Califano And Friends Lie
To Us About Marijuana And Holland -- the Mfiles
82 Clinical and Societal
Implications of Drug Legalization
By Herbert D. Kleber, Joseph A. Califano, Jr., and John C. Demers
From Williams & Wilkins, Substance Abuse, A Comprehensive
Textbook, Section XII. Policy Issues, 82, 1992)The following is excerpted from
approximately 24 pages which are @ http://www.mfiles.org/usage_stats/b3_clinical_implications.html
Marijuana
Marihuana is the most commonly used illegal drug in the United States and its
use is particularly high among adolescents. Because relatively little street-level
violence attends the marihuana trade, the legalization and decriminalization debate here
centers on how harmful the drug is to the user, whether marihuana use leads to the use of
harder drugs, whether marihuana use would increase, and whether any increase would
translate into a decrease in alcohol use (21, 91, 92).
(Ed. note: The reference citation footnotes after number 66 are
missing from the mfiles site. Most of the citations about marijuana are in this group.)
While clearly not as dangerous as snorting cocaine or shooting heroin, smoking
marihuana is detrimental both physically and mentally, especially to adolescents. The
effects of one marihuana joint on the lungs are equivalent to four cigarettes, placing the
user at increased risk of bronchitis, emphysema and bronchial asthma. The active
ingredient in marihuana, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), is fat soluble and remains in the
brain, lungs, and reproductive organs for weeks.
(Ed. note: It is the metabolite of THC which remains in the
system, not THC itself. Vitamin E also fat soluble and remains in the system for a longer
period than Vitamin C or heroin.)
Marihuana weakens the immune system, and regular use can disrupt the menstrual cycle
and suppress ovarian function (93, 94). Regardless of socioeconomic status, prenatal use
of marihuana by the mother appears to reduce significantly the IQs of babies (95).
Marihuana impairs short-term memory and ability to concentrate (94) at a time when the
main task of its young users is education. And marihuana use diminishes motor control
functions, distorts perception, and impairs judgment, leading among other things to
increased car accidents and vandalism. Marihuana toxicity, especially anxiety and panic
attacks, is a frequently cited cause of emergency room visits, and treatment of marihuana
dependence has become a common reason for seeking substance abuse treatment, treatment
which is usually psychological rather than pharmacological. As Millman and Beeder note,
stopping chronic cannabis use often results in "a marked and rapid improvement in
mental clarity and energy levels" (96).
(Ed. note: None of the direr claims here have actually been proven.
Most are based on either animal or in vitro studies. Some may be valid, but citing
them as proven is simply dishonest.)
The link between the use of marihuana and the subsequent use of harder drugs has been
the subject of much debate, with supporters of marihuana decriminalization and
legalization arguing that many individuals who smoke marihuana never use hard drugs. While
the latter is true, the statistical association between the teenage use of marihuana and
the later use of other drugs such as cocaine is powerful. Even though the biomedical or
other causal relationship for this has not yet been adequately explained, 12- to
17-year-olds who smoke marihuana are 85 times more likely to use cocaine than those who do
not. Adults who as adolescents smoked marihuana are 17 times likelier to use cocaine
regularly. Sixty percent of adolescents who use marihuana before age 15 will later use
cocaine. These correlations are many times higher than the initial relationships found
between smoking and lung cancer in the 1964 Surgeon General’s report (9-10 times),
high cholesterol and heart disease in the Framingham study (2 4 times), and asbestos and
lung cancer in the Selikoff study (5 times) (97).
(Ed. note: This is a comparison between a statistical correlation
and physical causation. There are many situations in which there may be a very high
correlation, but no causation. For example, tobacco smokers are much more likely to be
hard drug users than non-smokers. Almost all cocaine users previously used caffeine.)
Marihuana use has been associated with many high-risk behaviors among young people.
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, adolescents who smoke
marihuana are twice as likely to attempt suicide and carry a weapon as those who do not.
Adolescent marihuana smokers are three times as likely to have sex and far more likely to
do so without a condom, putting themselves at much greater risk of teen pregnancy and
sexually transmitted diseases (61).
(Ed. note: This citation really proves only one thing. These people
have no intellectual standards. Kids with problems, or who are risk takers are more likely
to use drugs than kids who do not fall into these categories. This has nothing to do with
the dangers of the drugs.)
Past experiences with marihuana decriminalization illustrate the consequences of more
tolerant policies. During the 1970s, 11 states decriminalized personal possession of
marihuana by making the offense a civil violation punishable by a fine. In 1975, the
Alaska State Supreme Court decriminalized at-home personal use of small amounts of
marihuana for individuals older than age 19. By 1988, 12- to 17-year-olds in Alaska were
smoking joints at more than twice the national average. Marihuana use became part of the
lifestyle of many teenagers and the age of initiation declined (98, 99). Because of this,
in a 1990 referendum, Alaskans voted to recriminalize personal possession.
Proponents of legalization cite several surveys and studies which report that when
Oregon, Maine, and California decriminalized marihuana, rates of use among teenagers did
not increase significantly (100). These surveys, however, have severe shortcomings. They
lack controls for other historical and demographic factors, such as sex, income, and
education, and employ vaguely defined measurement criteria to estimate the prevalence of
marihuana use (101, 102). They do not reflect the impact of legalization on long-term
usage rates because they were conducted only 1-3 years after decriminalization laws were
passed, and they fail to recognize that even minimal annual increases in use become
significant when they accumulate over time. Though reported marihuana use increased only
slightly following decriminalization, the time period surveyed was not long enough to
allow the educational and attitude-forming aspects of the previous
strict drug laws to dissipate.
Measurement problems also exist in trying to compare usage rates in states that
decriminalized versus states that did not. The comparison is problematic because many
states that did not decriminalize reduced penalties for marihuana use, and others chose
not to enforce laws prohibiting personal use of marihuana. During the 1970s, many states
and the federal government adopted more tolerant attitudes towards the drug. Nationwide,
use rose significantly during this time, reaching almost 40% of high school seniors before
beginning its long decline in 1979 (18).
(Ed. note: All of these points may or may not be valid, but they
also apply to the situation in Alaska. Alaska is very different demographically from the
other states, so there may be other factors at work. Siegel, the author of the Alaskan
survey said that it was not clear that the change in the law resulted in the reported
increase in use. The referendum to recriminalize passed by a narrow margin, 55% to 45%.)
Teenagers are not likely to stop using alcohol when they begin smoking marihuana. While
on individual occasions teens may choose to get high on either marihuana or alcohol, these
drugs are often used together. From 1975 to 1978, as the percentage
of teens using marihuana increased from 27 to 37%, the percentage of teens who drank
increased from 68 to 72%. Marihuana use then dropped to 12% of teens by 1992; alcohol use
dropped to 51 %. The recent rise in teenage marihuana use has been accompanied by
little change in the percentage of students who drink (18).
(Ed. note: There is some doubt about the validity of these numbers,
but they say that the use of alcohol by teens dropped by approximately 30% without
arresting any adults. In other words, it is not necessary to criminalize adult behavior to
reduce that behavior among children.)
Proponents of legalization argue that while smoking pot has detrimental health and
social effects, so does use of our two legal drugs, alcohol and tobacco, and to be
consistent, we should legalize marihuana. But legalizing marihuana would add a third drug
that combines some of the most serious risks of the other two (94). Marijuana offers both
the intoxicating effects of alcohol and the long-term lung damage of tobacco. It would be
irresponsible to legalize or decriminalize marihuana and create a third legal drug,
especially when we are still learning about its physical and psychological health effects
as well as its relationship to other drugs and a variety of dangerous behaviors.
(Ed. note: Inasmuch as marijuana has been widely used for decades in
the US, it is absurd to say that there may be major dangers that have not been discovered.
In fact, there is substantial epidemiological evidence that marijuana is far less
dangerous than alcohol and tobacco, but the authors take the utterly irresponsible
position of telling children that the dangers are comparable.)
One of the most serious drawbacks of marihuana legalization, Kleiman notes, is its
"virtual irreversibility if it goes badly wrong" (103).
(Ed. note: Kleiman is a DEA contractor, so citing him is hardly
conclusive.)
The European Experiences
Many legalization advocates point to the policies of European countries as models for
approaches to the American drug problem. They claim that some countries, notably the
Netherlands and Great Britain, are more innovative because their aim is to minimize the
harmful impact of drug use on the user and society, even if this requires legal change
(104).
While the Netherlands’ laws regarding illegal drugs remain unchanged, Dutch
enforcement policy since 1976 has distinguished between "drugs presenting an
unacceptable risk" (commonly termed "hard drugs," such as cocaine and
heroin) and "cannabis products" (83). Special "coffee shops" were
established where anyone age 18 can purchase marihuana. Legalization proponents claim that
this policy has not increased drug use among young people or the population in general
(16, 105, 106).
These claims are not supported by the facts. Though marihuana use did not explode
immediately following decriminalization, it has recently been increasing, suggesting that
the effects of decriminalization may only be fully realized in the longer term. Between
1984 and 1992, Dutch adolescent marihuana use increased nearly 200% (107); over the same
period, marihuana use among American adolescents plummeted 66%.
(Ed. note: This is completely dishonest. Dutch usage increased to a
level below the lowest US level in 20 years, while US rates soared after 1992. This also
ignores the unpleasant fact that the US had a crack cocaine epidemic and the Dutch did
not. One of the reasons for Dutch policy is to separate the markets for hard and soft
drugs. The US policy is just the opposite, with predictable results.)
See
Drug Czar
Lies Again About the Dutch, Who Respond With The Facts;
Czar’s Aid Says, "forces at work to legalize drugs are trying to bring
these wonderfully allied governments into conflict."
and
NORML Director
Explains To The Dutch
Why Their Drugs Policy Threatens DEAland Prohibitionists – Great Article
and
"Here, if you want
cannabis you go to a coffee shop.
In other countries if you want it you have to go to a man who might try to sell you heroin
or cocaine as well."
Since 1988, the Dutch have seen a 22% increase in the total number of registered addicts,
and a 30% increase, from 1991 to 1993, in the number of registered cannabis addicts (108).
(Ed. note: The number of "registered addicts" means people
who enroll in outpatient treatment programs for cannabis dependence. The number is tiny,
approximately 3,500 and very small percent of total cannabis users. The fact that they
omit this data proves that authors are either incompetent or completely dishonest –
or both.)
See
"Tremendous
Increase In The Number Of Dutch Cannabis Users Asking For Help"
Swedish Prohibitionists Claim
From 1990 to 1995, the proportion of users who had smoked cannabis for the previous
five years increased from 2 to 9%, suggesting that increased availability will be
associated with longer term use (109). The same study found that between 1990 and 1995,
the percentage of 11 - to 18 -year-olds who had ever used marihuana more than doubled from
7 to 17% (109).
Several marihuana "coffee shops" in
Amsterdam have already been shut down for illegally selling hard drugs.
(Ed. note: Precisely! This is their only acknowledgement of the
basis of Dutch policies.)
Responding to pressure from other European countries and its own citizens, the Dutch
Parliament passed restrictions in 1996 cutting the number of coffee houses in half and
reducing the amount of marihuana an individual can buy from 30 to 5 grams (110).
References
1. Musto DF. The American disease: origins of narcotic control. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1987.
2. Musto DF. Foreword. In: Erickson PG, Adlaf EM, Murray GF, Smart RG. The steel drug:
cocaine in perspective. Toronto: Lexington Books, 1987.
3. U.S. Sentencing Commission. Cocaine and federal sentencing policy. Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Of fice, 1995.
4. Inciardi J, ed. Handbook of drug control in the United States. New York: Greenwood
Press, 1990.
5. DuPont R, Voth E. Drug legalization, harm reduction, and drug policy. Ann Intern Med
1995;123(6):461 465.
6. Schmoke K. Decriminalizing drugs: it just might work—and nothing else does. In:
Evans R, Berent 1, eds. Drug legalization: for and against. La Salle, IL: Open Court
Press, 1992:215-220
7. Smith M. The drug problem: is there an answer? In: Evans R, Berent I, eds. Drug
legalization: for and against. La Salle, IL: Open Court Press 1992:77-88.
8. Wisotsky S. Statement before the Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control.
In: Evans R, Berent I, eds. Drug legalization: for and against. La Salle, IL: Open Court
Press, 1992:181-212.
9. National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse. Marijuana: signal of
misunderstanding. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972.
10. Grinspoon L, Bakalar JB. Drug dependence: non-narcotic agents. In: Kaplan HI,
Sadock BJ, eds. Comprehensive textbook of psychiatry. Third edition. Baltimore: Williams
& Wilkins, 1980.
11. Preliminary estimates from the 1994 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse.
Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1995.
12. Office of National Drug Control Policy. National drug control strategy:
strengthening communities’ response to drugs and crime. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1995.
13. Office of National Drug Control Policy. Breaking the cycle of drug abuse.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993.
14. Brenner TA. The legalization of drugs: why prolong the inevitable? In: Evans R,
Berent I, eds. Drug legalization: for and against. La Salle, IL: Open Court Press
1992:157-180.
15. Zeese K. Drug war forever? In: Krauss M, Lazear E, eds. Searching for alternatives:
drugcontrol policy in the United States. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press,
1992:251-268.
16. Nadelmann E. The case for legalization. In: Inciardi J, ed. The drug legalization
debate. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1991:17~4.
17. Gazzaniga M. The opium of the people: crack in perspective. In: Evans R, Berent I,
eds. Drug legalization: for and against. La Salle, IL: Open Court Press, 1992:231-246.
18. Johnston L, O’Malley P, Bachman J. National survey results on drug use from
the Monitoring the Future Study, 1975-1993. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, 1994.
19. The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University.
National survey of American attitudes on substance abuse. New York: CASA, 1995.
20. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Preliminary estimates from the 1993
National Household Survey: press release, 1994.
21. Grinspoon L, Bakalar J. The war on drugs—a peace proposal. N Engl J Med
1994;330: 357-360.
22. Trebach A. For legalization of drugs. In: Trebach A, Inciardi J. Legalize it?
Debating American drug policy. Washington, DC: American University Press, 1993:7-138.
23. Moore M. Drugs: getting a fix on the problem and the solution. In: Evans R, Berent
I, eds. Drug legalization: for and against. La Salle, IL: Open Court Press, 1992:123-156.
24. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. MMWR Morbid Mortal Wkly Rep
1994;34(SS-3).
25. Moore M. Supply reduction and law enforcement. In: Tonry M, Wilson J, eds. Drugs
and crime. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990: 109-158.
26. Grossman M, Becker G, Murphy K. Rational addiction and the effect of pnce on
consumption. In: Krauss M, Lazear E, eds. Searching for alternatives: drug-control policy
in the United States. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, 1992:77-86.
27. Farrell M, Strang J, Reuter P. The non-case for legalization. In: Stevenson RC, ed.
Winning the war on drugs: to legalize or not. London: Institute of Economic Affairs, 1994.
28. Kleber HD. Our current approach to drug abuse—progress, problems, proposals. N
Engl J Med 1994;330:361-364.
29. Cummings KM, Pechacek T, Shopland D. The illegal sale of cigarettes to US minors:
estimates by state. Am J Public Health 1994;84:300-302.
30. Preliminary estimates from the 1996 Monitoring the Future study. Rockville, MD:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1996.
31. Hooked on tobacco: the teen epidemic. ConsumerReports 1995;March:142-148.
32. Skager R, Austin G. Fourth biennial statewide survey of drug and alcohol use among
California students in grades 7, 9 and 11. Sacramento, CA: Of fice of the Attorney
General, 1993.
33. Fisher WS. Drug and alcohol use among New Jersey high school students. Trenton, NJ:
Department of Law & Public Safety, 1993.
34. Peck D. Legal and social factors in the deterrence of adolescent marijuana use. J
Alcohol Drug Educ 1983;28(3):58-74.
35. Dupre D. Initiation and progression of alcohol, marijuana and cocaine use among
adolescent abusers. Am J Addict 1995;4:43-48.
36. Simmons R, Conger R, Whitbeck L. A multistage reaming model of the influences of
family and peers upon adolescent substance abuse. J Drug Issues 1988;18(3):293-315.
37. Cook P. The effect of liquor taxes on drinking, cirrhosis, and auto accidents. In:
Moore M, Gerstein D, eds. Alcohol and public policy: beyond the shadow of prohibition.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1981:255-285.
38. Homer J. Projecting the impact of law enforcement on cocaine prevalence: a system
dynamics approach. J Drug Issues 1993;23(2):281-295.
39. Wilson JQ. Against the legalization of drugs. Commentary 1990 ;February :21 -28.
40. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Survey of state prison inmates, 1991. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice, 1993.
41. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Prisoners in 1994. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, 1 995.
42. Aaron P, Musto D. Temperance and prohibition in America: a historical overview. In:
Moore M, Gerstein D, eds. Alcohol and public policy: beyond the shadow of prohibition.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1981:127-181.
43. Statistical release: alcohol, tobacco and firearms tax collections. Fiscal year
1995. Washington, DC: Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms,
1995.
44. State government tax collections: 1995. Available at http://www.census.gov/govs/statetax/95
taxO01.txt.
45. The National Center on Addiction, Substance Abuse at Columbia University. The cost
of substance abuse to America’s health care system, final report. New York: CASA,
1996.
46. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report 1996;
8(1):8.
47. Prescribing to addicts appears to work in Britain: interview with Dr. John Marks.
Psychiatric News 1993; December 17.
48. Lowinson JH, Marion IJ, Joseph H, Dole VP. Methadone maintenance. In: Lowinson JH,
Ruiz P, Millman R, eds. Substance abuse: a comprehensive textbook. 2nd edition.
Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1992:550 561.
49. Jaffe J. Opiates: clinical aspects. In: Lowinson JH, Ruiz P, Millman R, eds.
Substance abuse: a comprehensive textbook. 2nd edition. Baltimore: Williams
& Wilkins, 1992:186-194.
50. Simon E. Opiates: neurobiology. In: Lowinson JH, Ruiz P, Millman R, eds. Substance
abuse: a comprehensive textbook. 2nd edition. Baltimore: Williams &
Wilkins, 1992:195-204.
51. Gold M. Cocaine (and crack): clinical aspects. In: Lowinson JH, Ruiz P, Millman R,
eds. Substance abuse: a comprehensive textbook. 2nd edition. Baltimore:
Williams & Wilkins, 1992:205-221.
52. McLellan AT, et al. The effects of psychosocial services in substance abuse
treatment. JAMA 1994;269: 1953-1959.
53. Hartgers C, van den Hoek A, Krijnen P, Coutinho RA. HIV prevalence and risk
behavior among injection drug users who participate in "low threshold" methadone
programs in Amsterdam. Am J Public Health 1992;82:547-551.
54. Lurie P, Reingold A, et al. The public health impact of needle exchange programs in
the United States and abroad. San Francisco: University of Califomia, 1993.
55. Nommand J, Vlahov D, Moses LA, eds. Panel on needle exchange and bleach
distribution programs. Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.
National Research Council and Institute. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1995.
56. U.S. Department of Justice. Drugs, crime and the criminal justice system: a
national report. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1992.
57. Taubman P. Extemalities and decriminalization of drugs. In: Krauss M, Lazear E,
eds. Searching for altematives: drug-control policy in the United States. Stanford, CA:
Hoover Institution Press, 1992:90-111.
58. Hay J. The harm they do to others. In: Krauss M, Lazear E, eds. Searching for
alternatives: drugcontrol policy in the United States. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution
Press, 1992:200 225.
59. The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University. The
cost of substance abuse to America’s health care system, report 1: Medicaid hospital
costs. New York: CASA, 1993.
60. Kessler R, et al. Lifetime and 12-month prevalence of DSM-III-R psychiatric
disorders in the United States: results from the National Comorbidity Study. Arch Gen
Psychiatry 1994;51(1): 8-19.
61. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 1991.
Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1991.
62. Cooper ML, Pierce R, Huselid RF. Substance abuse and sexual risk taking among black
adolescents and white adolescents. Health Psychol 1994; 13(3):251-262.
63. General Accounting Office. Foster care: parental drug abuse has alarming impact on
young children. Washington, DC: U.S. Govemment Printing Of fice, 1994.
64. Brookoff B, et al. Testing reckless drivers for cocaine and marijuana. N Engl J Med
1994 331(8):518-522.
65. Marzuk P, Tardiff K, et al. Prevalence of recent cocaine use among motor vehicle
fatalities in New York City. JAMA 1990;263:250-256.
66. Institute of Health Policy, Brandeis University. Substance abuse: the nation’s
number one health problem. Princeton, NJ: The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 1993.
Supported