May, 1994

In February, 1994, a "Royal Commission on Cannabis" was proposed to "review the prohibition of the use of cannabis and to examine alternative options for control of the drug within the law". It was noted in this proposed motion that there is a "growing body of evidence which testifies to the medicinal and therapeutic properties of cannabis and its relative safety compared with other legalized drugs".

However, an amendment was made and passed stating that increased penalties for possession of cannabis set by the government were welcomed "in the light of overwhelming medical evidence that cannabis leads to poor short-term memory and learning problems, lung damage and cancer risks that are 50-70 per cent greater than those associated with tobacco use, reduced immunity producing cells, and impairment of heart function: (it is noted that) cannabis causes greater organic brain damage than any other drug with the possible exception of PCP and the end stages of alcoholism; and that the effect of one cannabis cigarette lasts five or six times as long as one unit of alcohol". It was then stated that "(this House) deplores any moves towards the legalization of cannabis, based on the experience in Alaska where such a move was abandoned in 1990, having led to the increased use of both soft (sic) and hard (sic) drugs, increased drug related crime and increased health care costs".

A letter from a pro-legalization organization questioning the facts of this passed amendment was sent to the Member of Parliament responsible for its draft. This paper sets out to address these questions by citing recent relevant research findings.

The effects of cannabis in the amendment are not "falsified" nor are they a "form of outdated propaganda (laid) onto people.... ". In addition, the information on the harmful effects of cannabis are not based on "biased newspaper reports". In fact, in reviewing the newspapers over the past three years, there has not been a true factual representation of the harmful effects of cannabis nor the potential dangers in legalizing or decriminalizing it. Instead, pro-cannabis individuals and groups have been able to use the newspapers as a forum for their "cause" to the exclusion of factual information on cannabis and its effects.

The facts on cannabis are not a "form of outdated propaganda". It should be pointed out that most of the studies cited in the pro-legalization letter are outdated - documenting the evidence that "no detrimental effects (of cannabis) can be proved," when examining reference 1-13, eight of these are from the 1970s, one is from 1982, two are from the 1990s (both of these sources, High Times and HEMP, "Help Eliminate Marijuana Prohibition," are pro-cannabis) and two are listed as "1893-4" and "1944". The majority of the research cited in the letter, therefore, is outdated. This is a major problem because medical research in general has advanced technically since the 1970s. The "long-term" studies cited in the letter are from 1977 (Greek study) and 1975 (Jamaican study). It should be noted that recent studies are able to assess the longer term effects of cannabis, using more advanced research techniques (see below for examples). In addition, the study cited in the letter which examined the effect of cannabis on the immune system was from 1976. This is before AIDS was discovered. More recent studies on the immune system (how it works and what affects it) have occurred since 1976 and these studies show the impairing effect cannabis has on the immune system (see below for more detail).

The following are some examples of more recent research to counter the research claims mentioned in the letter:

Effects on memory:

A carefully controlled study by Richard Schwartz; Georgetown University; Washington D.C. directly studied the effect of cannabis on memory (and examined other studies) and concluded that the use of cannabis "impairs short term memory well beyond the period of intoxication". (Cannabis: Physiopathology. Epidemiology Detection 1993), not solely during the period of intoxication, as written in the letter (based on information from 1973).

Cardiovascular/respiratory and carcinogenic effects:

Numerous studies on humans which examined the effects of marijuana on lung cell tissue have indicated that the adverse effects of marijuana smoke in various contents equal or surpass the similar effects of tobacco smoke ("Government's Supplemental Memorandum Re: Health Effects of Marijuana," in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii by the U. S. Attorney in Hawaii, 1992). This report also documents that marijuana contains a total of 421 chemicals, which include a variety of toxins and cancer-inducing chemicals. This finding was replicated after the United States Public Health 'Service ordered a study by the nations' top scientists at the National Institute of Health. A one year review of data concluded "marijuana cigarette smoke contains a complex mixture of over 400 compounds including polyareomatic hydrocarbons which are carcinogenic" (1992) (The letter states that there are other ways to ingest cannabis than smoking it, however, the majority of cannabis users smoke it).

The U. S. Attorney in Hawaii's report also included citation of studies showing that marijuana has substantial adverse health effects not previously suspected - including impairing effects on brain tissue and psychological functioning and damage to reproductive and immunological systems which are also cited in this document.

Immunity:

In 1993, Virginia Medical College (USA) found that THC damages the immune system and reduces the ability to fight disease (including AIDS). Also last year, Cabral and Vasquez from the Department of Microbiology and Immunology (Medical College of Virginia, USA) reported that cellular immunity and pulmonary immunity are impaired and it is now documented that there is an impaired ability to fight infections in humans.

The metabolism of cannabis:

The metabolism of cannabis is not "similar to alcohol" as written in the letter. It has been found that cannabinoid urinary metabolites may be detected 3-5 days after occasional smoking and up to 77 days after chronic use (5 cigarettes a day) (Paul Latargue, Institut de Recherche Criminelle de la Gendarmerie, France, 1993). Marijuana differs substantially from alcohol and other drugs which are water soluble - marijuana is fat soluble and as such accumulates in the brain, adrenal glands, liver, kidneys, heart, and sexual organs. Being fat soluble, THC and other cannabinoids tend to remain in the body long after the mind-altering effects of the drug have ceased, unlike water-soluble alcohol ("Government's Supplemental Memorandum Re: Health Effects of Marijuana," in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii by the U.S. Attorney in Hawaii, 1992).

The long-term effects of cannabis: In contrast to the statements in the letter that harmful long term effects of cannabis use have not been found, the Center for Brain Research in California (Gilkeson) and Oxford University (Paton) have found that the long term presence of the fat soluble molecules of cannabis do cause damage to the brain. Cell damage has also been found (University of Toulouse, University of Utah and University of Toronto). It is therefore not accurate to state, as noted in the letter, that "all effects are reversible". Also, as stated before, lung damage occurs from smoking.

In regard to Alaska:

Cannabis was decriminalized, not legalized, through the Alaska Supreme Court and through the initial support of police primarily because they first thought crime would decrease. However, cannabis use and problem use went up (with heavy increases in health and social costs). An important factor in rescinding decriminalization was the response of the police, who saw first hand the problems caused by decriminalization. Whether or not there was a direct cause and effect relationship between cannabis decriminalization and the increase in crime, decriminalization was seen to have failed. In seeing this failure, the police who had initially supported decriminalization fully supported rescinding the law.

"Legalization could provide significant benefits to society," as claimed in the letter, is not true when examining cities that tried decriminalization.

In addition to Alaska's experience with decriminalization, when examining the effects of their lenient cannabis laws, the Dutch policy has been associated with a progressive increase in cannabis use among 15- 19 year old (from 4% in 1984 to over 8% in 1989). Between 1984 and 1988, the use of cannabis increased by almost 100% among upper high school students in the Netherlands. The policy of "harm reduction@' has not prevented a steady and significant rise in drug addiction (cannabis, cocaine and opiates) among 15-19 year olds and young adults. ("Drug Reform: The Dutch Experience," Richard H. Schwartz, 1993). The Dutch Institute on Alcohol and Drugs recently questioned 8,000 young people and also found that the percentage of students smoking cannabis has more than doubled in four years (from 3% in 1984 to 7% in 1988). (Guardian 9 November 1993).

It should also be noted that references in the letter to support the claim that "legalization could provide significant benefits to society" included three sources of information from the 1970s. In addition, the two 1993 resources are by pro-cannabis, and thus, biased, authors.

Finally, in contrast to the 1993 report, cited in the letter, on the decreased health costs and lower absenteeism of drug-using employees in Utah Power and Light and Georgia Power (originally appearing in High Times, a pro-cannabis and therefore, biased publication), it should be noted that over 85% of the largest employers in the USA use urinalysis drug testing as a means of preventing illegal drug use on and off the job. Several studies have been conducted that examine work performance of employees using illegal drugs compared with those who have tested negatively for such drugs.

For example, at the U.S. Postal Service, the biggest employer in the USA, 300 people who tested positively for illegal drugs were compared with non-drug users who started work at the same time. After eight months, accident rates, injury, absenteeism, and disciplinary problems were found to be far higher for the illegal drug users than for non-drug users. (Supervisors did not know which employees tested positive for drugs). Those who tested positive had higher termination and turnover rates than the no-drug user. After 16 months, absenteeism, termination, and turnover rates increased even more for the drug-users. The U. S. Postal Service has decided to do pre-employment drug testing to save 62 million dollars a year and decrease absenteeism, turnover, and accidents ("Testing for Illicit Drugs in the Workplace," Peter Bensinger, Former Director, Drug Enforcement Administration, Washington D.C.) (Cannabis: Physiopathology. Epidemiology, Detection, 1993).

In addition, it was recently found (March 1994) that drug use and resulting disciplinary problems by some Chicago postal employees has resulted in the nondelivery of nearly 10,000 pieces of mail, some of which was dumped and burned. This problem has had a major effect on the people and business in the areas affected.

In conclusion, it is clear that the defeat of the proposed "Royal Commission on Cannabis" is based on factual and recent research and is a positive move to support prevention.

For further information:

"Information on Cannabis," 1993. "Issues in the Prevention Field: The Definition of Prevention, Prevention Research and Legalisation of Cannabis," 1993. "The Effects of Drug Laws on Crime and Other Social Problems in the UK," 1993. "The Effects of Harm Reduction and Prevention: An International Assessment," 1994.