cannabis-leaf-marijuana-smoke

Cannabis is a Dangerous and Addictive Drug: So Why Legalize it?


Cannabis is a Dangerous and Addictive Drug: So Why Legalize it?

The push to legalize cannabis ignores what for many people is a crucial issue: cannabis is dangerous and addicts its users. Just like you’d likely have some issues if someone suggested that we make cocaine available to any adult with $100 to spare, opening up trade to an addictive drug like cannabis which is not free from risk is a questionable proposal.

Continuing our series of the Best Arguments for and Against Cannabis, we’re taking a look at the argument that cannabis is too dangerous and addictive to make legal.


Summary: Should We Ban Cannabis Because It’s Dangerous and Addictive?

Yes…

  • Smoking cannabis causes lung cancer, and consuming it any way increases your risk of mental health issues and addiction.
  • Legalizing cannabis encourages more people to use it, and therefore increases the risk of these outcomes.
  • Cannabis advocates often make comparisons with alcohol, but alcohol would never be legalized if it was invented today.

No…

  • The discussion around legalization is not around the risks of use, but whether punishment is just.
  • Prohibition doesn’t work, as with alcohol, it just makes products more dangerous and offers less protection for consumers.
  • The risks of cannabis are real, but this can be addressed with education and robust product standards.

The Risks of Cannabis Use

The basic point here is something you’ve likely heard many times before. Despite the claims of users and advocates, cannabis use does pose a risk to users and a substantial proportion end up addicted to it.

People could make many specific points here, but the most important ones are:

  • Respiratory health risks: Most people consume cannabis by smoking it, so it shouldn’t be a big surprise that there are risks to your lungs and respiratory health. A systematic review of 48 peer-reviewed studies on this point concluded that “inhalational” cannabis poses a risk of lung cancer (an increase of between 2 to 4 times), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, bullous emphysema and pneumothroax. People who inhale cannabis are also more likely to report wheezing, shortness of breath, coughing and other respiratory symptoms.
  • Mental health risks: While the links between cannabis use and mental health conditions tend to be hard to prove, people can make a strong case here. One review of the evidence points out the link between cannabis use disorder and schizophrenia. Cannabis use is associated with two to four times higher risk of developing psychosis in healthy people. Evidence for associations with depression and anxiety is mixed. A multi-center case control study in Europe and Brazil found that cannabis use was associated with 3.2-times higher risks of psychotic disorder. Additionally, removing this risk would prevent about one in eight cases of first-episode psychosis.
  • Addiction: Cannabis is addictive. Estimates of how common it is vary, with older (DSM-IV) criteria suggesting it’s about 9% of people who try it and newer, broader criteria (DSM-V) for Cannabis Use Disorder (CUD) suggesting it’s closer to 22%. Likewise, cannabis users experience withdrawal when they stop. Most people will point out that cannabis isn’t as addictive as other drugs, but it is certainly addictive.

Again, this is not an exhaustive list, but these three points are the most well-supported and widely-cited.

With These Risks, Legalizing Cannabis Cannot Be Justified

The argument from this point onwards is pretty straightforward. People are becoming addicted to cannabis, and in turn, continue to expose themselves to the risks of mental health issues, damage to their respiratory system (even lung cancer) and more. This is all the more troubling because of the difficulty in overcoming addiction.

Cannabis advocates will be quick to argue that alcohol is also dangerous to users and addictive, but it is completely legal. But if alcohol was invented today, would it really be something we should make legal? Just because we have historically made mistakes with other substances doesn’t mean we should make it with another one.

The decision to make something legal is saying that this is OK to do and (roughly) acceptable to society. It is, on some level, encouraging the use of the substance, and this cannot be acceptable in the case of cannabis.

Counterpoint: Things Don’t Need to Be Risk-Free to Not Deserve Punishment

Cannabis certainly has risks, and like many other substances, it is addictive. In many ways, it is not something you should encourage people to do. It’s also true that alcohol and cigarettes would not be condoned if they were a new invention.

But this all misses the key point: people are being punished, having their lives turned upside down, over the use of cannabis.

The question isn’t whether cannabis is a good or a bad thing, the question is whether or not it’s right to impose criminal sanctions on its use. Most people can surely agree that if somebody is drinking a couple of glasses of wine with dinner in their free time and not driving afterwards, there is no justifiable reason that this person should be thrown in jail, lose their job or have any serious consequences beyond the possible health risks.

And the issue is very much the same with cannabis. We don’t need to say it’s a great thing that everybody should do, we just need to acknowledge that this is not justification for a punishment from the state.

Additionally, there is a crucial point in that people still use cannabis now. So making the plant illegal has not protected anybody from these risks. In fact, where cannabis is not legal, people make their purchases from street-corner dealers who have no reason to be concerned about purity and have no legal mechanism to prevent under-age purchases.

Legalizing enables society to take control of something that is potentially dangerous. We can institute age restrictions that simply don’t exist on the black market. We can ensure that the cannabis people are using is as safe as possible. Prohibition didn’t stop people drinking, but it certainly increased the number of people going blind from drinking methanol.

Banning based on the existence of risk does not protect anybody; it just increases those exact same risks.


Our Take: Legalize and Educate

Just like with alcohol, in our view, the best solution is to allow adults to make their own choices on cannabis but educate the public about the risks it poses. The risks of cannabis aren’t a myth, even if they’re sometimes overstated, but that doesn’t mean that prohibition is an effective solution. Why legalize it despite the risks? Because banning it doesn’t remove the risks, it just removes the guardrails we would have under a legal system.


References

Respiratory Effects

Martinasek, M. P., McGrogan, J. B., & Maysonet, A. (2016). A Systematic Review of the Respiratory Effects of Inhalational Marijuana. Respiratory Care, 61(11), 1543–1551. https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.04846

About the source:

  • Peer reviewed? Yes, published in Respiratory Care.
  • Methodology: A systematic review of peer-reviewed articles addressing the respiratory effects of inhaled cannabis, not including commentaries/editorials, non-English language articles, animal studies and systematic reviews.
  • Sample size: 48 articles.
  • Main results: There is a risk of lung cancer from inhalational cannabis, and associations with spontaneous pneumothorax, bullous emphysema and COPD. Cannabis smokers also report respiratory symptoms such as wheezing, shortness of breath and coughing.
  • Other notes: The title implies any inhaled cannabis was included, but the full text suggests that this really means smoked cannabis. Many of the studies included didn’t control for participants’ cigarette smoking, which makes it hard to be certain the effects were due to cannabis and not tobacco.

Mental Health

Di Forti, M., Quattrone, D., Freeman, T. P., Tripoli, G., Gayer-Anderson, C., Quigley, H., Rodriguez, V., Jongsma, H. E., Ferraro, L., La Cascia, C., La Barbera, D., Tarricone, I., Berardi, D., Szöke, A., Arango, C., Tortelli, A., Velthorst, E., Bernardo, M., Del-Ben, C. M., . . . van der Ven, E. (2019). The contribution of cannabis use to variation in the incidence of psychotic disorder across Europe (EU-GEI): a multicentre case-control study. The Lancet Psychiatry, 6(5), 427–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(19)30048-3

About the source:

  • Peer reviewed? Yes, published in The Lancet Psychiatry.
  • Methodology: The researchers recruited adult participants with first-episode across Europe and Brazil, asking about their cannabis use and using existing data to determine whether they used low potency (<10% THC) or high potency (>10% THC) cannabis. The goal was to assess how cannabis use and different patterns of use affect the chance of developing psychotic disorder.
  • Sample size: 2,138 participants, including 901 patients and 1,237 controls from local populations.
  • Main results: Daily cannabis use was associated with a 3.2-fold increase in risk of psychotic disorder, compared with never users of cannabis. When it was daily use of high-potency cannabis, risk increased 4.8-fold. The researchers calculated that 12.2% of cases of first-episode psychosis would be prevented if high-potency cannabis was not available.
  • Other notes: The study assumed that cannabis caused the psychotic disorders observed, rather than establishing it. However, this is consistent with existing research. The authors weren’t able to investigate the impact of CBD on the results, owing to limited data for most sites studied.

Urits, I., Gress, K., Charipova, K., Li, N., Berger, A. A., Cornett, E. M., Hasoon, J., Kassem, H., Kaye, A. D., & Viswanath, O. (2020). Cannabis Use and its Association with Psychological Disorders. Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 50(2), 56–67. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7255842/

About the source:

  • Peer reviewed? Yes, published in Psychopharmacology Bulletin.
  • Methodology: Narrative review of the recent evidence on cannabis use and psychological disorders.
  • Sample size: Excluding those referenced in the introduction, the authors cited 17 peer reviewed papers.
  • Main results: One in four patients with schizophrenia are diagnosed with a cannabis use disorder, and cannabis use is associated with a 2 to 4 times greater risk of developing psychosis. Evidence on cannabis use, anxiety and depression has mixed results.
  • Other notes: The authors didn’t review the studies in a systematic way. This means it’s possible that they made biased choices on what to include.

Addiction

Gorelick, D. A., Levin, K. H., Copersino, M. L., Heishman, S. J., Liu, F., Boggs, D. L., & Kelly, D. L. (2012). Diagnostic criteria for cannabis withdrawal syndrome. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 123(1-3), 141–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2011.11.007

About the source:

  • Peer reviewed? Yes, published in Drug and Alcohol Dependence.
  • Methodology: Researchers looked at the “most difficult” (unassisted) quit attempt of people who’d smoked cannabis in their lives, to evaluate the diagnostic criteria for cannabis withdrawal from the DSM-V. They included 39 potential withdrawal symptoms in total.
  • Sample size: 384 adult, non-treatment seeking lifetime cannabis smokers.
  • Main results: 40.9% of participants met the criteria established by the DSM-V for cannabis withdrawal. This was more likely if they had used cannabis for longer or in greater amounts, and people meeting the criteria were abstinent for less time.
  • Other notes: The results were based on recall from participants, and some participants reported withdrawal symptoms lasting for up to two years, which is likely a result of other issues.

Leung, J., Chan, G. C. K., Hides, L., & Hall, W. D. (2020). What is the prevalence and risk of cannabis use disorders among people who use cannabis? a systematic review and meta-analysis. Addictive Behaviors, 109, 106479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2020.106479

About the source:

  • Peer reviewed? Yes, published in Addictive Behaviors.
  • Methodology: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cross-sectional and longitudinal studies on cannabis use disorders, cannabis abuse and cannabis dependence in users, defined based on DSM or ICD criteria.
  • Sample size: 21 studies were included in the analysis.
  • Main results: Among people who use cannabis, 22% have cannabis use disorder, 13% meet criteria for cannabis abuse and 13% have cannabis dependence. The risk is greater for young people who use cannabis either daily or weekly.
  • Other notes: The studies included in this analysis varied substantially, including different definitions of cannabis addiction and different definitions of what constitutes a “user.” This is likely why the resulting estimates vary so much.  

Volkow, N. D., Baler, R. D., Compton, W. M., & Weiss, S. R. B. (2014). Adverse Health Effects of Marijuana Use. New England Journal of Medicine, 370(23), 2219–2227. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmra1402309

About the source:

  • Peer reviewed? Yes, published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
  • Methodology: A narrative (non-systematic) review of evidence about the adverse effects of cannabis use.
  • Sample size: 74 studies referenced, not including the introduction and conclusion.
  • Main results: Around 9% of those who experiment with cannabis will end up addicted, based on DSM-IV criteria. The paper argues that cannabis exposure in adolescence has negative effects on brain development, that cannabis may act as a “gateway drug,” increases the risk of road accidents and increases the risk of cardiovascular and respiratory issues.
  • Other notes: The authors didn’t review the studies systematically, so there is a chance of bias. For example, they only briefly mentioned alternative to the gateway hypothesis even though it has a lot of backing. 

The post Cannabis is a Dangerous and Addictive Drug: So Why Legalize it? appeared first on CBD Oracle.

Source link

Trump Prepares To Reschedule Cannabis To Schedule III

Trump Prepares To Reschedule Cannabis To Schedule III

Trump Prepares To Reschedule Cannabis To Schedule III

After weighing the “good” and the “bad,” President Donald Trump finally appears ready to direct his administration to follow through on a campaign promise to “unlock the medical uses of cannabis” as a Schedule III drug.

After holding a meeting that included cannabis industry executives on Dec. 10 in the Oval Office, Trump “is expected” to issue an executive order directing top officials in his cabinet to reclassify the plant to a less restrictive status under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), The Washington Post reported on Thursday.

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services chief Mehmet Oz also attended the meeting, while the president phoned in U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., who opposed the plan, arguing that several studies and data don’t support the move, the media outlet reported.

Under its current Schedule I listing alongside heroin, LSD and ecstasy as drugs with the highest potential for abuse, the federal government does not recognize cannabis as having a currently accepted medical use in the U.S. This would change under the White House’s expected plan to reschedule the plant; however, the president cannot unilaterally reschedule cannabis, and he hasn’t finalized his decision.

To Read The Rest Of This Article On Cannabis Business Times, Click Here

The post Trump Prepares To Reschedule Cannabis To Schedule III appeared first on Marijuana Retail Report – News and Information for Cannabis Retailers.

Source link

What Do Conservatives Really Think about Cannabis Behind Closed Doors? - Beyond the Official Talking Points

What Do Conservatives Really Think about Cannabis Behind Closed Doors? – Beyond the Official Talking Points

What Do Conservatives Really Think about Cannabis Behind Closed Doors? – Beyond the Official Talking Points

I decided to find out by diving into a Reddit thread on r/AskConservatives titled “Do any conservatives here oppose legalizing cannabis and why?” The responses were illuminating—not because they showed unanimous support for legalization, but because they revealed something much more interesting: genuine nuance, thoughtful debate, and perspectives shaped by lived experience rather than corporate talking points.

Source link

How to Hide the Smell of Weed Anywhere

How to Hide the Smell of Weed Anywhere

How to Hide the Smell of Weed Anywhere

The distinctive smell of weed is part of its charm. But we can also agree not everyone is onboard with its distinctive aroma. So, imagine you have roommates or family who don’t feel the same way about your herbal passions, how do you hide the smell of weed or get rid of the weed smell?

The post How to Hide the Smell of Weed Anywhere appeared first on Sensi Seeds.

Source link

Blackberry Herer Feminized Grow Report

Blackberry Herer Feminized Grow Report

Blackberry Herer Feminized Grow Report

This time, we’ll detail our time with Blackberry Herer Feminized. This 70% sativa leans heavily into those
genetics; these plants are extremely slender with a lanky frame and long lateral branches. While our
plant finished at a metre tall, growers could easi
ly grow them much larger. In the end, we were more
than satisfied with this strain’s impressive yield.

The post Blackberry Herer Feminized Grow Report appeared first on Sensi Seeds.

Source link

New Hampshire Lawmakers Approve Bipartisan Bill To Legalize Psilocybin For Medical Use, While Rejecting Separate Psychedelics Measure

New Hampshire Lawmakers Approve Bipartisan Bill To Legalize Psilocybin For Medical Use, While Rejecting Separate Psychedelics Measure

New Hampshire Lawmakers Approve Bipartisan Bill To Legalize Psilocybin For Medical Use, While Rejecting Separate Psychedelics Measure

New Hampshire lawmakers advanced a bipartisan bill to legalize the regulated use of psilocybin for medical purposes, while rejecting a separate measure on therapeutic access to the psychedelic.

Weeks after holding an initial hearing on both proposals, the House Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs Committee voted 18-0 on Wednesday to approve HB 1809 from Rep. Buzz Scherr (D) but 11-7 to reject HB 1796 from Rep. Michael Moffett (R).

The votes took place on the same day that members of a separate committee considered a proposal to let voters decide on legalizing marijuana on the ballot.

The psilocybin legislation that advanced, meanwhile, would create a regulatory pathway for patients with certain conditions to access the psychedelic for therapeutic use through a program overseen by the state Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).

Moffett’s measure is more prescriptive about the proposed regulatory framework compared Scherr’s bill.

At Wednesday’s committee meeting, Rep. Yury Polozov (R) called psilocybin “an important medication, naturally occurring that can save lives.”

Rep. Lucy Weber (D) said she supported HB 1809 but not HB 1796 due to the budgetary implications of the latter proposal, calling it “fiscally imprudent.”

At the earlier committee hearing this month, Jenny O’Higgins of DHHS said officials have some concerns around the lack of appropriated funds in Moffett’s legislation, saying the department would “not be able to absorb” the program under its current budget.

Here are the key provisions of HB 1809, which advanced:

  • DHHS would be responsible for approving licensed medical professional to serve as providers of psilocybin for qualifying patients.
  • In order to qualify for the program, patients would need to be diagnosed with treatment-resistant depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), substance use disorder or another condition authorized by an advisory board and DHHS.
  • The legislation specifically stipulates that only natural psilocybin could be administered, excluding synthetic versions of the psychedelic.
  • Providers would also need to be approved by the department to grow and harvest their own psilocybin products.
  • The process for treating qualifying patients with the psychedelic would need to involve a preparation session, administration session and integration session.
  • A Medical Psilocybin Advisory Board would be established, comprised of a representative of DHHS, a qualifying patient, a veterans advocate and eight medical professionals.
    • Those medical experts would need to include a psychedelics researcher, two regulators overseeing existing medical psilocybin programs and specialists in the treatment of addiction, palliative care, veterans’ affairs, naturopathy, nursing and mental health counseling.
  • The board would be tasked with analyzing data on patient outcomes from DHHS, consider adding qualifying conditions for participation in the program and determine whether the law should be expanded.
  • The program would only be implemented if the advisory board, within two years of the bill’s enactment, notifies lawmakers, regulators and the governor that it can be effectively administered.

“The medical community has always recognized that patients exist with serious conditions that are very resistant to effective treatment,” a statement of purpose for the measure says. “Recently, research has begun to show that certain of those patients have had positive results with the closely supervised use of psilocybin for treatment.”

“Patients with significant post-traumatic stress disorder, with treatment-resistant clinical depression, and with serious substance use disorder have been shown to benefit from the controlled, therapeutic use of psilocybin in a supervised setting,” it says. “The purpose of this act is to create a carefully monitored and closely supervised setting in which an approved medical provider can treat a carefully chosen patient with appropriate doses of psilocybin which that same provider has produced for a medical intervention.”

Here are the main details of HB 1796, which was rejected:

  • The bill would permit the regulated use of psilocybin in a medically supervised setting, with DHHS responsible for overseeing the program.
  • To qualify for psilocybin treatment, a patient 21 or older would need to be diagnosed with treatment-resistant depression, PTSD, substance misuse disorder, a terminal illness requiring end-of-life care or any other condition authorized by DHHS.
  • A Psilocybin Licensing Board under the department would be tasked with issuing licenses for independent medical psilocybin providers, therapy providers, cultivators and testing laboratories.
  • There would be specific guidelines for facilities where the psychedelic could be administered, including security requirements and other safety protocols such as ensuring there are rescue medications on site if a patient experiences an adverse event.
  • The legislation would also establish a Therapeutic Psilocybin Treatment Fund, which would be funded by revenue from licensing taxes and fees. The fund would go toward studies into the possibility of expanding the program to include additional psychedelics in the program.
  • The law if enacted would take effect beginning in January 1, 2027.

“The purpose of the Therapeutic Psilocybin Act is to allow the beneficial use of psilocybin in a regulated system for alleviating qualified medical conditions,” the bill’s statement of purpose says.

The prospects of either psilocybin bill advancing to enactment into law this session remain unclear, but lawmakers have been increasingly active in pursuing psychedelics reform in recent years.

Last June, the New Hampshire Senate voted to scrap compromise legislation that would have lowered the state’s criminal penalty for first-time psilocybin possession while also creating mandatory minimum sentences around fentanyl.

As originally introduced, the legislation would have completely removed penalties around obtaining, purchasing, transporting, possessing or using psilocybin, effectively legalizing it on a noncommercial basis. However a House committee amended the bill before unanimously advancing it last March.


Marijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments.


Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access.

Meanwhile in New Hampshire, the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee on Wednesday took up legislation from Rep. Jonah Wheeler (D) that would put the issue of marijuana legalization before voters at the ballot this November.

The House earlier this month also approved a bill to legalize marijuana in the state—though its chances of passage in the Senate remain dubious, and the governor has expressed clear opposition to the reform.

In the Senate, meanwhile, the Judiciary Committee last week took up a bill from Sen. Donovan Fenton (D) that would allow adults over the age of 21 to legally possess up to four ounces of cannabis in plant form and 20 grams of concentrated cannabis products, as well as other products containing no more than 2,000 milligrams of THC.

Gov. Kelly Ayotte (R) has already threatened to veto any legalization bill that reaches her desk, though the constitutional amendment proposal would not require gubernatorial action.

The governor said in August that her position on the reform would not change even if the federal government moved forward with rescheduling the plant. Since then, President Donald Trump has directed the attorney general to finalize the process of moving cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

Meanwhile, the House also approved a bill this month from Rep. Wendy Thomas (D) that would allow medical marijuana dispensaries (known as “alternative treatment centers,” or ATCs, in the state) to convert their dispensary licenses to become for-profit entities. HB 54, which passed on the consent calendar with other legislation, previously advanced unanimously out of the House Finance Committee.

Part of the motivation behind the legislation is the fact that medical marijuana dispensaries don’t qualify for federal non-profit status. But in the state, they’re considered non-profit organizations, which has resulted in disproportionately increased operating costs.

Image courtesy of CostaPPR.

The post New Hampshire Lawmakers Approve Bipartisan Bill To Legalize Psilocybin For Medical Use, While Rejecting Separate Psychedelics Measure appeared first on Marijuana Moment.

Source link