Federal government considers marijuana to be as bad as heroin, but drug 15x stronger than heroin is still legal

A new deadly designer drug has hit the streets of America, and other countries across the globe, that experts say is five to 15 stronger than heroin, according to a new study in the Annals of Emergency Medicine. The drug is particularly worrisome because of its inability to be detected. In fact, it masks itself as heroin, preventing or delaying proper treatment in overdose cases.

Acetyl fentanyl is an opioid analgesic with no recognized medical uses that produces altered mood, drowsiness, miosis, cough suppression, constipation and respiratory depression, according to new studies. It shortly gained some popularity in the late 1980s but has become more popular over the last decade.

Experts warn that drug users might be unaware of its existence, as it's commonly mixed with heroin and other street drugs to produce a much stronger high. It can also be sold in pills disguised as oxycodone, according to a report by Live Science.

Acetyl fentanyl overdose causes shallow breathing, slowed heart rate and lethargy

The deadly opiate is typically taken intravenously, often serving as a direct substitute for heroin and other pharmaceutical-grade opioids.

Because acetyl fentanyl is relatively new, and symptoms of an overdose appear eerily similar to those of a heroin overdose, physicians often administer the wrong treatment dosage, which in some cases has resulted in fatalities.

"What's frightening about this emerging street drug is that users themselves may not be aware that they are ingesting it," said John Stogner, Ph.D., the new study's lead author.

"A patient may report heroin use and have symptoms consistent with heroin overdose, but an emergency physician may find that the standard dose of antidote (naloxone) doesn't work," said Stogner.

"Larger or additional doses are necessary when acetyl fentanyl is responsible. It's never good to lose time between overdose and treatment."

Clusters of acetyl fentanyl-related drugs have been reported in several states in recent years. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) identified 1,013 deaths caused by the designer drug in New Jersey; Maryland; Chicago, Illinois; Detroit, Michigan; and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, according to the CDC.

Acetyl fentanyl has never been approved or licensed for medical use, and its legality isn't exactly clear. While it's considered illicit for human consumption, it's not regulated if labeled "not for human consumption," a loophole which many seasoned drug dealers are taking advantage of.

A press release by the American College of Emergency Physicians states, "A large quantity of acetyl fentanyl would potentially be immune to regulation as long as it was titled, labeled and stored as a product with industrial or non-human research purposes."

Deadly street drug is legal, but selling pot can earn you the death penalty

A drug deadly enough to cause respiratory depression and death is technically legal; meanwhile, the federal government is continuously locking up those in possession of marijuana for extended periods of time. And in many cases, victims of prosecution are abiding by their own state's laws.

Despite campaign promises, President Obama has waged an outright war on both legal recreational marijuana and medical pot, incarcerating millions for victimless crimes, all in the name of the fake "War on Drugs."

Pot possession under federal law is punishable by up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine for the first offense. Second offenses carry a mandatory 15 days in jail and two years in prison. If you're caught selling any amount of weed less than 50 kilograms, you could face up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine, according to Legal Match, and the penalties get much worse for anything above that.

The federal government can even administer the death penalty for marijuana sale if the amount distributed exceeds 60 metric tons or an annual income of more than $20 million earned from pot sales.

Now marijuana could be used to TREAT and PREVENT schizophrenia, as the Government faces increasing pressure to legalise cannabis for medicinal use

• A compound in marijuana could soon be tested on young Australians to treat psychosis and schizophrenia
• Researchers suggest CBD could have fewer side effects than other drugs
• Pressure mounts of governments in Australia to legalise marijuana for medicinal purposes
• Hope to commence a new trial soon
• Survey of more than 3,000 Australians found 65.9% support legalising cannabis for medicinal purposes 

By Amy Ziniak for Daily Mail Australia

Medicinal marijuana continues to be a contentious debate, but now a compound found in Marijuana could soon be tested on young Australians to prevent and treat psychosis

European researchers have suggested it could treat schizophrenia and be much more effective than other drugs by having fewer side effects.

It comes as pressure continues to mount on state and federal governments in Australia to legalise the drug for medicinal purposes.

Indian hemp / Cannabis plant (pictured) growing on plantation for medicinal purposes or as drug.  A compound in this plant could soon be tested on young Australians to prevent and treat psychosis and schizophrenia

A plastic bag of skunk cannabis. Will marijuana be able to treat and prevent pyschosis and schizophrenia?

Leading psychiatrist and mental health advocate Patrick McGorry told The Age, that one part of the drug was showing promise as an anti-psychotic medicine.

Australian of the Year, Professor Patrick McGorry (pictured) says one part of marijuana is showing promise as an anti-psychotic medicine

The director of Orygen Youth Health Research Centre and 2010 Australian of the year said while tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in cannabis was widely thought to be dangerous and increase the risk of psychosis in about 10 per cent to 20 per cent of people, another component - cannabidiol (CBD) - appeared to relieve psychosis, depression and anxiety.

McGorry's team are hoping to trial pharmaceutical CBD in young people showing signs of early psychosis to see how it compared to other antipsychotic medications, which often cause undesirable side effects.

'There's been a lot more concern in recent times about antipsychotic medication. Obviously it's really effective, but the longer term side effects are worrying people, especially weight gain and metabolic problems,' Professor McGorry told The Age.

'People are willing to try more experimental treatments that have got some promise and cannabidiol is definitely one of those.'

There's hope to commence a new trial soon with an application already in for government funding.

McGorry does believe the plant possesses both bad and good qualities, saying they should not be confused. 

'We're definitely not saying smoke dope to treat psychosis,' he said. He suggests if a trial were to be set up it would only involve the compound CBD.

Cannabis expert, Jan Copeland has given her support to more studies of CBD being used for people with early stage psychosis.

Marijuana cannabis plant leaves Annapurna Region Nepal. A compound found in Marijuana could soon be tested on young Australians to prevent and treat psychosis

Cannabis expert Jan Copeland (pictured) has given her support to more studies of CBD being used for people with early stage psychosis

The director of the University of NSW's National Cannabis Prevention and Information Centre described CBD as a 'very interesting part of the complex cannabis chemistry' that does not get people stoned, but rather appears to balance the effects of THC, which makes some people anxious. 

She also told The Age, 'there was a small, but growing number of studies suggesting CBD relieved psychosis, anxiety and insomnia, and that her team was trialling it in about 10 people withdrawing from cannabis use to see if it helped them through the process.'

But the search for CBD in street cannabis hasn't been encouraged.

'It has high levels of THC, around 15 per cent now, but almost no CBD, so it's definitely not the same thing as smoking cannabis,' she said.

In July, market researchers, Reach tel, conducted a survey of more than 3,000 Australia's asking them the question : Do you support the legislation of cannabis for medicinal purposes?

The majority would support the move at 65.9 percent, 14.4 percent said they would oppose the legislation and 19.7 percent were undecided on the issue. 

The chemical formula of CBD, a compound in marijuana which could help to prevent psychosis and schizophrenia

Virgin Atlantic Airways
http://tinyurl.com/pjbm6r6

Luxury French Lingerie
http://tinyurl.com/o7qcz7m

From chocolate eggs to chocolate coins, give your sweet tooth a treat with our delicious products.
http://tinyurl.com/nragc9j

Married Couples Who Smoke Marijuana are Less Likely to Encounter Domestic Violence

 

Catherine Griffin

Scientists have found that the more often that couples smoked marijuana, the less likely they were to engage in domestic violence.

Want less domestic violence? Pot smoking seems to be the answer--at least according to a new study. Scientists have found that the more often that couples smoked marijuana, the less likely they were to engage in domestic violence.

The researchers examined 634 couples in an attempt to clarify inconsistent findings about domestic violence among pot-smoking couples. In the end, they found that more frequent marijuana use by husbands and wives predicted less frequent intimate partner violence perpetration by husbands. In addition, husbands' marijuana use also predicted less frequent intimate partner violence perpetration by wives.

"These findings suggest that marijuana use is predictive of lower levels of aggression towards one's partner in the following year," said Kenneth Leonard, one of the researchers, in a news release. "As in other survey studies of marijuana and partner violence, our study examines patterns of marijuana use and the occurrence of violence within a year period. It does not examine whether using marijuana on a given day reduces the likelihood of violence at that time."

In fact, the new study supports that marijuana doesn't increase aggressive conflict. In fact, it hints that pot may actually decrease it. That said, more research needs to be conducted.
"It is possible, for example, that-similar to a drinking partnership-couples who use marijuana together may share similar values and social circles, and it is this similarity that is responsible for reducing the likelihood of conflict," said Leonard.

"We would like to see research replicating these findings, and research examining day-to-day marijuana and alcohol use and the likelihood to IPV on the same day before drawing stronger conclusions."
The findings are published in the journal Psychology of Addictive Behaviors.

Medical Marijuana May Reduce Painkiller-Related Deaths

By Bahar Gholipour, Staff Writer

In states where medical marijuana is legal, the rates of deaths caused by painkiller overdoses are lower than in states where medical marijuana is illegal, a new study has found.

In the study, researchers examined the rates of deaths caused by opioid painkiller overdoses between 1999 and 2010, using death-certificate data compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Opioid painkillers, such as OxyContin and Vicodin, are often prescribed for people with chronic pain.

In line with previous findings, the new results showed that the rates of opioid overdose deaths increased in all states over the study period. However, the 13 states that had laws allowing the use of marijuana for medical reasons during that time had, on average, death rates from opioid overdoses that were about 25 percent lower compared with the rates in states without these laws.

In 2010, these lower rates translated to about 1,700 fewer deaths than what would have been expected if medical marijuana had not been allowed in these states, the researchers said.
The new findings are rather striking, said Marie Hayes, a professor of psychology at the University of Maine, who wrote a commentary about the study.
"This is the first time that we have population-level data that suggests that marijuana has medical benefits," Hayes said.

The researchers also found that the link between lower rates of opioid-overdose deaths and medical-marijuana laws strengthened over time. The number of deaths was reduced by nearly 20 percent in the first year after a state's law was implemented, and was about 34 percent lower five years after the law's implementation, according to the study, published today (Aug. 25) in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine.
In the United States, death rates from drug overdoses have more than tripled since 1990, according to the CDC.

Nearly three out of four prescription-drug overdoses are caused by opioid painkillers. In 2012, U.S. health care providers wrote 259 million prescriptions for opioid painkillers, enough for every adult in the country to have a bottle of the pills, according to the CDC.
Opioid painkillers are particularly dangerous because users may develop tolerance to the drug over time, and may seek higher doses to experience the same effects, experts say. Mixing these medications with other drugs and alcohol is also dangerous and may result in overdose.

About half of prescription-painkiller deaths involve at least one other drug, such as cocaine or heroin, according to the CDC.
It is not clear how, exactly, medical marijuana is related to lower opioid overdose rates. But the protective effect of medical marijuana laws seems convincing, Hayes said.
"You can often find very suggestive correlations that turn out to be not true, and are controlled by other variables," Hayes told Live Science.

"But in this case, by looking at the number of years following implementation [of the law], that means that rather than just having a snapshot of the correlation at some time, they were able to actually find a continuation of the trend over years."
The researchers also looked at other potential factors that could be linked to the decline in overdose death rates — for example, whether the states had prescription-monitoring programs or oversaw pain-management clinics that prescribe these medications. "It turns out that those factors had no effect or very little effect," Hayes said.

A safer alternative?
Although more studies are needed to explain the effects of medical-marijuana laws, the researchers have some ideas as to what may be happening in the states that have legalized the substance for medical use.
For instance, it is possible that patients may use medical marijuana, instead of prescription painkillers, to treat their chronic pain, the researchers said. Some studies have suggested that marijuana may, indeed, provide pain relief for some people, the researchers said.

It is also possible that people who are already taking opioids for chronic pain may supplement them with medical marijuana and may be able to lower their painkiller dose, which, in turn, would lower their risk of overdose, the researchers said.
However, only about 60 percent of people who died from an opioid overdose had legitimate prescriptions for these medications, according to the study.

The remaining 40 percent of the people who died and didn't have an opioid prescription were likely not patients with pain, and may have had other addictions as well, Hayes said. Increased access to marijuana may offer an alternative for these people, she said.
This study alone will not be sufficient to recommend wide adoption of medical-marijuana policies, but it does provide evidence to support the legalization of medical marijuana, Hayes said.
 
If future studies confirm that medical-marijuana laws play a role in lowering opioid-overdose deaths, such laws and policies could be used to reduce people's risk of using opioid painkillers, the researchers said.

Majority supports marijuana legalization or decriminalization: poll

By TIM NAUMETZ 

PARLIAMENT HILL – A substantial majority of Canadian electors are on the same page as Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau when it comes to legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana, a new Forum Research poll suggests.
The Forum Research survey earlier this week found 66 per cent of voting-age Canadians who responded either support the legalization of marijuana and taxing legal marijuana sales or taking marijuana possession out of the Criminal Code.

The results could help explain Justice Minister Peter MacKay’s recent musings that even the Conservative government might be open to more lenient police treatment of possession.
As well, Conservative party fundraising emails through the summer ignored the topic and concentrated on economic and other legal and criminal justice matters—including an appeal to long-gun owners who were alienated by RCMP firearms seizures in Alberta last year.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.), using a partisan appearance this week to criticize other comments Mr. Trudeau (Papineau, Que.) made over the past few months, did not include his position supporting marijuana legalization.
The survey of 1,798 voting-age Canadians from Aug. 18 to Aug. 19 found 35 per cent of respondents supported legalization of marijuana and taxation of sales, while another 31 per cent supported decriminalization for possession of small amounts.

Only 16 per cent said marijuana laws should remain as they are, after a series of controversial Conservative bills that have made penalties stiffer with mandatory minimum prison sentences for possessing even small amounts of marijuana cigarettes for the purpose of trafficking.
The survey found support for legalization is highest among males, with 40 per cent favouring the idea, and voters between the ages of 35 and 64, with 38 per cent supporting legalization.

By region, support for legalization is highest in British Columbia, at 45 per cent, and in Alberta and Manitoba, where 40 per cent backed the policy.
Among respondents who identified themselves as likely NDP voters, 47 per cent said they favoured legalization.
Only 24 per cent of Conservative voters supported legalization.
Overall, 34 per cent of women favoured legalization, but 39 per cent of mothers with children under the age of 18 supported decriminalization.

The interactive voice response telephone survey had a margin of error of two per cent 19 times out of 20, slightly higher in the regional and demographic breakdowns.
The Conservative Party has attacked Mr. Trudeau (Papineau, Que.) on virtually every front over the Liberal stand on legalization: in MP newsletters, web videos and broadcast ads. The ads and newsletters suggest Mr. Trudeau’s policy would make it easier to sell marijuana to school children—even though the Liberal plan calls for regulation of sales in the way tobacco and alcohol are currently controlled, with strict prohibitions and penalties for sales to minors.

The government sent two messages over the summer regarding new government marijuana policy—the one from Mr. MacKay speculating about more lenient laws and another from Health Minister Rona Ambrose (Edmonton-Spruce Grove, Alta.) revealing the government is also focusing on a new advertising campaign aimed at youth.
Mr. MacKay raised the possibility that the Conservatives might amend the law to allow police to ticket individuals caught with small amounts of marijuana rather than prosecuting them through the Criminal Code.

“With some eight justice bills right now in the queue to come before Parliament, we’re running out of runway as far as bringing legislation forward, but that [ticketing possession] is one I do view as important. So if we are going to introduce it, it would have to happen in the next six months,” Mr. MacKay said on Tuesday.
He said, however, he does not believe that “the position of others, to normalize marijuana, to make it more available to young people, is the direction you will ever see coming from our government.”

A government attempt to convince Canadian medical doctors to take part in its anti-marijuana ad campaign aimed at young Canadians flopped.
The Canadian Medical Association, the College of Family Physicians of Canada and the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada declined to take part in the educational campaign because it had become “a political football.”
“We did not, and do not, support any political messaging or political advertising on this issue,” the medical groups said in a joint statement last weekend.

Ms. Ambrose responded by saying that “telling kids not to smoke marijuana is not politics.”
She accused Mr. Trudeau of making the issue a political one, even though the Conservative Party has used it to attack him and drive up financial contributions.
Forum Research President Lorne Bozinoff said the survey suggests it is the Conservative Party that is offside with most Canadians on the topic.
“There is actually more support among New Democrats for this step,” Mr. Bozinoff said. “In fact, it is only in Alberta and among Conservative voters that opposition to legalization or decriminalization approaches majority levels.”

Is marijuana use increasing the burden of mental illness?

Written by Sonia Parikh, M.D.

Public perception of marijuana has shifted significantly over the past decade. Historical concerns about “Reefer Madness” from marijuana use have evolved into today’s near glamorization of the substance. Opinion polls indicate that public support for the legalization of marijuana is currently at an all-time high. Moreover, the substance is now legal in some form or decriminalized in more than half of the United States. Just a couple of weeks ago, The New York Times boldly suggested that the federal government should legalize marijuana use on a national level.

There is, unfortunately, a strong trend toward euphemizing a substance that may have long-term negative effects on our society as a whole. Don’t get me wrong – as a physician, I know that marijuana can have some benefits. It has proven medicinal value in specific illness states, such as relieving appetite loss in AIDS patients and pain in cancer patients.
However, prevalence statistics indicate that adolescents are exposed to and regularly using marijuana at rates higher than any other age group.

Individuals ages 12-17 are dependent on marijuana at a ratio of nearly 2:1 when compared with adults 35 and older. Moreover, adolescents’ opinion of marijuana’s harmfulness is decreasing, which foreshadows increases in future use. The legalization of recreational marijuana would make the drug all that more accessible and socially acceptable, so it is reasonable to predict that teen use would further increase as policy shifts toward legalization.

Why is this important? Because the science to date clearly indicates that early marijuana use can alter normal adolescent brain development and increase an adult’s susceptibility to psychiatric disease and addiction. Marijuana’s primary active ingredient, 9-tetrahydrocannabinol, infringes on the brain’s endocannabinoid system, which is critical to brain development both pre- and postnatally. This may predispose young users to later psychiatric illness and addiction. The studies that follow people across time clearly support this association.

There is a higher incidence of anxiety and depressive states and suicidal tendencies in people who begin using marijuana regularly during adolescence (Frontiers in Psychiatry, October 2013).
There is also a roughly twofold increased risk of developing schizophrenia-related disorders in young marijuana users, especially in those who have genetic vulnerability to schizophrenia.
Research reveals that 1 in 6 teens who use marijuana will become addicted. Multiple studies demonstrate that early marijuana use predisposes individuals to abuse a range of other illicit drugs as adults (New England Journal of Medicine, June 2014).

Among other explanations for this, marijuana exposure during adolescence may alter the reward pathways in the brain and prime it for enhanced responses to other drugs, increasing the likelihood for these later addictions.
Psychiatric diseases are complex, with numerous factors contributing to susceptibility and disease expression. It’s hard to say which young individuals using marijuana will progress to psychiatric illness or addiction later in life, as multiple factors are usually at play in the transition from early marijuana exposure to subsequent mental illness.

Given all of the unknowns, it is worrisome that increasing numbers of states in the U.S. are legalizing marijuana for recreational use. The longstanding societal impact of such policy change may be more ominous and problematic than originally thought. It is important that we educate ourselves on the mental health impacts of early marijuana use and communicate our knowledge to the young people in our lives, as their futures may depend on it.

GW to keep marijuana policies intact as city considers legalization

A University spokesman said that smoking marijuana on campus would still be banned even if the city's laws change. Legalization will appear on the ballot in November.

Though D.C. will vote on legalizing marijuana use this fall, any success for legalization activists would have little impact on GW’s campus.
University spokesman Kurtis Hiatt said GW would continue to ban marijuana use on campus property to comply with federal drug laws. Otherwise, the University would risk losing some of the millions of dollars it receives in federal funding every year.

The city announced this month that legalization would appear on the November ballot. D.C. also decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana this year, lessening the punishment for carrying less than an ounce of marijuana to a $25 fine.
But even if city voters support legalization this fall, Hiatt said GW must comply with the federal Controlled Substances Act, the Drug-Free Workplace Act and the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act.

Colleges in Washington and Colorado, the only states in the country that have implemented marijuana legalization, have rolled out information campaigns to explain to students why the drugs are still prohibited on campus.
Major Steve Rittereiser, the head of the Office of Professional Standards and Training at the University of Washington's police department, said officials blasted emails to parents and gave talks during Greek life recruitment seminars, which hundreds of students attend each year, explaining the consequences of marijuana usage on campus.

He said the school could even lose funding if police find marijuana at an off-campus fraternity or sorority house because at public universities, some Greek housing is supported in part by federal aid.
“What we find is the air of confusion has gone up,” he said. “We have to explain that we’re under federal law and the Drug Free Schools Act.”
GW has already started to inform students about the implications of decriminalization in the District. The Center for Alcohol and other Drug Education has covered the walls of residence halls with posters that outline the provisions of the city's marijuana laws.

Students who are caught with more than one ounce of marijuana, or any quantity of another drug, face possible suspension. First-time offenders must pay a $50 fine, while students with a second charge must pay $100. A third offense results in a disciplinary meeting to “determine the viability of the student’s remaining at the University,” according to the code of student conduct.
Off campus, marijuana legalization would face other complications specific to D.C.

Paul Zukerberg, a local lawyer who specializes in marijuana-related cases, said the city would have to pass a series of new laws if voters approved legalization. Legislators would need to determine how to regulate distribution and taxation to keep marijuana out of the hands of minors.
“When you make large public policy changes, it’s a process and not all the questions are going to be answered overnight,” Zukerberg said.

Robert Capecchi, deputy director of state policy at the Marijuana Policy Project, said the District's patches of federal land could prove a challenge to law enforcement. Differences in federal and D.C. drug laws "could cause some confusion," he said, though neither would allow people to smoke marijuana in public.
Jack Evans, Foggy Bottom’s representative on the D.C. Council, said voters are likely to support the ballot initiative, but the future of marijuana laws in the city would remain unclear because of congressional oversight.

“There’s the question of whether the vote will take place in the first place because of Congress,” Evans said. “Beyond that, will Congress step in as they can for anything they do here?”

Conservative government asks Canadian doctors to endorse taxpayer-funded ad campaign against marijuana

These endorsements would allow the Tories to warn that Canadian doctors oppose Justin Trudeau’s approach to marijuana reform.

As the Conservatives repeatedly attack Liberal leader Justin Trudeau over his support for the legalization of marijuana, the federal government has asked three groups representing Canadian doctors to endorse a taxpayer-funded advertising campaign warning about the drug’s health risks for young people.

Health Canada has approached the Canadian Medical Association, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada and the College of Family Physicians of Canada asking them to sign on to the broadcast advertising campaign, scheduled to launch some time in the fall.
The organizations would not be required to fund the ad campaign, estimated to cost $5 million, but their logos and endorsements would appear in them, according to a source familiar with the proposal.

The campaign comes as the Conservative Party runs its own attack ads alleging Mr. Trudeau’s approach to legalization would make it easier for children to obtain pot.
On Tuesday, the party reposted an online video highlighting Trudeau statements on legalization, with the closing line, “Help keep marijuana away from our kids.”
The Tories have also repeatedly cited Mr. Trudeau’s marijuana position in email campaigns aimed at shaking more money out of supporters, even though recent polls show Canadians warming to the idea of liberalizing marijuana laws.


In a pamphlet sent to constituents earlier this year, Veterans Affairs Minister Julian Fantino alleged that Mr. Trudeau wants to “make buying marijuana a normal, everyday activity for young Canadians” and even charged that the Liberal leader wants to allow the sale of pot in corner stores.
In fact, Mr. Trudeau has suggested the government regulate and tax the sale of marijuana, similar to provincially regulated beer and liquor sales, and says this will help keep the drug away from children.

The ads from Health Canada, aimed at teens and parents, would not mention Mr. Trudeau or the Liberals but could present a more persuasive case against his approach to marijuana, particularly with stamps of approval from three of the country’s leading physician organizations.

The endorsements from these organizations would also allow the Tories to warn that Canadian doctors oppose Mr. Trudeau’s approach to marijuana reform. Together, the organizations count nearly 150,000 members.

 

But the request from Health Canada has made some affiliated with the organizations nervous about taking a public stance on what is becoming an increasingly partisan political issue, even if many physicians are concerned about pot’s long-term effects on physical and mental health.
One source familiar with the discussions with Health Canada said there were concerns that getting involved could undermine an organization’s perceived neutrality and credibility, potentially affecting its ability to advocate on health policy with governments in the future.

The ad campaign could also expose the Conservatives to allegations they are using government money and Health Canada’s brand to undermine a political opponent, in the guise of public health awareness.
But the College of Family Physicians of Canada says it is involved only to ensure the ads reflect a family-physician perspective on the health issues surrounding teenagers and recreational marijuana use.

The CFPC confirmed that it has signed an agreement with Health Canada to have its addiction medicine committee review television ads and other materials to ensure they are accurate and reflect concerns about how the drug can affect adolescents, said Eric Mang, CFPC’s director of health policy and government relations.
The CFPC is not being paid in any way and Dr. Mang said his organization does not see the ad campaign as political.

Colorado has less traffic accidents since legalizing marijuana

Today, Radley Balko, a writer for The Washington Post, published research on drivers who smoke pot and vehicle fatalities. It appears that anti-marijuana advocates need to take a chill-pill from their theories that local roads, freeways, and highways would see higher traffic accidents if states legalized marijuana.

Although anti-marijuana groups believe legalizing recreational pot would increase motor vehicle accidents, as “drugged drivers,” Balko's facts show just the opposite. Colorado has reported less accidents since legalizing marijuana. The anti-marijuana groups also referred to statistics that wasn't really clear -- while drivers in accidents are tested for the presence of THC, and states have recorded an increase in drivers testing positive for pot; the tests don’t indicate whether or not the drivers were still experiencing impaired cognitive functions.

In fact, according to a published article in The National Institute of Health, doctors state, that function impairments “differ,” because of the multiple situations to consider, like: quantity smoked, how long ago the person smoked, and a person's metabolism. Balko points out these facts, and said the supposed “drugged driver” isn’t fairly tested and the idea of increased fatalities on Colorado highways isn’t really happening but just the opposite, Colorado accidents are lower.

Balko determined in a month-to-month comparison since Colorado voters approved recreational marijuana use, traffic fatalities in 2013, and 2014 are below averages since 2002.
It appears the theory that states who legalize marijuana will see higher traffic accidents is not likely. Also the idea that driving and testing positive for marijuana is not a contributing factor to vehicle accidents, as compared to those “drug-free free drivers,” according to scientific reports.

Nevertheless, one critical point that Colorado Legislature passed was a bill that sets the legal THC limits for drivers to have "5 nanograms of THC per milliliter of blood" which indicate a possibility of impaired cognitive function and could face a DUI, according to The Denver Post. A test that simply indicates if a driver has THC lingering from days, weeks, or months past, is not an effective way to test a driver in the accident to know if being stoned was the contributing factor. Those concerned about driving high, or that legalizing marijuana will cause more driving accidents in Colorado is simply not supported just by testing for THC.

The White House Tries, Fails to Explain Why Marijuana Should Remain Illegal

By PHILIP M. BOFFEY

Photo

Marijuana plants.Credit David Mcnew/Reuters

No sooner had the Times published its opening editorials advocating legalization of marijuana than the White House fired back with an unconvincing response on its website. It argued that marijuana should remain illegal because of public health problems “associated” (always a slippery word) with increased marijuana use.

Careful readers will immediately see the White House statement for what it is: A pro forma response to a perceived public relations crisis, not a full-fledged review of all the scientific evidence, pro and con. The White House is actually required by law to oppose all efforts to legalize a banned drug.

Besides, it is hypocritical for the White House, whose chefs brew beer for the president, to oppose legalizing marijuana, which poses far less risk to consumers and society than does alcohol. Two recipes for the White House brew are posted on its website under the headline “Ale to the Chief.”

The White House lumped its public health argument under four main headings. Before addressing them individually, we should note that there was an enormous upsurge in marijuana use in the 1970s. So far as we know, no one has claimed that it produced calamitous health or societal harm in subsequent decades. The main metric that soared was arrests for possession of marijuana.

Here are our responses to the four main public health contentions made by the White House.

The first — that marijuana use affects the developing brain — is a concern for all parents of teenagers. That’s why we recommended regulations to keep marijuana out of the hands of young people. The White House cites a study by Australian researchers, published in 2012 in the journal Brain, which found that heavy cannabis use starting while young impairs connections between nerve fibers in the adult brain. 

It also cites a study which purports to show that heavy use by teenagers can lead to a big decline in intelligence in adult years. That study has been criticized as flawed by a Norwegian researcher who believes that socio-economic factors explain most of the apparent loss of IQ and that the true effect of marijuana could be zero. And remember: no responsible advocate of legalization is urging that marijuana be made available to teenagers.

The second contention — that marijuana use by school age children leads to lower grades — is based on studies where marijuana use is “associated with” lower grades but there is scant evidence that it caused the low grades. In fact the survey cited by the White House cautions that “These associations do not prove causation. Further research is needed to determine whether low grades lead to alcohol and other drug use, alcohol and other drug use leads to low grades, or some other factors lead to both of these problems.”

Parents who deem marijuana responsible for apathy and lack of motivation in their teenagers should be aware that other factors may be in play. The Institute of Medicine, in its 1999 report, noted that when heavy marijuana users drop out of school, work or social activities the drug is often blamed, but it found no convincing data demonstrating a causal relationship between marijuana smoking and those behavioral characteristics.

The third contention — that marijuana is addictive — greatly exaggerates the kind of dependence that marijuana users experience, as we pointed out in Thursday’s editorial on health effects. Some experts believe marijuana is no more addictive, or perhaps even less addictive, than caffeine.  The fourth contention — that marijuana is frequently involved in auto accidents — may overstate the importance of that finding. Some studies suggest that drivers under the influence of marijuana actually overestimate their impairment and drive more carefully, while drivers under the influence of alcohol become more reckless. Some studies implicate marijuana as an important cause of motor vehicle accidents and fatalities but others do not.

The combination of cannabis and alcohol is clearly  more dangerous than either substance on its own.

The White House objections to our editorial campaign seem mostly beside the point. We are not advocating that marijuana be made available to young people, who already seem to get it with relative ease. Rather, we are recommending regulatory steps to keep it away from them and perhaps drive down teenage usage rates.

We are not urging that people be allowed to drive under the influence of marijuana: Driving while impaired with any drug, including marijuana, is illegal and will remain so. Nor are we urging adults to take up marijuana smoking. We are simply asking the federal government to get out of the way so that states can decide what marijuana policies would work best for their own people.

The federal government’s own statistics show that marijuana is safer than alcohol

By Christopher Ingraham
Opponents of marijuana legalization return to one particular number over and over in their arguments: the number of emergency room visits involving marijuana. This ONDCP fact sheet breathlessly reports that "mentions of marijuana use in emergency room visits have risen 176 percent since 1994, surpassing those of heroin." The Drug Enforcement Administration's "Dangers and Consequences of Marijuana Abuse," a 41-page tour-de-force of decontextualized factoids, reports that marijuana was involved in nearly half a million E.R. visits in 2011, second only to cocaine.
The problem, of course, is that these numbers are meaningless without knowing how many people are using those drugs to start with. When you consider that there are approximately 70 times more marijuana users than heroin users in the United States, it makes sense that more of the former are going to the hospital than the latter.
Since the government doesn't provide these comparisons in a meaningful way, I've done it myself below. The raw numbers behind the chart are in a table at the end of this post.

 
MediaPlayerEnhance

The methodology is important here, so I hope you'll forgive a few paragraphs on where these numbers came from.
For 2010, the latest year for which complete alcohol data are available, I grabbed the number of regular users from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. "Regular," in this case, means people who report using a given substance in the past month.
I then grabbed 2010 E.R. visits involving these substances from the Drug Abuse Warning Network. This is a hospital reporting system that collects detailed data on all E.R. admissions involving a given drug. These E.R. visits can involve the use of multiple substances, so the numbers for each drug involve all visits for which that drug was listed as a contributing factor.
Since the Drug Abuse Warning Network doesn't provide information on alcohol-related visits, I obtained the numbers for all E.R. visits involving alcohol from a 2010 National Institutes of Health report.
The figures clearly show that on a per-user basis, marijuana is considerably less likely to send you to the E.R. than heroin, cocaine or meth. Marijuana users are also 75 percent less likely to face an E.R. visit than prescription drug abusers.
But most surprisingly, marijuana is significantly safer to use than alcohol. For every thousand regular alcohol drinkers there are eight more trips to the E.R. than for every thousand marijuana users. Or in other words, alcohol is about 30 percent more likely to send you to the E.R. than marijuana.
These are all the federal government's own numbers, and they show that marijuana is considerably less harmful to users than alcohol. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this comports with just about every other credible study of the drug.

Drug and alcohol usage numbers and E.R. visits

Substance	Number of monthly users	Number of substance-related E.R. visits, 2010	E.R. visits per 1,000 users
Heroin	239,000	224,706	940.19
Cocaine	1,500,000	488,101	325.40
Meth	353,000	102,961	291.67
Pharmaceuticals (recreational use)	7,000,000	778,923	111.27
Alcohol	131,300,000	4,622,411	35.20
Marijuana	17,400,000	461,028	26.50