Weeding Through The Hype: Interpreting The Latest Warnings About Pot and Schizophrenia

Once again members of the mainstream media are running wild with the notion that marijuana use causes schizophrenia and psychosis.

To add insult to injury, this latest dose of reefer rhetoric comes only days after investigators in the United Kingdom reported in the prestigious scientific journal Addiction that the available evidence in support of this theory is “neither very new, nor by normal criteria, particularly compelling.” (Predictably, the conclusions of that study went all together unnoticed by the mainstream press.)

Yet today’s latest alarmist report, like those studies touting similar claims before it, fails to account for the following: If, as the authors of this latest study suggest, cannabis use is a cause of mental illness (and schizophrenia in particular), then why have diagnosed incidences of schizophrenia not paralleled rising trends in cannabis use over time?

In fact, it was only in September when investigators at the Keele University Medical School in Britain smashed the pot = schizophrenia theory to smithereens. Writing in the journal Schizophrenia Research, the team compared trends in marijuana use and incidences of schizophrenia in the United Kingdom from 1996 to 2005. Researchers reported that the “incidence and prevalence of schizophrenia and psychoses were either stable or declining” during this period, even the use of cannabis among the general population was rising.

That said, none of this is to suggest that there may not be some association between marijuana use and certain psychiatric ailments. Cannabis use can correlate with mental illness for many reasons. People often turn to cannabis to alleviate the symptoms of distress. One study performed in Germany showed that cannabis offsets certain cognitive declines in schizophrenic patients. Another study demonstrated that psychotic symptoms predict later use of cannabis, suggesting that people might turn to the plant for help rather than become ill after use.

Of course, even if one takes the MSM’s latest ‘sky is falling’ scenario at face value, health risks connected with pot use — when scientifically documented — should not be seen as legitimate reasons for criminal prohibition, but instead, as reasons for the plant’s legal regulation.

For instance, as I told AOL News earlier today: “We don’t outlaw peanuts because a small percentage of people have allergic reactions. We educate the community, we regulate where and when peanuts can be exchanged. That seems like it ought to apply to marijuana, too.”

To draw another real world comparison, millions of Americans safely use ibuprofen as an effective pain reliever. However, among a minority of the population who suffer from liver and kidney problems, ibuprofen presents a legitimate and substantial health risk. However, this fact no more calls for the criminalization of ibuprofen among adults than do these latest anti-pot allegations, even if true, call for the current prohibition of cannabis.

Placed in this context, today’s warnings latest do little to advance the government’s position in favor of tightening prohibition, and provide ample ammunition to wage for its repeal.

Reuters: Pot Kills Cancer But Don’t Even Think About Using It!

UPDATE!!! UPDATE!!!

The MSM may be starting to pay attention. I just got off the phone with CBS News radio, who will be covering this story imminently.

It was just yesterday that I was lamenting about the mainstream media’s failure to report on the anti-cancer properties of cannabis. And then along comes Reuters with this:

Cannabis chemicals may help fight prostate cancer
via Reuters News Wire

Chemicals in cannabis have been found to stop prostate cancer cells from growing in the laboratory, suggesting that cannabis-based medicines could one day help fight the disease, scientists said Wednesday.

After working initially with human cancer cell lines, Ines Diaz-Laviada and colleagues from the University of Alcala in Madrid also tested one compound on mice and discovered it produced a significant reduction in tumor growth.

Their research, published in the British Journal of Cancer, underlines the growing interest in the medical use of active chemicals called cannabinoids, which are found in marijuana.

Experts, however, stressed that the research was still exploratory and many more years of testing would be needed to work out how to apply the findings to the treatment of cancer in humans.

“This is interesting research which opens a new avenue to explore potential drug targets but it is at a very early stage,” said Lesley Walker, director of cancer information at Cancer Research UK, which owns the journal.

“It absolutely isn’t the case that men might be able to fight prostate cancer by smoking cannabis,” she added.

Well, well, well, leave it to the MSM to misrepresent the facts and miss the real story. First, the chemicals assessed in this study, R(+)-Methanandamide and JWH-015, are neither “cannabinoids” nor are they “chemicals in cannabis.” Rather, they are synthetic, selective CB2 receptor agonists. In short, they are chemicals created in a lab to mimic certain elements in marijuana, and to bind to specifically to those cannabinoid receptors that are not located in the brain. After all, we can’t possibly have the terminally ill feeling ‘better’, now can we?

Second, US federal researchers have known for some 35 years that the naturally occurring chemicals in cannabis — not just synthesized agonists — can halt the proliferation of multiple types of cancer, including including brain cancer, prostate cancer, breast cancer, lung cancer, skin cancer, and pancreatic cancer. We even know how.

Cannabinoids: potential anticancer agents
via Nature Reviews Cancer (2003)

Cannabinoids are usually well tolerated, and do not produce the generalized toxic effects of conventional chemotherapies. … Cannabinoids inhibit tumor growth in laboratory animals. They do so by modulating key cell-signaling pathways, thereby inducing direct growth arrest and death of tumor cells, as well as by inhibiting tumor angiogenesis and metastasis. Cannabinoids are selective anti-tumor compounds, as they can kill tumor cells without affecting their non-transformed counterparts.

Of course, the real question — conveniently ignored by Reuters and the rest of the MSM — is this: Why, after three decades and dozens of preclinical trials documenting cannabis’ potent anti-cancer abilities, are “many more years of testing” necessary? Last I checked, humans die en masse from cancer, not rats! Yet for some 35 years scientists have been content to replicate these  cancer-killer findings in animals and in petri dishes, all the while warning, “It absolutely isn’t the case that men might be able to fight prostate cancer by smoking cannabis.”

Well why the hell not? Not only can cannabis alleviate cancer patients’ nausea and pain, elevate their mood, and increase their appetite, but also — as dozens of preclinical trials over the past three decades consistently demonstrate — marijuana may help to alleviate the very disease that’s ravaging their bodies. Of course, rather than put this theory to the test, investigators for more than three decades have been willing to let people with a terminal illness die while they piddle around with their petri dishes. And to date, not one reporter from the mainstream media has ever had the guts to ask them why.

Reuters: Driven To Drink By Marijuana Laws?

Reuters columnist Bernd Debusmann ‘gets it.’

In a society awash in alcohol, he dares to ask the pivotal question:

Why do our laws embrace and celebrate the use of alcohol, an intoxicant that directly contributes to tens of thousands of deaths annually and countless social problems, while stigmatizing and criminalizing the use of cannabis, a substance that is incapable of causing lethal overdose and is associated with far fewer societal costs?

Driven to drink by marijuana laws?
via Reuters: The Great Debate

Tough marijuana laws are driving millions of Americans to a more dangerous mood-altering substance, alcohol. The unintended consequence: violence and thousands of unnecessary deaths. It’s time, therefore, for a serious public debate of the case for marijuana versus alcohol.

That’s the message groups advocating the legalization of marijuana are beginning to press, against a background of shifting attitudes which have already prompted 13 states to relax draconian laws dating back to the 1930s, when the government ended alcohol prohibition and began a determined but futile effort to stamp out marijuana.

Of course, I can’t help but blush when Bernd highlights my forthcoming book, Marijuana Is Safer, as the inspiration behind his astute analysis.

The case for adding a compare-and-contrast dimension to the debate is laid out in a statistics-laden book to be published next month entitled “Marijuana is Safer, So why are we driving people to drink?” The authors are prominent legalization advocates – Steve Fox of the Marijuana Policy Project, Paul Armentano of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) and Mason Tvert, co-founder of SAFER (Safer Alternative for Enjoyable Recreation).

“The plain and simple truth is that alcohol fuels violent behaviour and marijuana does not,” Norm Stamper, [Editor's note: Stamper is on NORML's advisory board] a former Seattle police chief, writes in the foreword of the book. “Alcohol … contributes to literally millions of acts of violence in the United States each year. It is a major contributing factor to crimes like domestic violence, sexual assault and homicide. Marijuana use … is absent in that regard from both crime reports and the scientific literature. There is simply no causal link to be found.”

I’ll be providing folks with further information regarding Marijuana Is Safer in the coming days and weeks. (The book is expected to hit stores by mid-August). But for now, why not join the vibrant discussion taking place on Reuters.com on whether pot prohibition is driving America to drink?