OPINION: Time to move on in the marijuana conversation

by Mona Mattei on 25 Jun 2012

In early April of this year one of the most brilliant marketing campaigns ever designed was launched. With a splash of media exposure, a small group of eight people started a conversation that has not stopped nearly three months later. As the chatter moves contagiously through more and more people, the volume has been amplified a hundred-fold. The topic? The end of prohibition of marijuana in Canada.

Yes, marijuana is being discussed by municipalities across B.C. The topic, usually banned from government tables, came to the forefront when a letter, signed by eight mayors and ex-mayors, called for provincial and federal government leaders to step up and stop the war on marijuana in Canada. Called the Stop the Violence B.C., the campaign invited every mayor in the province to join them citing the need to reduce the violence associated with illegal trade in drugs by regulating and taxing the drug.

In response to this call for an end to the prohibiton of marijuana, every council in the entire province is talking about their position on the issue - whether they are for or against, they are talking.

It has become more and more apparent that not only has the "war on drugs" failed, but when you see law enforcement officers and lawyers, even attorney generals, step up and call for change you have to wonder if the tide has finally turned. For decades small groups have stood in defiance of the laws, promoting a different perspective on marijuana. Decriminalization and legalization cries have had a small voice for years.

Maybe they were just using the wrong words, for now the din of regulate and tax, in a time of economic strife, might sway the larger masses. Funny what it takes to influence change.

Let's face it folks, people around the globe have been using marijuana and, aside from the violence related to the growing and dealing of the drugs, we have never heard that someone went on a rampage because of smoking weed. In the famous words of comedian Dennis Leary, the worst anyone who is high usually does is start construction.

Just imagine the savings for the government with millions spent every year just trying to stop the grow ops, and how that could bolster our health care not to mention deflating the coffers of organized crime.

Unlike tobacco, which leaves people with lung cancer and other debilitating conditions over time, the millions saved would not just be moved over to care for the tokers in their elder years. Science has yet to prove a link between marijuana and cancer or any other condition per se. In fact the link flows the other way - marijuana helps patients with cancer.

And just imagine the business boom - legalized growers opening greenhouses (sales tax), hiring staff (income tax), the need for transportation to markets (gas tax), new products to compliment the maryjane (more sales tax), and all sold through our provincial outlets, offering job stability and growth. Did I mention the taxes?
But there's the ethical issue, you say. It will be hard for some politicians to agree with the end of prohibition based on their moral stance or for fear of upsetting their constituents. But what is that belief based on?
A gateway drug, really? Couldn't we argue just as equally that alcohol or coffee are gateway drugs? Okay, stay with me on alcohol then.

We teach our children that alcohol is to be used appropriately, and certainly not by youth. But how many kids sneak into their parent’s liquor cabinet for a taste or two? And cigarettes? Next thing you know they are smoking in the alley on lunch break, or getting someone to buy them booze.

We all know this story. Making a drug elusive only makes it more attractive. The rationale here is that there needs to be controls in place - parents, government and society. Not the type of controls offered by Snake, the local dealer.

To quote Jim Leslie, an advocate who presented to Grand Forks council in their first discussion on this topic, the only gateway to harder drugs is the dealer who sells them all.

So let's take him out of the equation.

Kudos to the mayors who took the first step to start the conversation. And to those who designed this campaign - there could not have been a better way to get the topic into the lives and conversations of so many people across our province at the same time. Perhaps this time the volume will be too loud to ignore.

Comments

Health Issue Red Herring

by Leperman on 06 Jul 2012 at about 10:25.

The health issue is a red herring anyway. The most convincing studies on the health effects are from large population studies, from places like Jamaica where there is no indication that even long term, heavy usage is problematic. But even the well-publicized occasional studies that conclude there are negative health effects are from smoking the herb. It can be ingested instead of inhaled, totally eliminating the concern of lung function.

Alcohol is so much worse and in so many ways with family abuse, crimes, violence, withdrawal, thousands of people are at BC hospitals every day from this drug and yet we allow it to be promoted, even to our youth on TV and elsewhere. But we all know the story of alcohol prohibition. It was worse, didn't work at all and led to massive crime and fraud and made the general public even less safe. The same thing is happening right now but worse than ever from the prohibition of drugs. As the ex-president of Mexico, Vicente Fox, says “the first failed prohibition was the apple in the Garden of Eden.” Prohibition doesn't work. It just diverts the monetary benefits to criminal elements who are becoming more powerful each day.

It is obvious that decriminalization and education are the way to go.

Health issues beside the point.

by Phil F on 29 Jun 2012 at about 17:02.

I think it would be hard to argue successfully that marijuana has no negative consequences (beyond getting you high), but that shouldn't detract from the main conversation which is about legalization. People will smoke it whether it's legal or not. So there will be health consequences (or not, depending on what study you believe) whether it's legally smoked or illegally smoked. Legalization reduces a whole host of problems associated with prohibition - crime violence, lack of distribution control, lost tax revenue, and of course the inability of researchers to adequately study the long term effects of the drug.

I respectfully disagree

by Kyra Hoggan on 30 Jun 2012 at about 06:17.

I don't think the health issues ARE beside the point - we're trying to phase out tobacco because it costs us millions, and we have to consider what message legalization will send to our young people about the safety of a drug one smokes.

Having said that, what sways me to the other side are the health effects of criminalizing reasonably good people, and our current inability to regulate that with which pot is laced by criminals.

THOSE health effects seem more compelling to me.

I do think, though, that the people we're now arresting for grow-ops (police no longer target mom-and-pop operations, the ones getting busted are for distribution, period) will go on to other crimes, if this one is removed from their purview. They have anti-social attitudes, perhaps even disorders, and choose to live outside the confines of legitimate society, to their own detriment.

I think if we care about harm reduction, we need to a) decriminalize and b) explore why so many people don't wish to live within the system we've created, and figure out how to help them find a place within the limits society has deemed acceptable. Right now, all we do is egg them on in their self-destruction.

We keep slapping band-aids on the symptoms while ignoring the true causes - alientation, disenfranchisement, etc. Because those issues are too big and overwhelming, I think.

I also think it's sad.

I think we're smarter and better than easy, nonsense answers like a "war on drugs" that has us declaring war against our neighbours and our children.

Just my two cents.

May be your 2 cents but I

by Carol on 01 Jul 2012 at about 21:48.

May be your 2 cents but I think your wisdom is worth much more.

Canadian Pubic Health Association safer guidelines for marijuana

by Diana Daghofer on 29 Jun 2012 at about 14:31.

Well, it's good to see this conversation going, in any case. In fact, the Canadian Public Health Association has recently endorsed a set of guidelines for safer cannabis use. It includes the following:

- Some groups — including pregnant women, middle-aged and elderly individuals with cardiovascular issues and those with a family history of psychosis — should abstain from use completely;

• Use of marijuana be delayed until late adolescence (16 years of age) or adulthood to quell the ill effects of pot use on the developing brain;

• Frequent use, which is described as daily or near-daily use, be avoided;

• Full avoidance should be exercised by those with difficulties controlling their level of use;

• To best reduce respiratory and cancer risks, marijuana should not be mixed with tobacco and the use of a vaporizer would be more ideal than the use of more common smoking mechanisms, such as joints and pipes;

• Marijuana users should wait at least three to four hours after use — or longer if effects are still felt — before driving a vehicle.

Full details are available here: http://journal.cpha.ca/index.php/cjph/article/view/2758

Marijuana use and psychosis

by Kootenay Gal on 28 Jun 2012 at about 17:55.

Here is a link to the BC Mental Health and Addiction services website that highlights the increased risk of psychosis with marijuana use.

http://www.heretohelp.bc.ca/publications/factsheets/cannabis-psychosis

And Schizophrenia

by Mountain Mitch on 29 Jun 2012 at about 10:17.

Yes, and there is a Japanese study which documented both the increased risk of psychosis and schizophrenia (I believe it is referenced in the BBC article).

I'm sure we all read about the 'face-eater' in Florida who was high on marijuana. While I am not suggesting that use of the drug 'caused' the event, I strongly suspect that it facilitated the event by lowering his inhibitions and perhaps contributing to his psychological problems as detailed in these studies.

While I accept Wanker's point that there seem to be conflicting studies about some of the health risks associated with marijuana I don't think an argument for its legalization can be based on the premise that 'it likely does harm but we aren't really sure how much yet'; or that north america somehow produces a better class of the drug (I note no studies cited for this assertion). Doctors endorsed the use of cigarettes in the 1940s and 50s on much the same basis that Wanker argues for now. I also note that the study he refers to is based on 'occasional' use and is specifically stated as not applicable to heavy or regular users.

The intractable social problem is one thing, the health risks quite another.

This is not an easy decision

by Mountain Mitch on 26 Jun 2012 at about 16:51.

This is not an easy decision despite the rhetoric. There are real and increasingly obvious health consequences to the use of marijuana http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18283689 . It is a dangerous drug and combines some of the harm of alcohol and tobacco.

On the other hand, people seem to keep on using it regardless of the law and that certainly creates some devastating consequences both here and in other countries. In short, our current regime is failing us and we have to look at some alternatives. Despite its addictive nature, tobacco is becoming less socially acceptable. Liquor also has negative health and social consequences but we allow it with some restrictions.

It appears to me that real education as to the effect of smoking marijuana and allowing its controlled distribution is likely the only way out of the current mess. I really wish it was otherwise; but I live in the real world.

Hi

by wanker on 28 Jun 2012 at about 14:15.

I can't beleive you take a study done in the UK seriously. They do not have a medical program, so they DO not have safe access to tESTED CLEAN cannabis, where as in north america they do. Alot of dispensaries test there cannabis. Also there is such devices such as a vaporizer which defeats the purpose of inhaling smoke, which is obviously healthier for you. Everything is that study is the same regurgitated crap going around. If you beleive that Cannabis can cause cancer more so than nicotine, you got another thing coming. There is 4000+ chemicals in a cigarette. The uk has no standard in Cannabis, so testing it is mute. The UK does not have the same qaulity Cannabis as North America.

Smoking marijuana occasionally doesn't seem to damage the lungs as cigarette smoke does, a new 20-year study suggests.

The study was published in Wednesday's issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.It is hard to estimate the potential effects on the lungs from regular and heavy use of marijuana, researchers say. (CBC)

"With marijuana use increasing and large numbers of people who have been and continue to be exposed, knowing whether it causes lasting damage to lung function is important for public-health messaging and medical use of marijuana," said the study's senior author, Dr. Stefan Kertesz of the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Kertesz and his colleagues analyzed a database of measurements taken from about 5,000 people who were aged 18 to 30 when the study began in four U.S. cities. The researchers compared the lung function of marijuana and tobacco smokers.

Increasing someone's exposure to cigarettes resulted in loss of air flow and lung volumes. The air flow measure is the amount of air you can blow out of your lungs in one second after taking the deepest breath possible.

Marijuana exposure was associated with increases in those measurements, but not enough to consider smoking marijuana as a way to improve lung health, Kertesz cautioned.

Previous smaller studies also suggested that smoking marijuana isn't as risky to the lungs as cigarettes.

No one knows why. It's possible that the main active ingredient in marijuana, THC, that causes a "high" also fights inflammation and may counteract the effects of more irritating chemicals in the drug, said Dr. Donald Tashkin, a marijuana researcher and an emeritus professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles. Tashkin was not involved in the study.

Marijuana and cigarette use

In the study, 37 per cent of participants said they'd used marijuana at some point. Most users also said they'd smoked cigarettes and 17 per cent of participants said they'd smoked cigarettes but not marijuana.

While the study included some long-term lung measurements, other types of lung measurements were not taken, the researchers said.

As well, marijuana users did not specify a type of smoking method, such as joint, pipe or bong. It is also difficult to estimate the potential effects of regular and heavy use of marijuana, they said.

Both cigarette smokers and marijuana users can develop throat irritation and cough, which the study didn't look at.

The research was funded by the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse.