Charges against marijuana – Part 1

by Tyrone Jack

I take this opportunity, as someone trained in pharmaceutical sciences, to bring charges against “Marijuana” in the court of public opinion, that this is a substance which deprives our children of their liberty, their potential to achieve and excel in school and other aspects of life and that it is a threat to public health and safety.{{more}}

I will show reasons why I believe that marijuana should remain imprisoned in Schedule I of the International Narcotic Control Board’s list of substances. This is an appropriate cell created for all substances that are known to have addictive properties and whose danger to public health and humanity far outweigh their known limited usefulness as a drug. I will concede that, as more research comes forward, some of the constituents of marijuana may be granted relative reprieve and be transferred to Schedule II or Schedule IV, but oh no! Crude/smoked marijuana should remain under the proverbial “lock and key”.

I will use a number of medical university research studies, scientific evidence, expert opinions from across the globe and objective observation from those states that have legalized marijuana for recreational use and those who have decriminalized it for medicinal use to prove my case.

Take into consideration that it took several generations, millions of lives and billions of dollars to establish the harm of tobacco use to health, even though these harms are overwhelming and public health personnel were shouting danger from the housetops for decades. Given what we already know about marijuana, we should not consider marijuana “innocent until proven guilty,” Science, not popular vote, should determine what is medicine.

The first point I will make to the court is that no known medical association or health scientific body has endorsed or maintained their endorsement of crude or smoked marijuana as a drug. In November 2013, the 527-member House of Delegates of the American Medical Association decided, during its interim meeting, to retain their long-standing position that “cannabis is a dangerous drug and as such is a public health concern.” The Australian Medical Association (AMA) position states: “The AMA acknowledges that cannabis use is harmful and can lead to adverse chronic health outcomes, including dependence, withdrawal symptoms, early onset psychosis and the exacerbation of pre-existing psychotic symptoms… those who use cannabis frequently and for sustained periods, or who initiate cannabis use at an early age, or who are susceptible to psychosis, are most at risk. The AMA also recognises that cannabis use has short-term effects on cognitive and perceptual functioning which can present risks to the safety of users and others….. The AMA does not

condone the trafficking or recreational use of cannabis. The AMA believes that there should be vigorous law enforcement and strong criminal penalties for the trafficking of cannabis. The personal recreational use of cannabis should also be prohibited. However, criminal penalties for personal cannabis use can add to the potential health and other risks to which cannabis users are exposed. The AMA believes that it is consistent with a principle of harm reduction for the possession of cannabis for personal use to attract civil penalties requiring counselling and education particularly for young and first time offenders.”

On 20/08/2014, the Canadian Medical Association (CMA), in two resolutions aimed at strengthening the Association’s position against the use of marijuana for medical purposes, especially smoking mari-juana, were endorsed by delegates attending General Council. Outgoing president Dr Louis Hugo Francescutti and new president Dr Chris Simpson stated: “The CMA opposes the smoking of any plant material.” Another resolution urging a comprehensive regulatory standard for authorizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes was also endorsed. Francescutti said: “there is evidence that smoking marijuana exposes people to many toxic chemicals in stronger concentrations than those found in tobacco, and noted that endorsement of the motion would strengthen the CMA position calling for more research on the health benefits of marijuana for medical purposes.”

On January 26, 2015 the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), an organization of 62,000 primary care pediatricians, pediatric medical subspecialists and pediatric surgical specialists dedicated to the health, safety and well-being of infants, children, adolescents and young adults, in an updated policy statement and technical report, reaffirmed its position against the legalization of marijuana, stated its opposition to “medical marijuana” outside the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulatory process, and presents recommendations to protect children in states that have legalized marijuana for medical or recreational purposes. “We know marijuana can be very harmful to adolescent health and development,” said Seth D Ammerman, MD, FAAP, a member of the AAP Committee on Substance Abuse and an author of the policy statement. “…. Just the campaigns to legalize marijuana can have the effect of persuading adolescents that marijuana is not dangerous, which can have a devastating impact on their lifelong health and development.”

In that policy statement, Dr Ammerman went on to list some of the charges that could be laid against marijuana; he noted “for adolescents, marijuana can impair memory and concentration, interfering with learning, and is linked to lower odds of completing high school or obtaining a college degree. It can alter motor control, coordination and judgment, which may contribute to unintentional deaths and injuries. Regular use is also linked to psychological problems, poorer lung health, and a higher likelihood of drug dependence in adulthood.” The statement further raised some of the concerns the public should have against marijuana advocacy as a drug. “While cannabinoids may have potential as a therapy for a number of medical conditions, dispensing marijuana raises concerns regarding purity, dosing and formulation, all of which are of heightened importance in children.”

The American Cancer Society (ACS), in its position paper on 4/10/2013, indicated that it is supportive of more research into the benefits of cannabinoids… “Marijuana’s effects as a medicine are limited to symptom relief, not cures of disease, and they are generally modest. For most symptoms, there are more effective drugs already on the market. However, physicians frequently encounter patients who do not respond well to standard medications, or for whom adjunct therapies are needed. For these patients, cannabinoids appear to hold potential for treating pain, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and the poor appetite and wasting caused by AIDS or advanced cancer…” However, the ACS does not advocate the use of inhaled marijuana or the legalization of marijuana. The Glaucoma Research Foundation (GRF), in its latest policy statement, August 10, 2009, states that “the high dose of marijuana necessary to produce a clinically relevant effect on intraocular pressure in people with glaucoma in the short term requires constant inhalation, as much as every three hours. The number of significant side effects generated by long-term use of marijuana or long-term inhalation of marijuana smoke makes marijuana a poor choice in the treatment of glaucoma. To date, no studies have shown that marijuana – or any of its approximately 400 chemical components can safely and effectively lower intraocular pressure better than the variety of drugs currently on the market.”

Only this August 2016, the Florida Medical Association, (FMA), representing more than 20,000 physicians, once again passed a resolution in opposition to the so-called ‘medical’ marijuana measure. “There is nothing medical about this proposal, and the lack of scientific evidence that pot is helpful in treating medical conditions is far from inclusive.” said FMA CEO Tim Stapleton.

In 1997, The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) asked the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to conduct a review of the scientific evidence to assess the potential health benefits and risks of marijuana and its constituent cannabinoids.

The IOM study group explained that they had found potential therapeutic value in some cannabinoid particularly THC; they, however, point out that “smoked marijuana is a crude THC delivery system that also delivers harmful substances.” In addition, “plants contain a variable mixture of biologically active compounds and cannot be expected to provide a precisely defined drug effect.” Therefore, the study concluded that “there is little future in smoked marijuana as a medically approved medication.” Thus, even scientists and researchers who believe that certain active ingredients in marijuana may have potential medicinal value openly discount the notion that smoked marijuana can become “medicine.”

I agree with the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) that the campaign to legitimize what is called “medical” marijuana is based primarily on the propositions: that science views marijuana as medicine; and second, that law enforcement of marijuana regulation is targeting sick and dying people using the drug. These propositions are not true; specifically, smoked marijuana has not withstood the rigours of science – it is not medicine, and it is not safe.

The many advocates, rogue physicians, and big business behind the ‘Medical Marijuana’ movement have not dealt with ensuring that the product meets the standards of modern medicine: quality, safety and efficacy. There is no standardized composition or dosage; no appropriate prescribing information; no quality control; no accountability for the product; no safety regulation; no way to measure its effectiveness (besides anecdotal stories). Science, not popular vote, should determine what medicine is. This proposition that smoked marijuana is “medicine” is, in sum, false – a sleight of hand, trickery used by those promoting wholesale legalization. The clear weight of the evidence is that smoked marijuana is harmful. And further, it matters not what medical condition has been studied, other drugs already approved by recognizable drug registration bodies have been proven to be safer than smoked marijuana.

Lest I tire you, I think it an appropriate time for an adjournment. I would expect that with your full wits about you, you will prefer the position of medical associations and scientific experts around the globe, above those of entertainment artistes,

politicians, DJs and your peers. In Part II, I will strengthen my case against “Marijuana” by beginning to examine the overwhelming scientific evidence that informs the many medical associations’ positions.