This column is in response to a letter from Danny Dresser - please see page 12.
Dear Danny,
THIS column is for you. Because I'm flattered that, despite your hackles being raised, you've continued to read me week after week. I'm not sure I have hackles but your letter did raise some interesting points, erroneous, but interesting.
Of course Bulgaria has a mind of its own and it should use it. Like any collective mind, it should learn from the mistakes and successes of other countries.
By almost all accounts, the so-called "war on drugs" in America has been an expensive and profoundly racist failure. The United States spends $7.9 billion a year enforcing marijuana laws. There were 733 000 marijuana-related arrests in 2002, 80 per cent of them for personal use only. There are 100 000 people in US jails and prisons on marijuana charges right now, including 20 000 in federal prison, of which half are Latinos. It costs $1 billion a year just to keep those 20 000 federal prisoners in prison. Is this the path Bulgaria should follow?
As far as the Dutch experiment, it depends on how you define success. The Christian Science Monitor reported in August of 2001: "Dutch rates of heroin addiction are lower than those in the UK, whose anti-marijuana laws have until now been the stiffest in Western Europe. Survey figures also indicate that only 14 per cent of Dutch 15-16 year-olds smoke marijuana, compared to 16 per cent of their British counterparts." Other statistics indicate fewer young adolescents smoke marijuana than in the US. Unless you prefer zero tolerance, it sounds pretty successful to me.
If you want to read more facts on the Dutch experiment check out: www.cedro-uva.org/lib/reinarman.devil.html and www.cedro-uva.org/lib/reinarman.dutch.pdf, where Craig Reinarman, Professor of Sociology and Legal Studies at the University of California, gives a lucid examination of the slanted cases brought against the experiment by US Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey and people similar to your Dr. Elizabeth Van Swinderen (who, by the way, is nowhere to be found on the web, except for giving the Ireland speech you mention. She is an expert and "Dr." of what exactly?).
As for the toxicology of marijuana, I stand by the Karajov quote. Even a 1972 study commissioned by President Nixon (with his eye on demonising marijuana) could not prove THC to have any significant toxic effects. Here's a quote from another recent study: "Tetrahydrocannabinol is a very safe drug. Laboratory animals can tolerate doses of up to 1000 mg/kg (milligrams a kilogram). This would be equivalent to a 70 kg person swallowing 70 grams of the drug - about 5000 times more than is required to produce a high. By comparison with other commonly-used recreational drugs, these statistics are impressive. "The Science of Marijuana" (London, England: Oxford University Press, 2000) There's plenty more studies, too, consistently showing THC as very low in toxicity: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/marijuan.htm
Of course, no one says smoking anything is totally harmless. However, the mood-altering effects of THC do not create brain damage, as you seem to imply. Simple brain chemistry lesson, Danny: Almost everything you ingest alters brain chemistry, from bananas to Prozac (which, not incidentally, unlike bananas or marijuana, appears to produce a whole range of nasty side-effects that actually do make marijuana look like "candy floss").
Likewise, If you look at the study you mention about marijuana causing schizophrenia, and not just a sketchy summary, http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/325/7374/1212) you'll see not only was their sample far too small for significant results, but that participants did not develop schizophrenia but, instead, showed "symptoms of schizophrenia". A quick tour through the DSM and you'll realise how general those symptoms are. This study's results are purely corollary. As one health-care professional responded: "If I was a member of a jury, trying cannabis for the crime of causing mental illness, I would be reluctant to convict on this clearly circumstantial evidence... We have evidence for that other significant social drug - alcohol. We know that it is convicted of the crime of Wernicke's encephalopathy, peripheral neuropathy and Korsakoff's psychosis. We can trace the impact of the drug from entry wound to final destination. Yet with cannabis we still appear to be prepared to rely on 'association' and circumstances to determine the impact of cannabis on mental health. Surely this is neither scientific nor advancing the debate."
Also, unlike alcohol, there is no evidence that marijuana leads to crime: "Every serious scholar and government commission examining the relationship between marijuana use and crime has reached the same conclusion: Marijuana does not cause crime. The vast majority of marijuana users do not commit crimes. Almost all human and animal studies show that marijuana decreases aggression" ("Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts" by Lynn Zimmer and John P. Morgan).
So Giuliani was flat out wrong, as was his racist, zero-tolerance policy. If I had more space I'd tell you why. Just as I'd explain how List Pim Fortuyn's second place had nothing to do with drugs (Fortuyn himself was an avid pot smoker), and how Wayne Roques twists facts, too (http://www.druglibrary. org/think/~jnr/buckdea.htm).
Ultimately, though, it's not just about getting the facts right; it's about choice. If Bulgaria wants to step toward democracy, they should veto these amendments. Countless studies prove marijuana is not overly hazardous, a "gateway" drug, nor a cause of crime, so why shouldn't people have the choice to smoke it? You're entitled to your choice, Danny, and your opinion, too. That's democracy. Just so your raised hackles don't limit others' right to choose.
Dear Danny,
THIS column is for you. Because I'm flattered that, despite your hackles being raised, you've continued to read me week after week. I'm not sure I have hackles but your letter did raise some interesting points, erroneous, but interesting.
Of course Bulgaria has a mind of its own and it should use it. Like any collective mind, it should learn from the mistakes and successes of other countries.
By almost all accounts, the so-called "war on drugs" in America has been an expensive and profoundly racist failure. The United States spends $7.9 billion a year enforcing marijuana laws. There were 733 000 marijuana-related arrests in 2002, 80 per cent of them for personal use only. There are 100 000 people in US jails and prisons on marijuana charges right now, including 20 000 in federal prison, of which half are Latinos. It costs $1 billion a year just to keep those 20 000 federal prisoners in prison. Is this the path Bulgaria should follow?
As far as the Dutch experiment, it depends on how you define success. The Christian Science Monitor reported in August of 2001: "Dutch rates of heroin addiction are lower than those in the UK, whose anti-marijuana laws have until now been the stiffest in Western Europe. Survey figures also indicate that only 14 per cent of Dutch 15-16 year-olds smoke marijuana, compared to 16 per cent of their British counterparts." Other statistics indicate fewer young adolescents smoke marijuana than in the US. Unless you prefer zero tolerance, it sounds pretty successful to me.
If you want to read more facts on the Dutch experiment check out: www.cedro-uva.org/lib/reinarman.devil.html and www.cedro-uva.org/lib/reinarman.dutch.pdf, where Craig Reinarman, Professor of Sociology and Legal Studies at the University of California, gives a lucid examination of the slanted cases brought against the experiment by US Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey and people similar to your Dr. Elizabeth Van Swinderen (who, by the way, is nowhere to be found on the web, except for giving the Ireland speech you mention. She is an expert and "Dr." of what exactly?).
As for the toxicology of marijuana, I stand by the Karajov quote. Even a 1972 study commissioned by President Nixon (with his eye on demonising marijuana) could not prove THC to have any significant toxic effects. Here's a quote from another recent study: "Tetrahydrocannabinol is a very safe drug. Laboratory animals can tolerate doses of up to 1000 mg/kg (milligrams a kilogram). This would be equivalent to a 70 kg person swallowing 70 grams of the drug - about 5000 times more than is required to produce a high. By comparison with other commonly-used recreational drugs, these statistics are impressive. "The Science of Marijuana" (London, England: Oxford University Press, 2000) There's plenty more studies, too, consistently showing THC as very low in toxicity: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/marijuan.htm
Of course, no one says smoking anything is totally harmless. However, the mood-altering effects of THC do not create brain damage, as you seem to imply. Simple brain chemistry lesson, Danny: Almost everything you ingest alters brain chemistry, from bananas to Prozac (which, not incidentally, unlike bananas or marijuana, appears to produce a whole range of nasty side-effects that actually do make marijuana look like "candy floss").
Likewise, If you look at the study you mention about marijuana causing schizophrenia, and not just a sketchy summary, http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/325/7374/1212) you'll see not only was their sample far too small for significant results, but that participants did not develop schizophrenia but, instead, showed "symptoms of schizophrenia". A quick tour through the DSM and you'll realise how general those symptoms are. This study's results are purely corollary. As one health-care professional responded: "If I was a member of a jury, trying cannabis for the crime of causing mental illness, I would be reluctant to convict on this clearly circumstantial evidence... We have evidence for that other significant social drug - alcohol. We know that it is convicted of the crime of Wernicke's encephalopathy, peripheral neuropathy and Korsakoff's psychosis. We can trace the impact of the drug from entry wound to final destination. Yet with cannabis we still appear to be prepared to rely on 'association' and circumstances to determine the impact of cannabis on mental health. Surely this is neither scientific nor advancing the debate."
Also, unlike alcohol, there is no evidence that marijuana leads to crime: "Every serious scholar and government commission examining the relationship between marijuana use and crime has reached the same conclusion: Marijuana does not cause crime. The vast majority of marijuana users do not commit crimes. Almost all human and animal studies show that marijuana decreases aggression" ("Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts" by Lynn Zimmer and John P. Morgan).
So Giuliani was flat out wrong, as was his racist, zero-tolerance policy. If I had more space I'd tell you why. Just as I'd explain how List Pim Fortuyn's second place had nothing to do with drugs (Fortuyn himself was an avid pot smoker), and how Wayne Roques twists facts, too (http://www.druglibrary. org/think/~jnr/buckdea.htm).
Ultimately, though, it's not just about getting the facts right; it's about choice. If Bulgaria wants to step toward democracy, they should veto these amendments. Countless studies prove marijuana is not overly hazardous, a "gateway" drug, nor a cause of crime, so why shouldn't people have the choice to smoke it? You're entitled to your choice, Danny, and your opinion, too. That's democracy. Just so your raised hackles don't limit others' right to choose.
