Debunking Reefer Madness

So I stumbled upon a post at Tory Thoughts who does not take too kindly to at least five million of his fellow Canadians:

All you pot smokers and supporters, don't even bother to comment on this post.
If I had a say in the matter, I'd have you all locked away for life.

That was his conclusion of course. From what I figured out what he had three main points against marijuana:
- A Manitoba teenager has been charged with manslaughter as he was DUI with marijuana.
- It is more carcinogenic than tobacco.
- The big one was that it permanently alters your mind- for the worse.

He gave no link for the Manitoba DUI and I could not find it on Google, Google News or Technocrati. The main thing I want the link for is to see if the teen had any alcohol in his system. Most people who have marijuana in their system in DUIs have either been drinking or they aren't stoned. Marijuana can theorically stay in your body for over a month (similar to Vitamin A) so it is very hard to determine when the accident is directly attributable to a person smoking marijuana. It is the same with cell phones I believe (there are efforts to ban the menace of cell phone DUIs).
That being said DUI is a bad idea- hell driving a car in the first place is bad idea but hey they are a necessity in most people's lives. But let's see what the experts say about drugged driving:

Dose-related impairment was observed in drivers' ability to maintain steady lateral position. However, even with the highest dose of THC, impairment was
relatively minor - comparable to that with blood-alcohol concentrations of between .03 and .07 % and many legal medications. Drivers under the influence of
marijuana also tended to decrease their speed and approach other cars more cautiously. [Website Source] [US Government Study Footnote]

I love the last sentence eh that is probably why marijuana is not a major factor in fatal accidents:

A 1994 study sponsored by the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) involving analysis of nearly 2000 fatal accident cases, found 6.7 % of drivers positive for marijuana. In more than two-thirds of those, alcohol was present and may have been the primary contributor to the fatal outcome. [Website Source] [US Government Study Footnote]

And one more Canadian content eh?

The safety hazards of smoking marijuana and driving are overrated, says U of Tresearcher Alison Smiley.
Recent research into impairment and traffic accident reports from several countries shows that marijuana taken alone in moderate amounts does not significantly increase a driver's risk of causing an accident -- unlike alcohol, says Smiley, an adjunct professor in the department of mechanical and industrial engineering . While smoking marijuana does impair driving ability, it does not share alcohol's effect on judgment. Drivers on marijuana remain aware of their impairment, prompting them to slow down and drive more cautiously to compensate, she says. [Website Source] [Academic Source]

Okay so I would not DUI but I can not stand scare tactics that exaggerate the effect of cannabis on drivers. For shits and giggle check out this video.

Now onto the tobacco cancer thingy. I think every schoolchild knows the statement: Smoking one joint is the same as smoking 4 (or 5) cigarettes. Let’s take that as true- although it is very subjective (like how big is the joint). Cigarette smokers inhale a lot more cigarettes on a much more consistent basis. So their risk is already much greater. That is probably why tobacco kills over 45,000 Canadians per year (over 20 percent of all deaths in Canada). And there has never been a recorded death due to cannabis in the 5000 years of recorded history. But let’s tackle the assumption that marijuana smoke causes hardcore lung damage.

"Findings from the long-term study of heavy, habitual marijuana smokers
argue against the concept that continuing heavy use of marijuana is a significant risk factor for the development of chronic lung disease."

"Neither the continuing nor the intermittent marijuana smokers exhibited any significantly different rates of decline in lung function as compared with those individuals who never smoked marijuana."

The study concluded: "No differences were noted between even quite heavy marijuana smoking and nonsmoking of marijuana." [Source- has academic
footnote]

This is probably because marijuana smoke does different things to your lungs than tobacco:

Since 1982, UCLA researchers have evaluated pulmonary function and bronchial cell characteristics in marijuana-only smokers, tobacco-only smokers,
smokers of both, and non-smokers. Although they have found changes in marijuana-only smokers, the changes are much less pronounced than those found in tobacco smokers.

The nature of the marijuana-induced changes were also different, occurring primarily in the lung's large airways - not the small peripheral airways affected by tobacco smoke. Since it is small-airway inflammation that causes chronic bronchitis and emphysema, marijuana smokers may not develop these diseases. [Website Source] [Academic Footnote]

So hopefully that quashes the myth of marijuana being more damaging to your lungs than tobacco. The best thing is that numerous studies have failed to find a link between cannabis and cancer.

Well now onto his last and most disproved claim- that cannabis permanently damages the brain. This is a reefer madness flashback. Tory Thoughts mentions studies but is very very vague as he does not give links, quotes, names, dates or institutions perhaps because he is thinking of 1960s era reports that are now mostly regarded as junk science riddled with bias.
Hell the latest studies suggest that cannabis use encourages brain cell growth:

A synthetic chemical similar to the active ingredient in marijuana makes new cells grow in rat brains. What is more, in rats this cell growth appears to be
linked with reducing anxiety and depression. The results suggest that marijuana, or its derivatives, could actually be good for the brain. [Website Source] [Academic Source]

But we have to debunk his claim a little more:

The most celebrated study that claims to show brain damage is the rhesus monkey study of Dr. Robert Heath, done in the late 1970s. This study was reviewed by a distinguished panel of scientists sponsored by the Institute of Medicine and the
National Academy of Sciences. Their results were published under the title, Marijuana and Health in 1982. Heath's work was sharply criticized for its insufficient sample size (only four monkeys), its failure to control experimental bias, and the misidentification of normal monkey brain structure as "damaged". Actual studies of human populations of marijuana users have shown no evidence of brain damage. For example, two studies from 1977, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) showed no evidence of brain damage in heavy users of marijuana. That same year, the American Medical Association (AMA) officially came out in favor of decriminalizing marijuana. That's not the sort of thing you'd expect if the AMA thought marijuana damaged the brain. [Website Source- Academic Footnote is at the bottom]

So the above information is why I think Tory Thoughts is severely misinformed about cannabis. But the good thing is that his fanatical hatred of marijuana users puts him in a tiny minority within his own party. Since only eleven percent of his own party believe marijuana possession should be punished by a criminal record. Hell even a Tory MP openly prefers the legalization of cannabis over prohibition.

I remember talking to a member of the Conservative Party who was close to 50 and said he had smoked marijuana for almost every day for 30 years and without it he would not be able to do his heavy labour job that most men half his age have trouble doing. Too bad members of his own party believe he is a dangerous threat to society and should be imprisoned for life.