The quintessential prohibitionist scare film has to be Refer Madness. Released in 1936, Refer Madness depicts Dr. Carroll lecturing PTA parents about the dangers of marijuana. The consequences for the couple he describes include a hit and run accident, suicide, manslaughter and rape. If the film were made today, I have no doubt the two would become terrorists. For those with no personal experience with marijuana, the film might have been frightening if not for the campy acting. For anyone who ever sparked up, though, the exaggerated storyline is almost unwatchable. Refer Madness was a propaganda piece so exaggerated that it became legendary cult entertainment. Today it has become “news.”The Independent recently tried to resuscitate the classic scare tactic from Reefer Madness by stretching a new report thin enough to roll a pinner. “A report to be published within the next few weeks is expected to confirm what some psychiatrists have been warning for years,” the Independent warns, “Cannabis…may be driving its users - many of them children - insane.”
Cannabis: Can it really drive you mad?
Two years after the law was relaxed, the nation’s favourite recreational drug is to be reclassified. They say it is linked to psychosis, but can the odd spliff be that dangerous? Jeremy Laurance reports
It is the world’s oldest euphoric drug, long viewed by any liberal worth their salt as a victim of unfair drug laws. The notion that a spliff is a safer, sweeter means of relaxing than a pint has over the years spread way beyond its traditional student constituency to every corner of society. But two years after the Government listened to these voices and the law was relaxed, its safety is under question as never before. A report to be published within the next few weeks is expected to confirm what some psychiatrists have been warning for years. That cannabis, reputedly taken by Queen Victoria to banish her period pains, may be driving its users - many of them children - insane.
Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, indicated last week that following the report from the the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, he is planning a U-turn on David Blunkett’s reclassification of cannabis in 2004. Clarke is expected to take cannabis from Class C back to Class B status, with tougher penalties for possession. But is cannabis really so dangerous?
There is nothing new about “reefer madness” and the exact role of cannabis in psychosis is disputed by psychiatrists. But two developments have increased professional anxiety about its dangers.
First, the cannabis available on the streets is stronger than it was a two or three decades ago. Much of it is “skunk”, a high-octane version of the more benign “weed”, often cultivated hydroponically (without soil) indoors, under lamps where it is specially bred to increase the content of the main psychoactive ingredient, tetrahydrocannabidinol, or THC. A cannabis joint today may contain 10 to 20 times more THC than the equivalent joint in the 1970s. All drugs carry a risk of side effects and the more powerful the drug the greater the risk that some users will suffer harm. Cannabis is no exception.
Second, the age at which young people begin experimenting with cannabis has decreased. The younger a person is, the more susceptible they are to drugs of all kinds. Experts believe there is a particular risk of damage to developing brains from psychoactive drugs. Research in Australia has shown that the age of first cannabis use has declined since the 1970s from the early twenties to the mid-teens. In the Netherlands, the European country with the most liberal drugs policy, it is between 13 and 14 and in the UK it is between 15 and 16. Studies in the UK show that two in five 15-year-olds have tried cannabis - more than in any other country in Europe. The risk of the drug triggering psychosis may increase with decreasing age.
[Note from michael: These claims, represented as facts, have been debunked repeatedly. Many of them are so illogical that they tend to confuse people. For solid, well-documented answers to the most common misinformation about marijuana, the Marijuana Policy Project is an excellent source. Some of their reference material can be found here.]
The article continues…
A psychotic episode can involve hallucinations, fantasies and a loss of touch with reality which may last days, weeks or months and can be very frightening. Although it is possible to have a single episode without recurrence, the risk of attacks is increased after the first.
Robin Murray, professor of psychiatry at the Institute of Psychiatry, has sounded the loudest warnings about cannabis, but even he says: “It is obviously ridiculous to say everyone who smokes cannabis is going to become psychotic. Even in our studies of adolescents, 90 per cent of those who smoked cannabis did not go on to develop psychosis.”
But he points to mounting evidence that the drug can trigger psychosis in vulnerable individuals. The big question now is: who is vulnerable? A study by the Institute of Psychiatry published in the journal Biological Psychiatry last May suggested that people with a variant of the gene COMT, carried by 25 per cent of the population, had a five times higher risk of psychosis if they smoked cannabis.
“The gene is involved in the breakdown of dopamine in the brain and anything that impedes this we know increases the risk of psychosis,” explains Professor Murray. “We are saying a quarter of the population are vulnerable. It is the same as for heart disease. We know some people can smoke cigarettes and eat a high-fat diet without suffering a heart attack, but if you have a family history or genetic predisposition then the risks are increased.”
Several other studies have shown varying proportions of the population are at increased risk. The drug is known to increase the production of dopamine in the brain, an excess of which produces the hallucinations characteristic of schizophrenia. Any drug that stimulates release of dopamine is therefore likely to worsen the symptoms of schizophrenia.
Professor Murray says that overall, results from a number of studies suggest that smoking cannabis raises risk of psychosis by two to four times - increasing the incidence from one in 100 to up to four in 100. In south London, where he works, the incidence of schizophrenia has doubled since 1964. Although this is partly accounted for by immigration - schizophrenia is higher among Afro-Caribbeans - the rate is also up within the white population.
Critics argue that the evidence for cannabis’s damaging effects shows an association between the drug and psychosis, but not that one is the cause of the other. The more likely explanation for the link, they claim, is that people who are in the early stages of mental illness may turn to drugs including cannabis as a form of self-medication. Cannabis is widely used by patients on mental health wards - to the despair of psychiatrists who say it worsens their condition.
Trevor Turner, consultant psychiatrist at St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London, and vice president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, said there were three reasons why the case against cannabis remains to be proved: “First, there has been no increase in schizophrenia in this country despite a massive increase in cannabis smoking. Second, there is no evidence that cannabis-growing populations such as Jamaica have a higher incidence of psychosis. Third, you can show an association [between the drug and the illness] but you can’t show a cause.”
Patients with schizophrenia often have long-standing prior problems of depression, withdrawal, school refusal and behavioural difficulties before they are diagnosed.
“People feeling not quite right are likely to go for something to calm them down. In teen culture that is cannabis,” says Professor Turner, who has spent decades as a front-line psychiatrist in Hackney, east London. He says he has never seen a case of cannabis-induced psychosis. Cannabis smoking might trigger the emergence of schizophrenia sooner than it would otherwise have emerged - but it did not cause it. “It could well be that cannabis makes overt a covert disorder,” he says.
But he concedes that the risks of skunk are greater, due to its higher concentration of THC. There are at least 60 active constituents of cannabis and the higher the content of THC the more “spacy” the effects of the drug. The higher the content of a second constituent, cannabidinol, the more tranquillising its effects. “Any drug that has psychoactive effects can have toxic effects. It is like drinking whisky instead of beer,” he says.
Although Professors Murray and Turner disagree on the exact role of cannabis in psychosis, they agree that criminalising cannabis smoking is unlikely to reduce the harm. Professor Turner says the safest option would be to legalise the drug so that its quality and strength could be controlled and users screened to minimise harm. Legalisation would have to apply across Europe to prevent drug tourism. “By not legalising it you bring the law into disrepute among the young and you criminalise an activity that is harmless for the great majority of people. It [prohibition] is poisoning society .”
The actual findings of the study were not nearly as sensational as the Independent led us to believe. Even the lead scientist in the study refused to draw broad conclusions regarding any overall dangers of cannabis.
And that is really the whole point. Many safe things have harmful exceptions. Marijuana is not 100% harmless to everyone in all circumstances. According to this study, a small percentage of people can have a preexisting condition aggravated by marijuana. That is not at all the same as, “cannabis….may be driving its users - many of them children - insane.”
Some children will die if they touch a peanut. Those kids shouldn’t eat peanuts or peanut products. Yet it would be irresponsible to warn the public that peanuts may be killing our kids. Not too long ago, a woman died during a radio contest by overdosing on water. Yes, plain bottled water. Should we warn the public that bottled water is killing us? It seems to be a hell of a lot more dangerous than marijuana, considering that no one has ever overdosed on marijuana. When marijuana is replaced with less stigmatized substances, the position of the Independent becomes clear. The Independent is pushing an agenda, not reporting news. This report was simply their cover.
After briefly stating, then ignoring, the counterargument, the Independent concludes with a disturbing abuse of the public trust.
Please sit down while reading this amazing bit of journalism.
For some parents with a concern for their child’s future, a dabbling in cocaine is a far more digestible alternative. “I’d rather my son take a more proactive, less habitual drug like cocaine, than lock himself away and play video games” says Roxanne Richardson, 35, who has a young son, and is expecting another. “It’s so lazy. At least with pills and coke you’re out and about doing something.”
What was the purpose of this?
Who is Roxanne Richardson?
Shouldn’t there be a disclaimer that this person doesn’t have a fucking clue what she is talking about?
Cocaine is NOT “less habitual” than marijuana. And I’m sure Dr. Phil would agree that it is NOT a good choice of things to give your children!
For an article that tried so hard to make a case against marijuana, the insertion of a sales pitch for “pills and coke” is an odd way to end. The lesson, I suppose, is that marijuana may aggravate existing mental conditions in a small percentage of the population. Therefore, we should all blow lines. With 70 years invested in this vapid indictment, we should expect so much more.
To read the entire article, click here.
It’s a shame what the popular culture has done to Bob Marley. While we should appreciate the social barriers to marijuana that were lowered and weakened by the man’s work, to reduce his memory to that of marijuana activist alone is disrespectful.