with knowledge of the change in IQ score does the negative impact of current heavy use become apparent."

Source: Fried, Peter, Barbara Watkinson, Deborah James, and Robert Gray, "Current and former marijuana use: preliminary findings of a longitudinal study of effects on IQ in young adults," Canadian Medical Association Journal, April 2, 2002, 166(7), p. 890.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC100921/pdf/20020402s00015p88...

(marijuana and cognition) A Johns Hopkins study published in May 1999, examined marijuana's effects on cognition on 1,318 participants over a 15 year period. Researchers reported "no significant differences in cognitive decline between heavy users, light users, and nonusers of cannabis." They also found "no male-female differences in cognitive decline in relation to cannabis use." "These results ... seem to provide strong evidence of the absence of a long-term residual effect of cannabis use on cognition," they concluded.

Source: Constantine G. Lyketsos, Elizabeth Garrett, Kung-Yee Liang, and James C. Anthony. (1999). "Cannabis Use and Cognitive Decline in Persons under 65 Years of Age," American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 149, No. 9
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10221315

marijuana and motivation) Some claim that cannabis use leads to "adult amotivation." The World Health Organization report addresses the issue and states, "it is doubtful that cannabis use produces a well defined amotivational syndrome." The report also notes that the value of studies which support the "adult amotivation" theory are "limited by their small sample sizes" and lack of representative social/cultural groups.

Source: Hall, W., Room, R. & Bondy, S., WHO Project on Health Implications of Cannabis Use: A Comparative Appraisal of the Health and Psychological Consequences of Alcohol, Cannabis, Nicotine and Opiate Use, August 28, 1995 (Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, March 1998).
http://www.druglibrary.net/schaffer/hemp/general/who-probable.htm


(marijuana and psychosis) "... the expected rise in diagnoses of schizophrenia and psychoses did not occur over a 10 year period. This study does not therefore support the specific causal link between cannabis use and the incidence of psychotic disorders based on the 3 assumptions described in the Introduction. This concurs with other reports indicating that increases in population cannabis use have not been followed by increases in psychotic incidence (Macleod et al., 2006; Arsenault et al., 2004; Rey and Tennant, 2002)."

Source: Frisher, Martin; Crome, Ilana; Orsolina, Martino; and Croft, Peter, "Assessing the impact of cannabis use on trends in diagnosed schizophrenia in the United Kingdom from 1996 to 2005," Schizophrenia Research (Nashville, Tennessee: Schizophrenia International Research Society, September 2009) Vol. 113, Issue 2, p. 126.
http://www.ukcia.org/research/keele_study/Assessing-the-impact-of-cannab...

(marijuana and psychosis) The Christchurch Press reported on March 22, 2005, that "The lead researcher in the Christchurch study, Professor David Fergusson, said the role of cannabis in psychosis was not sufficient on its own to guide legislation. 'The result suggests heavy use can result in adverse side-effects,' he said. 'That can occur with ( heavy use of ) any substance. It can occur with milk.' Fergusson's research, released this month, concluded that heavy cannabis smokers were 1.5 times more likely to suffer symptoms of psychosis that non-users. The study was the latest in several reports based on a cohort of about 1000 people born in Christchurch over a four-month period in 1977. An effective way to deal with cannabis use would be to incrementally reduce penalties and carefully evaluate its impact, Fergusson said. 'Reduce the penalty, like a parking fine. You could then monitor ( the impact ) after five or six years. If it did not change, you might want to take another step.'

Source: Bleakley, Louise, "NZ Study Used in UK Drug Review," The Press (Christchurch, New Zealand: March 22, 2005), from the web at http://www.mapinc.org/newscsdp/v05/n490/a08.html, last accessed March 28, 2005.. . .

[Palehorse]

(marijuana and safety) "There are health risks of cannabis use, most particularly when it is used daily over a period of years or decades. Considerable uncertainty remains about whether these effects are attributable to cannabis use alone, and about what the quantitative relationship is between frequency, quantity and duration of cannabis use and the risk of experiencing these effects.

On existing patterns of use, cannabis poses a much less serious public health problem than is currently posed by alcohol and tobacco in Western societies."

Source: Hall, W., Room, R. & Bondy, S., "WHO Project on Health Implications of Cannabis Use: A Comparative Appraisal of the Health and Psychological Consequences of Alcohol, Cannabis, Nicotine and Opiate Use," (Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, March 1998).
http://www.druglibrary.net/schaffer/hemp/general/who-conclusions.htm


(marijuana and smoking) The authors of a 1998 World Health Organization report comparing marijuana, alcohol, nicotine and opiates quote the Institute of Medicine's 1982 report stating that there is no evidence that smoking marijuana "exerts a permanently deleterious effect on the normal cardiovascular system."

Source: Hall, W., Room, R. & Bondy, S., WHO Project on Health Implications of Cannabis Use: A Comparative Appraisal of the Health and Psychological Consequences of Alcohol, Cannabis, Nicotine and Opiate Use, August 28, 1995 (Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, March 1998).
http://www.druglibrary.net/schaffer/hemp/general/who-probable.htm

(marijuana and safety) "Tetrahydrocannabinol is a very safe drug. Laboratory animals (rats, mice, dogs, monkeys) can tolerate doses of up to 1,000 mg/kg (milligrams per kilogram). This would be equivalent to a 70 kg person swallowing 70 grams of the drug -- about 5,000 times more than is required to produce a high. Despite the widespread illicit use of cannabis there are very few if any instances of people dying from an overdose. In Britain, official government statistics listed five deaths from cannabis in the period 1993-1995 but on closer examination these proved to have been deaths due to inhalation of vomit that could not be directly attributed to cannabis (House of Lords Report, 1998). By comparison with other commonly used recreational drugs these statistics are impressive."

Source: Iversen, Leslie L., PhD, FRS, "The Science of Marijuana" (London, England: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 178, citing House of Lords, Select Committee on Science and Technology, "Cannabis -- The Scientific and Medical Evidence" (London, England: The Stationery Office, Parliament, 1998).

(marijuana and driving) "We found only limited evidence to support the claim that cannabis use increases accident risk. Participants who had driven under the influence of cannabis in the previous year appeared to be no more likely than drug-free drivers to report that they had had an accident in the previous 12 months. Prima facie, this would seem to suggest that cannabis-intoxicated driving is not a risk factor for non-fatal accidents. In this sense, the results would support those of Longo et al. (2000b) who found no relationship between recent cannabis use and driver culpability for non-fatal accidents."

Source: Jones, Craig; Donnelly, Neil; Swift, Wendy; Weatherburn, Don, "Driving under the influence of cannabis: The problem and potential countermeasures," Crime and Justice Bulletin, NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (Syndey, Australia: September 2005). p. 11.
http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/CJB87.pdf/$file/CJB87.pdf

(marijuana and driving) According to a literature review on the effects of cannabis on driving, "Most of the research on cannabis use has been conducted under laboratory conditions. The literature reviews by Robbe (1994), Hall, Solowij, and Lemon (1994), Border and Norton (1996), and Solowij (1998) agreed that the most extensive effect of cannabis is to impair memory and attention. Additional deficits include problems with temporal processing, (complex) reaction times, and dynamic tracking. These conclusions are generally consistent with the psychopharmacological effects of cannabis mentioned above, including problems with attention, memory, motor coordination, and alertness.

"A meta-analysis by Krüger and Berghaus (1995) profiled the effects of cannabis and alcohol. They reviewed 197 published studies of alcohol and 60 studies of cannabis. Their analysis showed that 50% of the reported effects were significant at a BAC of 0.073 g/dl and a THC level of 11 ng/ml. This implies that if the legal BAC threshold for alcohol is 0.08 g/dl, the corresponding level of THC that would impair the same percentage of tests would be approximately 11 ng/ml."

Source: Laberge, Jason C., Nicholas J. Ward, "Research Note: Cannabis and Driving -- Research Needs and Issues for Transportation Policy," Journal of Drug Issues, Dec. 2004, pp. 975-6.

(marijuana and driving) "Several studies have examined cannabis use in driving simulator and on-road situations. The most comprehensive review was done by Smiley in 1986 and then again in 1999. Several trends are evident and can be described by three general performance characteristics:

"1. Cannabis increased variability of speed and headway as well as lane position (Attwood, Williams, McBurney, & Frecker, 1981; Ramaekers, Robbe, & O'Hanlon, 2000; Robbe, 1998; Sexton et al., 2000; Smiley, Moskowitz, & Zeidman, 1981; Smiley, Noy, & Tostowaryk, 1987). This was more pronounced under high workload and unexpected conditions, such as curves and wind gusts.

"2. Cannabis increased the time needed to overtake another vehicle (Dott, 1972 [as cited in Smiley, 1986]) and delayed responses to both secondary and tracking tasks (Casswell, 1977; Moskowitz, Hulbert, & McGlothlin,
1976; Sexton et al., 2000; Smiley et al., 1981).

"3. Cannabis resulted in fewer attempts to overtake another vehicle(Dott, 1972) and larger distances required to pass (Ellingstad et al., 1973 [as cited in Smiley, 1986]). Evidence of increased caution also included slower speeds (Casswell, 1977; Hansteen, Miller, Lonero, Reid, & Jones, 1976; Krueger & Vollrath, 2000; Peck, Biasotti, Boland, Mallory, & Reeve, 1986; Sexton et al., 2000; Smiley et al., 1981; Stein, Allen, Cook, & Karl, 1983) and larger headways (Robbe, 1998; Smiley et al., 1987)."

Source: Laberge, Jason C., Nicholas J. Ward, "Research Note: Cannabis and Driving -- Research Needs and Issues for Transportation Policy," Journal of Drug Issues, Dec. 2004, pp. 977-8.

(marijuana and driving) A literature review of the effects of cannabis on driving found, "Another paradigm used to assess crash risk is to use cross-sectional surveys of reported nonfatal accidents that can be related to the presence of risk factors, such as alcohol and cannabis consumption. Such a methodology was employed in a provocative dissertation by Laixuthai (1994). This study used data from two large surveys that were nationally representative of high school students in the United States during 1982 and 1989. Results showed that cannabis use was negatively correlated with nonfatal accidents, but these results can be attributed to changes in the amount of alcohol consumed. More specifically, the decriminalization of cannabis and the subsequent reduction in penalty cost, as well as a reduced purchase price of cannabis, made cannabis more appealing and affordable for young consumers. This resulted in more cannabis use, which substituted for alcohol consumption, leading to less frequent and less heavy drinking. The reduction in the amount of alcohol consumed resulted in fewer nonfatal accidents."

Source: Laberge, Jason C., Nicholas J. Ward, "Research Note: Cannabis and Driving -- Research Needs and Issues for Transportation Policy," Journal of Drug Issues, Dec. 2004, pp. 980-1.

(marijuana and driving) "Both Australian studies suggest cannabis may actually reduce the responsibility rate and lower crash risk. Put another way, cannabis consumption either increases driving ability or, more likely, drivers who use cannabis make adjustments in driving style to compensate for any loss of skill (Drummer, 1995). This is consistent with simulator and road studies that show drivers who consumed cannabis slowed down and drove more cautiously (see Ward & Dye, 1999; Smiley, 1999. This compensation could help reduce the probability of being at fault in a motor vehicle accident since drivers have more time to respond and avoid a collision. However, it must be noted that any behavioral compensation may not be sufficient to cope with the reduced safety margin resulting from the impairment of driver functioning and capacity."

Source: Laberge, Jason C., Nicholas J. Ward, "Research Note: Cannabis and Driving -- Research Needs and Issues for Transportation Policy," Journal of Drug Issues, Dec. 2004, pp. 980.

(marijuana and violence) When examining the relationship between marijuana use and violent crime, the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse concluded, "Rather than inducing violent or aggressive behavior through its purported effects of lowering inhibitions, weakening impulse control and heightening aggressive tendencies, marihuana was usually found to inhibit the expression of aggressive impulses by pacifying the user, interfering with muscular coordination, reducing psychomotor activities and generally producing states of drowsiness lethargy, timidity and passivity."

Source: Shafer, Raymond P., et al, Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding, Ch. III, (Washington DC: National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, 1972).
http://druglibrary.net/schaffer/Library/studies/nc/ncc3.htm

(marijuana and amelioration of cancer) "We found that moderate marijuana use was significantly associated with reduced risk of HNSCC [head and neck squamous cell carcinoma]. This association was consistent across different measures of marijuana use (marijuana use status, duration, and frequency of use). Diminished risk of HNSCC did not differ across tumor sites, or by HPV [human papillomavirus] 16 antibody status. Further, we observed that marijuana use modified the interaction between alcohol and cigarette smoking, resulting in a decreased HNSCC risk among moderate smokers and light drinkers, and attenuated risk among the heaviest smokers and drinkers."

Source: Liang, Caihua; McClean, Michael D.; Marsit, Carmen; Christensen, Brock; Peters, Edward; Nelson, Heather H.; Kelsey, Karl T, "A Population-Based Case-Control Study of Marijuana Use and Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma," Cancer Research Prevention (New Milford, CT: American Association for Cancer Research, August 2009), p. 766.
http://cancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org/content/early/2009/07/2...

(marijuana and adolescents) In an ethnographic study of adolescents who were regular marijuana users, researchers at the University of British Columbia, concluded, "Thematic analysis revealed that these teens differentiated themselves from recreational users and positioned their use of marijuana for relief by emphasizing their inability to find other ways to deal with their health problems, the sophisticated ways in which they titrated their intake, and the benefits that they experienced. These teens used marijuana to gain relief from difficult feelings (including depression, anxiety and stress), sleep difficulties, problems with concentration and physical pain. Most were not overly concerned about the risks associated with using marijuana, maintaining that their use of marijuana was not 'in excess' and that their use fit into the realm of 'normal.'

Conclusion: Marijuana is perceived by some teens to be the only available alternative for teens experiencing difficult health problems when medical treatments have failed or when they lack access to appropriate health care."

Source: Bottorff, Joan L , Johnson, Joy L, Moffat, Barbara M, and Mulvogue, Tamsin, "Relief-oriented use of marijuana by teens," Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy (Vancouver, BC: April 2009), pp. 4-7.
http://www.substanceabusepolicy.com/content/pdf/1747-597X-4-7.pdf

(marijuana, decriminalization, and use) "Proponents of criminalization attribute to their preferred drug-control regime a special power to affect user behavior. Our findings cast doubt on such attributions. Despite widespread lawful availability of cannabis in Amsterdam, there were no differences between the 2 cities [Amsterdam and San Francisco] in age at onset of use, age at first regular use, or age at the start of maximum use."

"Our findings do not support claims that criminalization reduces cannabis use and that decriminalization increases cannabis use."

Source: Reinarman, Craig; Cohen, Peter D.A.; Kaal, Hendrien L., "The Limited Relevance of Drug Policy: Cannabis in Amsterdam and in San Francisco," American Journal of Public Health (Washington, DC: American Public Health Association, May 2004) Vol 94, No. 5, pp. 840 and 841.
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/reprint/94/5/836

(cannabis - historic research) "The identification of cannabis as a potentially dangerous psychoactive substance did not, however, prevent a substantial number of these enquiries to explore the issue of whether current legislation reflected the real dangers posed by cannabis. Already in 1944, the La Guardia Committee Report on Marihuana concluded that 'the practice of smoking marihuana does not lead to addiction in the medical sense of the word' and that 'the use of marihuana does not lead to morphine or heroin or cocaine addiction' (Zimmer and Morgan, 1997). In 1968 the Wootton Report stated that 'the dangers of cannabis use as commonly accepted in the past and the risk of progression to opiates have been overstated' and 'cannabis is less harmful than other substances (amphetamines, barbiturates, codeine-like compounds)'. A similar conclusion was arrived at 34 years later in 2002 when the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence proposed the reclassification of cannabis from Class B to Class C (enforced by law in 2004 and confirmed in 2005). These views were reiterated by other enquiries, such as the Baan Committee in the Netherlands, which affirmed in 1971 that 'cannabis use does not lead directly to other drug use' (16) or by the US National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, which in 1973 stated that 'the existing social and legal policy is out of proportion to the individual and social harm engendered by the use of the drug [cannabis]' (17). The Canadian Le Dain Commission saw 'the UN Single Convention of 1961 as responsible' for such a situation which 'might have reinforced the erroneous impression that cannabis is to be assimilated to the opiate narcotics'. The same commission, however, suggested that the UN Convention did 'not prevent domestic legislation from correcting this impression' (18)."

Source: EMCDDA (2008), "A cannabis reader: global issues and local experiences," Monograph series 8, Volume 1, European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, Lisbon, p. 108.
http://eldd.emcdda.europa.eu/attachements.cfm/att_60586_EN_Monograph-ch7...

(marijuana and cancer risk) "Nonetheless, and contrary to our expectations, we found no positive associations between marijuana use and lung or UAT cancers ... Despite several lines of evidence suggesting the biological plausibility of marijuana use being carcinogenic (1), it is possible that marijuana use does not increase cancer risk, as suggested in the recent commentary by Melamede."

Source: Mia Hashibe, Hal Morgenstern, Yan Cui, Donald P. Tashkin, Zuo-Feng Zhang, Wendy Cozen, Thomas M. Mack, and Sander Greenland, "Marijuana Use and the Risk of Lung and Upper Aerodigestive Tract Cancers: Results of a Population-Based Case-Control Study," Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention (October 2006), p. 1833.
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/15/10/1829.full.pdf

[Palehorse]

Withdrawal: Presence and severity of characteristic withdrawal symptoms.

Reinforcement: A measure of the substance's ability, in human and animal tests, to get users
to take it again and again, and in preference to other substances.

Tolerance: How much of the substance is needed to satisfy increasing cravings for it, and the level of stable need that is eventually reached.

Dependence: How difficult it is for the user to quit, the relapse rate, the percentage of people who eventually become dependent, the rating users give their own need for the substance
and the degree to which the substance will be used in the face of evidence that it causes harm.

Intoxication: Though not usually counted as a measure of addiction in itself, the level of intoxication is associated with addiction and increases the personal and social damage a substance may do.

Source: Jack E. Henningfield, PhD for NIDA, Reported by Philip J. Hilts, New York Times, Aug. 2, 1994 "Is Nicotine Addictive? It Depends on Whose Criteria You Use."
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/08/02/science/is-nicotine-addictive-it-depen...
http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/addiction/addiction_media1.shtml

Viewing the chart above one can easily see that Nicotine and Alcohol are substantially more addictive than marijuana. In fact mary jane is no more addictive than caffeine! Maybe we are waging war on the wrong drugs! ::

[The Troll]

  Agree 100%.  Control it, tax it, and do away against the stupid laws against it.  The present laws been a total bust and spent millions of dollars for the wrong cause.  I feel this way and I have never used it.

[Bo D]

I have used it - heavily in my rocker days - still use it very occasionally.

But I disagree with those parts of the reports on its effect on driving("cannabis may actually reduce the responsibility rate and lower crash risk.)

I would NEVER again attempt to drive while high. I have done it and its really scary. Maybe they reached that conclusion because stoners tend to drive r-e-a-l-l-y  s-l-o-w....


Troll ... you should try it with your lady one night- I guarantee a good time! 

[Henry Hawk]

I can honestly say, I never used it.  My friends did, and I have nothing against it.  I just never cared to even try it. I also agree it should be legalized, and make it the same as alcohol.  Troll, we have found yet another point of agreement....let the private industry get a hold of this, and let government tax it, just as beer and whiskey. At least leave it to each State to decide how it should be handled.

[LOsborne]

I also agree it should be legalized...

I'm in.

[The Troll]

I have used it - heavily in my rocker days - still use it very occasionally.

But I disagree with those parts of the reports on its effect on driving("cannabis may actually reduce the responsibility rate and lower crash risk.)

I would NEVER again attempt to drive while high. I have done it and its really scary. Maybe they reached that conclusion because stoners tend to drive r-e-a-l-l-y  s-l-o-w....


Troll ... you should try it with your lady one night- I guarantee a good time! 

  I wouldn't do for one reason.  I smoked a cartoon of cigarettes a week.  Quit after 21 years, quitting at 47.  Still after all of those years, I sometimes feel I am 1 cigarette away from a pack a day.. 

I will tell  you one story about drinking and flying a light airplane.  One day me and a friend was bar hopping.  Three friend and I owned a four place airplane.  This day my friend who was driving wanted to see our plane.  So out to the air port we went.  when we got there my friend Rex was flying it and since he had a student pilot he couldn't fly with passengers.  He had a lot of hours flying and I had a full licence he want to take me and my friend for a ride. 

  So off we go.  After flying awhile Rex said, well since your feeling no  pain what to try flying, since he knew I wouldn't drink one beer and fly.

  I took over.  I couldn't keep plane  straight and level or maintain a good altitude and got about half sick.  I said, Rex get me back to the field.  I don't see how anyone could fly drunk.

Thanks, but no thanks.   

[Lester Sasquatch]

I guess if you twist my arm I would say OK. By the way, for the readers who have children or spouse and discover a leafy substance in their possession. You want to know what the stuff is but you don't want the cops involved. If there was only some discrete source where you could send it to have it analyzed. Well, your problems are over! As a service to my friends on this forum, all you have to do is send the suspected substance to me and I will personally test it using accurate laboratory analysis with the most modern equipment available so there is no question about the results. Then I will mail you the results of my 100% accurate test in a plain envelope. You can rest assured that I will not keep any records of your name or address. Any suspect material left over after performing the test procedure will be promptly destroyed by incineration. I feel it is a service that I can do for society and expect no reward or compensation, that is the kind of guy I am. Remember to send the ALL of the confiscated product just in case it has been cut with some form of inert vegetation! Even though I am taking a huge risk, I will accept any size package even if it requires being sent by freight.

[me]

After trying it one time I don't see how anyone can function after partaking of MJ.  I thought everything was funny and it took forever just to tie my shoes, or at least I thought it did....... and a 20min ride home seemed like an eternity.  I did sleep rather well that night but vowed never to try it again.  Everything is funny when I drink too but at least things stay in a normal time mode......LOL

[Exterminator]

Ironically, rather than moving in the dierction of recognizing failed policy and rectifying that mistake, the government is actively enacting legislation to ban "spice," adding yet another law enforcement debacle to those which are currently taxing the system.  It's all about control...

[me]

Spice? 

Ironically, rather than moving in the dierction of recognizing failed policy and rectifying that mistake, the government is actively enacting legislation to ban "spice," adding yet another law enforcement debacle to those which are currently taxing the system.  It's all about control...

[Palehorse]

Another synthesised attempt at replicating what nature does so perfectly. . .

[me]

I don't get out much ya know....LOL 

Another synthesised attempt at replicating what nature does so perfectly. . .

[Lester Sasquatch]

Man can try but never seems to even match, much less improve upon, nature. I find it odd that many medicines are derived from natural herbs but the drug companies want to ban the natural forms from sale to consumers.