The discomfort of cancer patients is unlike any. They don’t just
suffer from pain directly caused by cancer — they also have to contend
with the toxic effects of the very treatments helping them in their
battle. They feel nauseated and weak. They feel tired, on top of the
pain they already feel. Conventional drugs for their symptoms will not
always work. Unfortunately, stronger ones make them sleepy, aside from
exposing them to serious adverse effects.
Then comes along marijuana. Cancer patients who get stoned for
“leisure” realize that their symptoms go away – they feel a lot better
after smoking weed.
They experience a drug-induced high, their symptoms melting away
while they continue to smoke pot. Their anecdotes carry far and wide,
reaching the ears of health practitioners. Soon enough, a debate ensues
on whether or not medical marijuana use deserves to be legalized.
Taking the “high” road
Although marijuana can alleviate many symptoms experienced by cancer
patients, it is addictive — and that remains one of the most common (and
soundest) arguments against legalizing medical cannabis use.
A few countries, such as Canada and Israel, have legalized medicinal
hemp use. Some states in the US have passed laws to legalize marijuana
use for medical reasons as well. Even the Food and Drug Administration has approved the use of cannabinoids in relieving nausea and anorexia among cancer patients.
However, the US federal government still refers to marijuana as a
controlled substance, one that is absolutely outlawed, according the Matthew Seamon in his 2006 article published at The Annals of Pharmacotherapy.
The conflict between state and federal laws is as yet unresolved and
will remain so until the courts say that medical marijuana use is
constitutional. In the meantime, doctors and patients resort to playing
it by ear, something they shouldn’t have to do if the rules were clear.
As stakeholders struggle with the stalemate, Israel is tinkering with
a solution that they hope will end the debate once and for all.
Mary Jane gets a makeover
In a secret location in Israel, marijuana continues to grow in
seemingly endless fields. You see, unlike regular marijuana, the weed
grown in these Galilean hills cannot get you addicted.
This non-addictive variant of marijuana was developed by Zach Klein, the former advocacy and development director of Tikun Olam. The company’s name is Hebrew for “repairing the world" — a suitable name, considering their novel discovery.
The new strain of marijuana, named Avidekel,
contains less than two percent of tetrahydrocannabinol, the substance
responsible for getting hemp users stoned. Despite the greatly reduced
THC content, Avidekel marijuana still contains more than 15 percent
cannabidiol, theorized to reduce inflammation.
In contrast to THC, CBD does not attach to receptors in the brain —
that means it can exert its effects without getting a person “high."
Perhaps the new hemp strain can put the weed debate to rest. But the
original and addictive THC-rich weed can provide relief for other
symptoms, which means that marijuana supporters can still argue to have
regular marijuana legalized, not just the THC-free plant.
The “pot” is black, or so the kettle says
We are years away from reaching a compromise. Legalizing marijuana,
even if it’s for friends and family suffering from the disabling effects
of cancer, still comes with consequences.
Others argue that many controlled drugs in the market are also
addictive, such as anti-anxiety medication and sleeping pills, and that
marijuana has much fewer side effects compared to these. But the
back-and-forth continues as many of our doctors and lawmakers reach what
seems to be an impasse.
We try out best to look for solutions. Israel is doing its part in
establishing a compromise: marijuana, yes, but without the addictive
THC.
But we should check our opinions at the door. What we need is more data. We need facts. We need to determine whether or not smoking the plant is better than drinking a pill composed of chemicals extracted from it.
The public also needs to be educated on both the advantages and adverse effects of marijuana use.
Ulterior motives must be set aside if we want to achieve a therapeutic
milestone. For instance, people who use marijuana but know very little
about the science behind cannabinoids cannot simply support the
legalization of marijuana for their own selfish reasons. On the other
hand, people who wrinkle their nose at potheads should not automatically
condemn marijuana use in medicine.
The argument between the opposing camps exists for a reason. It is actually good that we don’t agree with each other.
Much has to be done before legislators figure out whether marijuana
should be legalized for medical use. Much has to be said before doctors
can ensure that marijuana is a plant that should be used by people who
allegedly need it.
But, as is the case in any worthy but difficult endeavor, we have to
start somewhere — even if that “somewhere” is in a heated debate with
brilliant people who, unfortunately, do not share the same point of
view.
For the first time since the 1970s, defendants
in a cannabis-related criminal case are being allowed to present new
scientific and medical studies as part of their defense in a federal trial in California that begins today.
Starting today and for the next three days, U.S. District Judge Kimberly Mueller will be holding a hearing to determine if the classification of cannabis as a Schedule I substance is supported by scientific and medical evidence.
The
marijuana growers using this defense were likely not growing the
cannabis in the national forest of Trinity and Tehama counties for
medical reasons, which their defense attorney, Zenia Gilg,
a member of the NORML legal committee, readily admits. However, her
defense is based on the premise that cannabis prohibition is
unconstitutional and based on inaccurate information. If the judge
agrees with Gilg, the initial ruling will have a massive impact on those
with pending federal marijuana charges.
The
courts will hear testimony from doctors, researchers, and even the
federal Department of Justice, which has been ordered by the
administration to not prosecute marijuana offenders who are complying
with state laws. Expert witnesses
for the defense include physician Dr. Philip Denney and Clinton-era FBI
crime analyst James Nolan. They’ll be squaring off against Bertha
Madras, who insists that marijuana use causes brain damage.
Ladybud Magazine
commends Judge Mueller for her willingness to hear the evidence in this
hearing, despite the protests of prosecutors. It is possible that the
next three days could result in the beginning of the end of federal
marijuana prohibition. Ladybud will be following the case and reporting on the ruling once it is made publicly available.
Marijuana users and growers usually try to stay out of federal
courts, which strictly enforce the nationwide laws against the drug and
have rebuffed challenges to the government’s classification of pot as
one of the most dangerous narcotics.
But that could change this
week when a federal judge in Sacramento, in a criminal case against
seven men charged with growing marijuana on national forest land in
Trinity and Tehama counties, hears what she has described as “new
scientific and medical information” that raises questions about the
validity of the federal ban.
The Drug Enforcement Administration
classifies marijuana, along with such drugs as heroin, LSD and ecstasy,
in Schedule One — substances that have a high potential for abuse, have
no currently accepted medical use, and can be dangerous even under a
doctor’s supervision. The classification amounts to a nationwide
prohibition on the possession, use or cultivation of the drug. The DEA
reaffirmed marijuana’s status in 2011, and a federal appeals court in
Washington, D.C., upheld it last year.
But the hearing that
starts Monday may be the first of its kind in a criminal case since the
early 1970s, shortly after Congress put marijuana in Schedule One under
the DEA’s supervision, said Zenia Gilg, the San Francisco criminal defense lawyer who filed the current challenge.
“At
that point, not a lot was known about the medicinal benefits of
marijuana,” said Gilg, a member of the legal committee of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. “It’s about time somebody looked at the new evidence.”
That will be U.S. District Judge Kimberly Mueller,
who granted the hearing, scheduled for three days, over prosecutors’
objections. In an April 22 order, she said lawyers for the defendants
had presented expert declarations “showing there is new scientific and
medical information raising contested issues of fact regarding whether
the continued inclusion of marijuana as a Schedule One controlled
substance ... passes constitutional muster.”
She issued the order
in a case that, based on the evidence so far, has little to do with
medical marijuana — the defendants are charged with growing a large
tract of pot plants on forest land, and there’s been no indication that
it was for medical use. But Gilg said that’s irrelevant if they were
charged under an unconstitutional law.
As Gilg acknowledges, it
will not be an easy case to win. She and her colleagues must prove not
merely that the federal law is misguided, based on current research, but
that it is entirely irrational. An initial ruling would apply only to
the current defendants, but the impact would be broader if higher courts
weighed in.
Support for defense
The
witness list includes doctors and researchers who laud marijuana’s
medical benefits and say it is much less hazardous than tobacco, alcohol
and some everyday medications, and a former FBI analyst who says the
federal ban has been socially destructive. Defense lawyers say they also
are drawing support from an unlikely source — President Obama’s Justice
Department, which, while defending the federal ban in court, has
advised federal prosecutors not to charge people who are complying with
their state’s marijuana laws.
California, 20 other states and
Washington, D.C., allow the medical use of marijuana, and two of those
states, Colorado and Washington, have also legalized personal use.
“If marijuana is actually such a dangerous drug, the rational response by the Department of Justice
would be to increase, not decrease, prosecution in those states,” Gilg
said in court papers. She also argued that the government’s
state-by-state enforcement policy is discriminatory.
The government’s expert witness is Bertha Madras, a Harvard professor of psychobiology and a former official in the Office of National Drug Control Policy under President George W. Bush.
In a court declaration, she said marijuana “has a high potential for
abuse” and is properly classified among the most dangerous drugs.
Medical uses debated
Contrary
to popular notions, Madras said, marijuana is addictive for frequent
users, interferes with concentration and motivation, and can cause brain
damage. Marijuana smoke contains “significant amounts of toxic
chemicals,” she said. And despite “anecdotal evidence” that it helps
some patients feel better, she said, there are no valid long-term
studies that support its use as medicine — in fact, although some of the
plant’s ingredients may be beneficial, “there is no such thing as
medical marijuana.”
Nonsense, said Dr. Philip Denney, a defense expert witness and a founding member of the Society of Cannabis Clinicians.
Despite government restrictions on the supply of marijuana for
research, he said in a declaration, new studies have shown “remarkable
promise” in using marijuana to relieve pain and treat numerous
illnesses, including forms of hepatitis, gastrointestinal and sleep
disorders, and Alzheimer’s disease.
Marijuana, Denney said, is a
“nontoxic, nonlethal substance” with little potential for abuse and no
recorded cases of fatalities, in contrast with the deaths caused by
alcohol and tobacco. He said its side effects pale in comparison with
the serious illnesses that can be caused by heavy doses of pain
relievers like Tylenol and Advil and the hallucinatory effects of the
main ingredient in NyQuil and Robitussin cough syrups.
Another defense expert, James Nolan, a chief of crime analysis and research for the FBI during President Bill Clinton’s
administration, said the main harm caused by marijuana is “its status
as an illegal substance,” which has relegated much of its distribution
to criminals and cartels and ruined the lives of many of its users.
Mueller,
who will weigh the conflicting testimony, is a former Sacramento city
councilwoman and federal magistrate who was appointed to the bench by
Obama in 2010. She is the first female judge in the Eastern District,
which includes Sacramento and Fresno.
Last November, I was diagnosed with breast cancer. Like many others
in similar circumstances, I've tackled much of it with humor and a
positive attitude and loads of pharmaceuticals with varying unpleasant
side effects. It has been an epic battle involving a double mastectomy,
radiation therapy, breast reconstruction
(a process which left me miserably uncomfortable every single minute),
and chemotherapy -- endless needles pumping foreign liquids into my body
leaving me weak and nauseous and horribly depressed for days afterward.
At
one point, many months into my treatment, I was ready to quit. There
are no words to adequately describe the discomfort and despair I was
feeling. It was at that time a friend of mine offered to get me some
medical marijuana from Colorado. I said yes. I was willing to try
anything, willing to break the law, for some relief.
Before you
jump to any conclusions, I'm in my '50s and work in the medical field
and am not a recreational pot smoker (or anything else for that matter.)
Still, the chemotherapy combined with the prescription medications left
me so miserable and incapacitated, I was desperate.
I ate it --
didn't smoke it -- I don't want to smoke anything. And it worked.
Marijuana took away my nausea, so I could eat healthy. It took away the
severe restlessness and anxiety, so I could relax. It allowed me to eat,
sleep and be up and active when I was awake -- all of which are
critical to recovery. It didn't get me "high;" it made me feel halfway
normal (as opposed to the prescriptions, which left me feeling drugged
and weak). It gave me the strength to continue with chemotherapy when I
had reached a point where I really couldn't tolerate it anymore.
For
me, the medical marijuana was a miracle drug, a life-saver. I wished I
had used it from the beginning because it was so helpful. And according
to our current law, I should go to jail for it.
The fact that
people in Florida can legally smoke cigarettes (which are known to cause
cancer), but cannot legally relieve their cancer treatment
symptoms with medical marijuana is completely ridiculous. Medical
marijuana is safe, is already legal in 23 states and the District of
Columbia, and is supported by the American College of Physicians,
American Public Health Association, American Nurses Association and many
other organizations.
Yet, here in Florida politicians have decided to
take it upon themselves to decide what's best for health care when
medical decisions should be made by doctors and their patients, not
politicians.
Amendment 2 would fix that flaw by legalizing medical
marijuana and making it available for people with debilitating
conditions and diseases like cancer, epilepsy, HIV/AIDS, multiple sclerosis
and Parkinson's.
These people deserve compassion, not threats of
imprisonment or stigmatization for using a drug scientifically proven to
help alleviate their misery. Doctors should be allowed to recommend
medical marijuana to patients who need it and provide them a better
quality of life. It seems cruel to withhold any solutions we have at our
disposal.
Legalizing and regulating medical marijuana isn't only
the compassionate thing to do, it's also the responsible thing to do to
ensure safety.
I shared my experience with marijuana with women on a
breast cancer internet forum to help empower them to take control. Out
of desperation, one woman bought pot from a "street dealer" (since it's
not legal), and it only made her misery worse because it wasn't the type
of marijuana appropriate for her needs. Regulating marijuana means
patients could get prescriptions for exactly what they need.
I
have a friend who's dying from ALS who texted (because he can no longer
speak) me asking if I have any marijuana. I gave him everything I had
left. It breaks my heart that he and countless other suffering
individuals don't have access to this simple, safe solution. I urge
everyone in Florida to vote "yes" on Amendment 2 this fall. Individuals
who are sick and suffering should not go to jail for medical marijuana,
and neither should their doctors.
Smoking cannabis
does not worsen liver disease in people with HIV and hepatitis C virus (HCV)
co-infection, Canadian research published in the online edition of Clinical Infectious Diseases shows.
“We found no
evidence that cannabis smoking increases the risk of progression to significant
liver fibrosis or cirrhosis,” write the authors. Results also showed that
cannabis was widely used for pain relief by co-infected people.
Up to 30% of
people with HIV in resource-rich countries are co-infected with HCV. Liver
disease caused by HCV is a leading cause of serious illness and death in these
co-infected individuals.
Cannabis
(marijuana) is believed to be widely used by people with HIV. In a study conducted in
Ontario, Canada, 43% of participants reported use of cannabis in the previous year,
29% saying they had self-medicated with the drug.
Previous research
examining the effects of cannabis consumption on liver disease outcomes has produced
conflicting results. Three cross-sectional – or 'snapshot' – studies involving
people with chronic HCV infection found an association between cannabis use
and liver cirrhosis. In contrast, a small study involving 58 people with HIV
showed no association between cannabis use and significant changes in liver
enzyme levels over one year.
Given this
uncertainty, investigators in Canada designed a prospective study involving 690
HIV-positive people with chronic HCV co-infection and no significant fibrosis
at baseline enrolled in the Canadian Coinfection Cohort study. Every six months,
participants were asked if they had used cannabis. Users of the drug were asked how
often they smoked cannabis and the number of joints they consumed on the days
they smoked.
The investigators
then examined the association between cannabis use and progression to
significant fibrosis, cirrhosis and end-stage liver disease. Significant
fibrosis was defined as an AST platelet ratio index (APRI) score of 1.5 or above. An APRI score of 2.0 was
used to diagnose cirrhosis and the authors also looked at the relationship
between cannabis use and progression to a clinical cirrhosis diagnosis.
The investigators
were concerned that participants might start to consume cannabis – or
intensify their use of the drug – to alleviate symptoms related to
advancing
liver disease. By collecting concurrent data on exposure to cannabis and
disease outcomes it could appear that cannabis caused liver disease when
in
fact this was present before the participant changed their drug-use
behaviour. The
investigators therefore repeated their analyses looking at cannabis use
in the six
to twelve month period before liver disease assessments. They called
this
method of analysis “lagging”.
The participants were
followed for a median of 2.7 years and contributed a total of 1875 person-years
of follow-up. The majority of participants were male and the median age at baseline
was 44 years. Most of the participants had an undetectable HIV viral load and the
median CD4 cell count at the start of the study was 400 cells/mm3.
Injecting drug use was reported by 38% of participants and 15% had alcohol abuse
issues.
Over half (53%) of
participants reported use of cannabis at baseline with similar proportion of
individuals using the drug through follow-up. On entry to the study, approximately
40% of participants who used cannabis said they did so for symptom relief, and this
proportion increased to over 50% during follow-up. Turning to frequency of use,
the investigators found that 40% of cannabis smokers consumed the drug on a
daily basis.
During follow-up,
19% of participants developed significant fibrosis, 15% cirrhosis (diagnosed by
APRI score), 1% received a clinical diagnosis of cirrhosis and 2% progressed to
end-stage liver disease.
The incidence rate
of progression to APRI 1.5 or above was 39.2 per 1000 person-visits; incidence
of progression to APRI 2.0 or above was 29.2 per 1000 person-visits; incidence
of progression to a clinical cirrhosis diagnosis was 2.1 per 1000
person-visits; and incidence of progression to end-stage liver disease was 2.9
per 1000 person-visits. There were no differences in these incidence rates
between users and non-users of cannabis.
The
investigators’ initial analysis appeared to show that smoking cannabis
accelerated progression to a clinical diagnosis of cirrhosis (HR = 1.33; 95%
CI, 1.09-1.62 per ten joints/week). However, after lagging this association
ceased to be significant. Smoking cannabis was also initially associated with a
combined outcome of clinically diagnosed cirrhosis and end-stage liver disease
(HR = 1.13; 95% CI, 1.01-1.28). But once again this association ceased to be significant
when the researchers looked at cannabis consumption in the six to twelve months
before the clinical outcomes were diagnosed.
“Reported use for
symptom relief was very prevalent suggesting that the association of daily
cannabis use and more advanced fibrosis may, in fact, be related to an
increased use for symptoms management of the disease,” the authors suggest.
“Previous cross-sectional studies reporting an association between marijuana
smoking and liver fibrosis may be biased by reverse causation due to
self-medication with marijuana for relief of symptoms related to significant
liver fibrosis.”
They conclude, “We
could not demonstrate any important effect of marijuana on liver disease
outcomes.”
Most college students like weed. I wouldn’t be surprised if many of our professors liked weed, as well. Despite being classified as a Schedule I drug by the federal government—along with heroin and LSD in the category of drugs that have “no medical use” and are most likely to be abused—smoking weed has never seemed to be a deviant activity. Hell, when I was growing up, underage drinking seemed to be more immoral than smoking weed.
However, I differ from my peers in the fact that my endorsement of marijuana isn’t just because I like to be high.
I suffer from a rare, inherited degenerative tissue disorder called Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome Type III that affects merely 1 in 15,000 people worldwide. At the age of 19-years-old, I already have osteoarthritis, and experience frequent joint dislocations, a proclivity to skin lacerations, horrible scarring, and constant, severe fatigue and pain.
Currently, there is no cure for EDS, and medical treatment is focused on pain management—meaning I have enough pill bottles of prescription painkillers and muscle relaxers to decorate a Christmas tree.
Although painkillers can help make basic, every day tasks—like walking to class or going to the grocery store—more bearable, it’s no secret that they’re incredibly addictive. Last year, NYU Local reported that the resurgence of heroin use may be tied to prescription opiates. The threat of opiate addiction is very real and so very scary, which is exactly why I attempt to avoid taking my Vicodin if I can.
This is where weed comes into play. Researchers at Johns Hopkins have recently found that, in states in which medical marijuana is legal and available, the incidence of prescription opiate-related overdoses decreased by 25%. The study emphasizes that medical marijuana users aren’t using prescription opiates at all, but rather that they may be choosing weed over pills more often.
Despite being one of the most progressive states in the country, New York’s medical marijuana bill—passed this summer, making it the 23rd state to embrace the legalization of marijuana as medicine—is stringent. Unlike my native state of California, medical marijuana prescribed in New York state cannot be smoked, and can only be prescribed to people suffering with serious conditions like cancer, multiple sclerosis, and ALS.
When the bill is fully implemented within the next year, there will only be twenty dispensaries statewide. And although the New York Compassionate Care Act was supported by Governor Cuomo and Staten Island state senator Diane Savino–the latter of whom hopes to bring a dispensary to Staten Island–the medical marijuana movement is being stymied by both the federal government and the old-school legislators who remain steadfast in their belief that marijuana has no medical use and is incredibly dangerous.
It’s so incredibly difficult to enjoy life as a 19-year-old should when you’re plagued by throbbing, swollen joints and consistent exhaustion. But, for me, marijuana makes it a little bit easier. The science is there: marijuana can and does ameliorate chronic pain. In my home state, I am eligible for a medical marijuana prescription; however, it’s questionable whether I’d be eligible in New York to legally receive medical marijuana for medicinal use.
And that leads to the biggest question on my mind: why? As the daughter of a heroin addict who died by overdose six years ago, it blows my mind that heroin and marijuana are considered by the DEA as being equally dangerous and addictive. Perhaps the DEA’s classification is inspired by the idea that it’s the government’s responsibility to enforce some sort of moral code upon the electorate; however, to me, it’s just unfathomable that a substance that can help so many people cope with their severe medical conditions is demonized as some sort of potentially fatal and morally reprehensible drug.
Change comes with time, and I’m hoping that, sometime before I die, the stigmatization of marijuana will disappear, and maybe the number of people choosing marijuana over potentially fatal doses of opiates will decrease even further. But, until then, I’ll manage my pain as best as I can, and will continue to advocate for broader availability of medical marijuana.
1. Prohibition has failed – marijuana use is mainstream and widespread.
When the federal government first effectively prohibited marijuana in 1937, relatively few Americans had even heard of it. Today, according to 2010 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services data, 106 million Americans admit to having tried it (17.4 million in the last month), and every year, the Monitoring the Future survey finds that over 80% of high school seniors say marijuana is easy to obtain.
2. Prohibition is an immense waste of public resources, while marijuana taxation would bring in much-needed revenue.
According to 2010 estimates by Harvard University economist Jeffrey Miron, replacing marijuana prohibition with a system of taxation and regulation would yield $17.4 billion government savings and increased tax revenues.
3. Arresting and prosecuting marijuana offenders prevent police from focusing on real crime.
In Chicago alone, the police superintendent estimated officers spent 45,000 police hours on arrests for 10 grams or less of marijuana in a year. Meanwhile, FBI data shows that less than half of violent crimes and only 18% of property crimes were cleared nationwide in 2010.
4. Prohibition sends an incredible number of Americans through the criminal justice system, ruining countless lives.
According to the FBI, since 1995, there have been more than 12 million U.S. marijuana arrests, with 853,838 in 2010 – significantly more than for all violent crimes combined. Eighty-eight percent of these arrests are for possession – not manufacture or distribution.
5. Marijuana laws are enforced unevenly.
According to Jon Gettman, Ph.D., blacks are three times as likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites, despite the fact that use rates among African Americans are proportional to use rates among whites. While marijuana users who were not convicted have gone on the be president or Supreme Court justice, a criminal conviction can stand in the way of securing a job; getting housing; or receiving a professional license, student loans, food assistance, a driver’s license, a firearms permit, or the right to vote.
6. There is no evidence that imposing criminal penalties on marijuana use reduces its use.
The National Research Council found that “perceived legal risks explains very little in the variance of individual drug use”. In 2008, the World Health Organization found that in the Netherlands, where adults are allowed to purchase and possess small amounts of marijuana, both teen and adult use significantly lower than in U.S., where marijuana is illegal.
7. Prohibition makes control impossible.
Producers and sellers of marijuana are completely unregulated. Unlike licensed businesses that sell liquor or tobacco, marijuana sellers operate virtually anywhere and have no incentive not to sell to minors. Prohibition guarantees that marijuana cannot undergo quality control inspectors for purity and potency, creating possible health hazards as a result of contamination by pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, molds, fungi, or bacteria, as well as the lacing of marijuana with other drugs or formaldehyde. Under taxation and regulation, producers and sellers would be licensed and zoned accordingly.
8. Marijuana prohibition breeds violence.
Currently, the only sellers of marijuana are criminals. As in 1920’s Chicago, since disputes cannot be solved lawfully, violence is inevitable. According to the Atlantic, since 2006, more than 50,000 people have been killed in Mexican drug cartel-related violence. Those purchasing marijuana illegally also may face muggings and other violence.
9. Prohibition is bad for the environment.
Because marijuana cultivation is illegal, unlicensed, and carries felony charges, it often takes place in environmentally damaging locations such as national parks and wilderness areas. Under taxation and regulation, marijuana sales would be relegated to regulated, licensed businesses, which would cultivate in legally zoned areas.
10. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.
Unlike legal substances such as water, alcohol, Tylenol, and prescription opiates, marijuana has never caused a single medically documented overdose death in recorded history. Alcohol causes hundreds of overdose deaths each year, and in 2009 (the latest year for which data is available), the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported 24,518 “alcohol-induced death”. The British government’s official scientific body on drug policy concluded that {legally regulated drugs} alcohol and tobacco are “significantly more harmful than marijuana”. American law treats alcohol as if it were safer than marijuana, encouraging people to drink.
TAMPA -- Recent survey
results show that Floridians seemed to have been paying attention when
residents in Colorado and Washington voted to approve the medicinal and,
later, the recreational use of marijuana.
Sixty-six percent of those who responded to the annual Sunshine State Survey,
conducted by the University of South Florida, said they believe that
passing a constitutional amendment legalizing medical marijuana would
soon lead to voters' approval of all marijuana use.
"Some
people are happy that it might lead to legalization and some are
opposed to it," said Susan MacManus, a USF political scientist and the survey's director. "But people are aware of the potential first-step nature of the medical marijuana amendment, if it passes."
The fifth of six portions of the annual survey was released Tuesday, and included the sections that focused on health, race relations, the upcoming elections and transportation.
Most
of the people surveyed who said they think medical marijuana will lead
to the legalization of recreational marijuana were between the ages of
18 and 34, according to the data. Seventy-three percent of them are
employed full-time and about 75 percent of them live in the Miami and
Palm Beach media markets. Twenty-nine
percent of the people who took the survey said they didn't think
legalizing medical marijuana would lead to the acceptance of
recreational marijuana. Five percent of responders said they weren't
sure or refused to answer.
Of the people who answered no, 52 percent were employed part-time and 43 percent lived in the Naples-area media market, the data shows.
MacManus
said she doesn't know why two-thirds of the people surveyed feel that
way about legalizing medical marijuana. It could be that they know that
was the series of events
in Washington and Colorado, MacManus said. The rise of pill mills
across the state could also have led them to believe that recreational
use will grow out of the medicinal.
"We don't know why they think
like they do," MacManus said. "We didn't ask that question. All we know
is that these people are more inclined to think that it will lead to
that next step."
What she found most interesting about this year's
Sunshine State Survey results was that 55 percent of the responders -- a
7 percent increase over last year -- said they feel like they don't get
enough information about constitutional amendments before they vote on
them, MacManus said. This year there will be three amendments on the
ballot, including Amendment 2, which would legalize medical marijuana.
Groups
and individuals that oppose passing Amendment 2 have long argued that
legalizing medical marijuana would lead to more use of pot overall.
Calvina Fay, executive director of the Drug Free
America Foundation in St. Petersburg, said in a statement Tuesday
afternoon that Amendment 2 is a "defacto legalization" of all marijuana.
"If
Amendment 2 were to pass, we have no doubt that it would be widely
abused to allow pretty much anyone to use it," she said.
"We also have
no doubt that the drug legalization advocates would be right back
pushing the envelope for full blown legalization just as they have done
in other states that have fallen for the scam of legalizing pot under
the guise of medicine."
But Ben Pollara, executive director of United for Care Campaign and a supporter of legalized medical
marijuana, said he thinks the survey results would be more informative
if the responders were asked more specific questions about the issue in
addition to that one.
"It's interesting," he said. "But it's not terribly relevant."
And
the fact that mostly young people think it would lead to the
legalization of recreational marijuana may show some "wishful thinking"
on their part, Pollara said.
"I don't think there's really much you can read from it," he said.
One
of America's best-known travel writers and guides is lending his
support to marijuana legalization as voters in Oregon, Alaska and
Washington, D.C., consider dropping penalties for using pot.
Travel
guru Rick Steves has been a longtime supporter of marijuana
legalization, but has recently stepped more forcefully into public view.
He was an early backer of Washington state's legalization effort, and
is now making his case with a series of highly publicized speaking events and fundraisers across Oregon.
"I
figured, this is good citizenship. I'm not pro-marijuana, but I'm
anti-prohibition," Steves said from the Oregon governor's mansion while
visiting and talking pot taxes with Gov. John Kitzhaber. "Nobody needs
to vote for me, nobody can fire me."
Adults in Alaska and Oregon
could buy legal marijuana — and pay taxes on it — under plans being
considered in the fall election, and voters in Washington, D.C., are
considering a similar measure repealing all criminal and civil possession penalties.
Marijuana legal but often scarce in Washington state
All three already permit medical marijuana use and possession, and backers of the plans, which include the New York Times,
say legalization and taxation acknowledges that America's pot
prohibition is a failure. Twenty-three states and the nation's capital
permit medical marijuana, and Colorado and Washington state have
legalized recreational use and sales.
"Voters
are recognizing that marijuana is not as nearly harmful as they've been
led to believe," said Mason Tvert of the pro-legalization Marijuana Policy Project. "Once someone understands that fact, it's very easy to arrive at the conclusion that we need to start treating it that way."
Legalization
backers say acknowledging that marijuana is a widely used substance
across the country means adults can have an honest conversation about
taxes and regulation, setting aside the old "reefer madness" hysteria
often raised.
Steves said his travels have shown him this country's approach is mistaken, especially when taking into account what he said is enforcement that has historically targeted the poor and minorities.
He
said legalization means fewer arrests and more taxes — according to
state Department of Revenue reports, Colorado this year has collected
$21.6 million in marijuana taxes and fees.
"One thing I'm very careful to say is that I'm not pro-marijuana. It's a drug," Steves said. "I think this is smart policy."
Colorado
Gov. John Hickenlooper on Monday made headlines when he disagreed that
legalization is smart policy. During a debate with his Republican
challenger, Hickenlooper called Colorado's voters "reckless" for
approving marijuana legalization while it remains federally illegal. The
governor, however, has repeatedly said he respects the will of the
voters, and later backtracked by calling the vote "risky."
Hickenlooper
has repeatedly referred to Colorado's legalization as an experiment
with unknown results, and has urged caution for elected officials in
other states.
USA TODAY
Colorado's legal marijuana harvest is underway
In Alaska, legalization opponents use examples
from Colorado to make their case to voters. That move reflects the
proposal itself: The Alaska legalization effort is virtually identical
to Colorado's recreational marijuana law, while the Oregon proposal, Measure 91, is similar to Washington state's.
"With
the legalization of marijuana comes mass marketing, advertising, and
storefront properties. Such a vastly different, commercial landscape
will significantly change the social norms and perceptions of our
communities," the group Big Marijuana, Big Mistake said in a statement about Alaska's Ballot Measure 2.
"Big
Marijuana won't be about homegrown local businesses. Rather, it will be
led by outside companies seeking to make a profit off Alaskans. This
initiative is being funded by big-dollar interests from the Lower 48,
who see Alaska as a domino in their quest to legalize marijuana
nationwide." The
Marijuana Policy Project has made no effort to hide its approach to
legalizing marijuana, first by persuading voters to approve medical
marijuana in multiple states, and then pushing recreational legalization
a few years later. The project also is helping organize efforts to pass
the D.C. legalization effort, which lacks the tax-and-sale component of
Oregon and Colorado because voters in the district cannot levy taxes
via the ballot initiative process.
Danielle
Baldwin shows off strains of medical marijuana at Puffs Smoke Shop in
Ashland, Ore., which is seeking a license as a medical marijuana
dispensary.
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
By Elizabeth Behrman
Do you think medical pot legalization would lead to legalized pot?
TAMPA — Recent survey
results show that Floridians seemed to have been paying attention when
residents in Colorado and Washington voted to approve the medicinal and,
later, the recreational use of marijuana.
Sixty-six percent of those who responded to the annual Sunshine State Survey,
conducted by the University of South Florida, said they believe that
passing a constitutional amendment legalizing medical marijuana would
soon lead to voters' approval of all marijuana use.
“Some people are happy that it might lead to legalization and
some are opposed to it,” said Susan MacManus, a USF political scientist
and the survey's director. “But people are aware of the potential first-step nature of the medical marijuana amendment, if it passes.”
The fifth of six portions of the annual survey
was released Tuesday, and included the sections that focused on health,
race relations, the upcoming elections and transportation.
Most of the people surveyed
who said they think medical marijuana will lead to the legalization of
recreational marijuana were between the ages of 18 and 34, according to
the data. Seventy-three percent of them are employed full-time and about
75 percent of them live in the Miami and Palm Beach media markets.
Twenty-nine percent of the people who took the survey said
they didn't think legalizing medical marijuana would lead to the
acceptance of recreational marijuana. Five percent of responders said
they weren't sure or refused to answer.
Of the people who answered no, 52 percent were employed part-time and 43 percent lived in the Naples-area media market, the data shows.
MacManus
said she doesn't know why two-thirds of the people surveyed feel that
way about legalizing medical marijuana. It could be that they know that
was the series of events in Washington and Colorado, MacManus said. The
rise of pill mills across the state could also have led them to believe
that recreational use will grow out of the medicinal.
“We don't know why they think like they do,” MacManus said. “We
didn't ask that question. All we know is that these people are more
inclined to think that it will lead to that next step.”
What she found most interesting about this year's Sunshine
State Survey results was that 55 percent of the responders — a 7 percent
increase over last year — said they feel like they don't get enough
information about constitutional amendments before they vote on them,
MacManus said. This year there will be three amendments on the ballot,
including Amendment 2, which would legalize medical marijuana.
Groups and individuals that oppose passing Amendment 2 have
long argued that legalizing medical marijuana would lead to more use of
pot overall.
Calvina Fay, executive director of the Drug Free America
Foundation in St. Petersburg, said in a statement Tuesday afternoon that
Amendment 2 is a “defacto legalization” of all marijuana.
“If Amendment 2 were to pass, we have no doubt that it would
be widely abused to allow pretty much anyone to use it,” she said. “We
also have no doubt that the drug legalization advocates would be right
back pushing the envelope for full blown legalization just as they have
done in other states that have fallen for the scam of legalizing pot
under the guise of medicine.”
But Ben Pollara, executive director of United for Care
Campaign and a supporter of legalized medical marijuana, said he thinks
the survey results would be more informative if the responders were
asked more specific questions about the issue in addition to that one.
“It's interesting,” he said. “But it's not terribly relevant.”
And the fact that mostly young people think it would lead to
the legalization of recreational marijuana may show some “wishful
thinking” on their part, Pollara said.
“I don't think there's really much you can read from it,” he said.
What do Sarah Palin, Barack Obama, Justin Bieber, Maya
Angelou and well over 100 million Americans all have in common? They’ve
all smoked pot. Throughout its history, marijuana has attracted plenty
of unexpected users and proponents. And much of the history of greenery
is now familiar to us—thanks to History Channel specials, the burgeoning
legalization movement and the popularity of anti-pot propaganda films like Reefer Madness. But even if you’re intimately familiar with the plant in all its forms, we’re willing to wager that some of these facts will surprise you.
1. The first known potheads lived in ancient China, circa 2,727 BC. Emperor Shen Nung helpfully compiled an encyclopedic list
of drugs and their uses, which includes “ma,” or cannabis. But ancient
Chinese weed consumption is indicated by more than just written records:
Six years ago, archaeologists on a dig in the Gobi Desert found the world’s oldest pot stash
in the grave of a shaman of the Gushi tribe. The purpose of the
cannabis was easily identified because the male plant parts, which are
less psychoactive, had been removed.
The Chinese certainly weren’t the only ancient culture to enjoy
toking. The Greeks and Romans used marijuana, as did the citizens of the
Islamic empires. In 1545, Spanish conquistadors introduced it to the New World when they began planting cannabis seed in Chile to be used for fiber.
2. You probably heard that a bunch of the Founding Fathers grew weed, but did you know the details?
Technically, you can’t really classify them as pot farmers because they
were growing hemp, which is not the same cannabis variety that you’ll
find in a joint. Hemp and pot are the same species— cannabis sativa—but the hemp variety has a lower THC content and was useful instead as a source of fiber for those distinguished dudes’ duds.
But debate continues about whether the Founding Fathers actually smoked cannabis in addition to growing it. While many traditional sources say there’s no evidence of it, other, less buttoned-down ones—including, predictably, High Times—contend that there is.
One factor that muddies the water and the Internet is an
oft-repeated Thomas Jefferson “quote” that experts agree is not legit.
Although he was a hemp farmer, Thomas Jefferson never said: “Some of my finest hours have been spent sitting on my back veranda, smoking hemp and observing as far as my eye can see.”
Admittedly, that’s a pretty difficult image to forget.
3. Hashish, which is a compressed or purified form of pot resin, became faddish in the mid-1800s, as a result of its prominence in popular novels of the era, including two classics: The Count of Monte Cristo and Arabian Nights, an early English translation of One Thousand and One Nights.
In one scene fit to make any DARE instructor shudder, the
Count of Monte Cristo virtually coerces another character into a
mind-bending hashish adventure, urging, “Taste the hashish, guest, taste
the hashish!”
Arabian Nights meanwhile contains multiple references to hashish, including the story “The Tale of the Hashish Eater.” Both Monte Cristo and Arabian Nights
found wide audiences due to their exotic settings, foreign cultures and
adventure plots that heightened the allure of the drug described on the
pages. Contemporary readers who would never had the opportunity to to
Persia could at least cop a little bit of Persia off seafaring vessels
from foreign ports.
4. Pot’s reputation began to go south when the first English-language newspaper started in Mexico in the 1890s.
Sensationalized stories of marijuana-induced violence gave the drug a
bad rap, although pot didn’t really hit the US until after the Mexican
Revolution in 1910, when a flood of Mexican immigrants moved north,
bringing their favorite weed.
85 per cent of more than 50,000 Australians said that they support the legalisation of marijuana
Cannabis
researcher and psychologist Dr. Matthew Large, said there is no good
reason for the drug not to be approved for medical use
He
said legalising cannabis for recreational use could mean users would be
better informed of the health side-effects due to government regulation
Former police officer Damon Adams has been using cannabis for pain relief after a knee operation which left him with no cartilage at the joint
Mr Adams said that the pain limited his daily life
By
Lillian Radulova for Daily Mail Australia
More than 85 per cent of the 50,000 Australians surveyed in a recent poll, believe that marijuana should be legalised across the country.
Conducted
by SBS's Insight team, the poll reflects the current ongoing public
debate which has seen federal politicians consider a medical trial.
As
public opinion tips in favour of legalising the drug, a variety of
voices have come forward to have their say on the positives of cannabis
use, from mothers and former policemen to psychologists.
+5
A national poll of over 50,000 people
conducted by SBS has found that over 85 per cent of Australians believe
marijuana should be legalised
Cannabis
researcher, Dr. Matthew Large from the University of New South Wales
School of Psychiatry, told Daily Mail Australia that despite research
showing the ill effects of the drug, he supports the movement to
legalise it.
'My view is, with respect to medical cannabis, that there are no strong arguments against it,' Dr Large said.
'We
have other drugs that are illegal that can be prescribed including
opiate drugs, the illegal version of which is heroin and legal version
morphine. There are also stimulant drugs that we use in the treatment of
ADHD and sleep disorders that are illegal and so I can't see that
there's a particular issue with cannabis.
'There
are several not particularly common conditions for which cannabis is a
good second line treatment for when the first line doesn't work:
muscular spasticity in multiple sclerosis, neuropathic pain disorders
and conditions in relation to people who have terminal conditions or
difficulty eating.'
However, the Sydney psychiatrist noted that 'there is no doubt that cannabis is a dangerous drug'.
+5
Cannabis researcher and psychologist
Matthew Large supports the legalisation of medical marijuana as well as
for recreational purposes as long as there is strong government
regulation in place
+5
Dr Large also acknowledged the health
risks the drug presents for people with a predisposition for mental
illness as well as teenagers, but said he believes government regulation
will lead to a better educated public who are well informed enough to
make decisions
Dr
Large said that studies have shown that cannabis smokers who develop
schizophrenia, do so about three years earlier than people with
schizophrenia who don't use the drug. It also leads to a 'severer and
more irreversible' form of the illness.
Furthermore,
he revealed that the drug is particularly harmful for people under the
age of 16 who have a higher chance of educational failure and, in the
long term, are more likely to suffer cognitive impairment and have a
significant loss of IQ by the age of 50 if they use cannabis.
'What
I would personally support would be if marijuana was legalised and
carefully regulated in much the same way as tobacco, but not in the same
way as alcohol,' Dr Large said.
'We
have a drug that is illegal but widely used and about which the general
populace has little information about and no way of making informed
decisions about.
+5
Former police officer Damon Adams has
been using cannabis for pain relief after a knee operation which left
him with no cartilage at the joint. He was originally prescribed opiates
but swapped to marijuana due to the severe side affects
'In
Australia at the moment, 14-year-olds are more likely to smoke cannabis
than tobacco and that's because we have been putting out all these
health warnings and information campaigns.'
Former
South Australian police officer, Damon Adams, has been using cannabis
as a form of pain relief following a knee operation which left him with
no cartilage at the joint.
Mr
Adams was first prescribed with opiates after the surgery, but the
former Australian Navy member told Daily Mail Australia that 'opiates
and my body weren't a good combination'.
He
soon found himself taking a number of anti-histamines to counter the
side effects of the opiates, which included night sweats and constant
itching.
+5
The final results of the national poll
conducted by SBS Insight, which prompted voters with an interactive
billboard in Sydney and Melbourne's CBD, will be revealed on Tuesday
night at 8:30pm
'It
was instant relief,' Mr Adams said of the first time he resorted to
cannabis instead of opiates. 'The pain was always there but cannabis
gave me the ability to be able to move on and keep doing things. I had
better sleep and wasn't sweating anymore – I was just healthier.'
Like
Dr Large, Mr Adams would like to see marijuana legalised for
recreational use, as long as the government puts forward effective
regulation.
The
final results of the national poll conducted by SBS Insight, which
prompted voters through an interactive billboard placed in Sydney and
Melbourne's CBD, will be revealed on Tuesday night at 8:30pm when Insight explores the use of medical marijuana.
The billboard featured synthetic marijuana plants that 'grew' or 'died' depending on the results, according to SBS.
You can vote on whether you think marijuana should be legalised at.
By Sandy Mazza,
People who went to the hospital with traumatic brain injuries were more likely to survive if they had marijuana in their system, according to a new published report by Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute.
The study, published in the October edition of The American Surgeon,
was drawn from the records of trauma patients admitted to County
Harbor-UCLA Medical Center near Torrance from 2012 through Jan. 1, 2010
through 2012. LA BioMed, as it’s commonly called, is an independent
research institute on the campus of the hospital.
“Previous studies in animals showed that giving tetrahydrocannabinol
(THC), the active compound in marijuana, would improve survival after a
traumatic brain injury,”
said David Plurad, an LA BioMed researcher, Harbor-UCLA critical care
physician and co-author of the report, titled “Effect of Marijuana Use
on Outcomes in Traumatic Brain Injury.” “We’ve known that in humans this may also be the case.”
Plurad
and a team of fellow doctors and medical students reviewed 446 records
of patients who sustained a brain contusion or other traumatic brain injury and were also screened for illicit drugs, which is a test done on many trauma patients so doctors can properly treat them.
Patients with marijuana in their system constituted 18.4 percent
of the total study group. Both groups suffered similar levels of injury,
but the group that tested positive for THC mostly consisted of men in
their 20s to 40s. The other group was older, on average by about 20
years.
Only 2.4 percent of those who tested THC-positive died in the hospital as a result of their injuries while 11.5 percent of the patients who did not have THC in their system died.
Previous studies have linked marijuana use to reductions in pain and anxiety, increased appetite, reduced ocular pressure and decreased muscle spasms, among other health benefits. But no one has previously been able to measure the effects of natural forms of marijuana in the system at the time of a traumatic brain injury.
“This study was one of the first in a clinical setting to specifically associate THC use as an independent predictor of survival after traumatic brain injury,”
Plurad said. “It’s illegal to give THC in its natural form for research
purposes so this is really the best you can do in a natural
environment. There’s a big difference between synthetic forms of THC and
the natural form.”
Though researchers don’t have answers on a cellular level
for why marijuana seems to have neuro-protective qualities, Plurad said
THC seems to reduce inflammation and swelling processes that the body
undergoes after a trauma.
Intracranial pressure is one of the biggest
challenges surgeons face when dealing with brain injuries, and marijuana’s potential to reduce brain swelling could bring medical advances, he said.
If marijuana is decriminalized, researchers would have an easier
time studying the federally controlled plant, and Plurad said he looks
forward to that because he believes it could improve they way physicians
treat and understand pain.
“It’s important to treat pain and
anxiety right away, especially in brain injury,” Plurad said.
“Appropriate pain control and sedation should be used early. This study
shows that it may be the pain-control effect of the THC that’s
preventing inflammation.”
More than 15 million Britons, nearly one in three of the adult
population, have taken illegal drugs and the proportion of the nation
who have ever taken drugs is increasing over time; when the Observer
last conducted research into national drug usage and attitudes in 2008,
27% of the population had taken illegal drugs. That figure has now
increased to 31%. Last time round we noted that, while men were more
likely than women to take drugs, the gender gap appeared to be closing,
based on a comparison between 2008 and 2002 data.
That process is now
complete, with both sexes equally likely to have taken drugs. Thirty-one
per cent of those currently aged 16-24 have taken drugs but 35-
44-year-olds have been the biggest users of drugs with nearly half (47%)
of this age group having taken them. Regionally, rates of drug taking
peak in Scotland, where 35% have taken drugs.
Among those who have ever taken drugs, it is a minority (21%) who continue to do so, approximately 3 million people. The profile
of those currently taking drugs is weighted towards younger Britons,
with half of active users aged 16-34.
In contrast to the stereotype of
the drug user, many active drug takers are in the higher echelons of
society, with 40% being in social grades AB.
Drug taking is widespread and on the rise but, for the majority, it
does not constitute a problem; 87% of those who have taken drugs do not
believe they have ever had a problem with them. However, 13% of drug
users believe they have had a problem, the equivalent of approximately 2
million people.
Nearly half of those have subsequently managed to break
the habit and no longer use, but there are approximately 1 million
Britons who have had a problem with drugs (31% of current users) and
still use them. Male drug users are twice as likely as women to develop a
problem at some stage (18% and 9% respectively). While drug taking is
most common in Scotland, it is users in London and the south-east who
are most likely to develop a problem (21%). Younger users are also more
likely to believe they have had a problem; 15% of 16-24s and 25% of
25-34s.
Approximately 750,000 Britons (23% of active drug takers) take drugs
every day. However, the majority of active drug users (55%) are
infrequent users, taking them at an average frequency of less than once a
month. Despite this relatively low frequency of use suggesting that
consumption is linked to special occasions, drug taking is actually more
likely to be associated with the home environment than a big night out;
84% of current drug users say they are more likely to take drugs at
home or in a friend’s home, while only 16% say they are more likely to
take them in a club/pub/bar environment.
Young drug users aged 16-24 are
the most likely to take drugs in an out-of-home, social environment
(38%) but even among this group, drugs are more likely to be consumed
at home. While both sexes are more likely to consume at home, women
(25%) are four times more likely than men (6%) to take drugs in an
out-of-home environment.
Since 2008, the proportion more likely to use drugs in a pub/club/bar
environment has declined significantly, from 35% to 16%.
The reasons
for this are not immediately clear. The ban on smoking in pubs, clubs
and bars may have reduced the opportunity to surreptitiously smoke marijuana
in public places, but this was introduced in 2007, a year before our
previous survey. Was there a behavioural lag following the introduction
of these new laws, or has the introduction of the smoking ban
kick-started a wider societal shift?
Drug users have their first experience of illegal drugs aged 19, on
average. They then continue to dabble for an average of seven years
before giving up at the age of 26. The results of the poll suggest that
the earlier the age at which drug experimentation starts, the longer the
relationship with drugs; those who still take drugs had their first
experience at a younger age (16 on average) than those who have tried
them but subsequently given up (20). Women tend to move through their
drug phase quicker than men; while both sexes start using drugs at an
average age of 19, women quit a year earlier than men, on average.
Marijuana is, by far, the most popular illegal drug among Britons;
93% of drug users (more than 14 million people) have used marijuana. It
is often depicted as a gateway drug, and it is certainly true that it is
the drug that most drug users use first; marijuana was the first
illegal drug used by 82% of drug users. However, there is no clear
evidence from this research to suggest that usage of marijuana
necessarily leads to usage of other, harder, drugs. Indeed, half of
marijuana users have never taken any other drug.
The proportion of drug users who have used marijuana has increased
since 2008, when 87% had used it. There has also been an increase in the
number who have taken cheap amphetamines such as speed, which is now
the second most widely used drug (31% had taken it in 2008, 34% in
2014). Cocaine is the third most widely used illegal drug (29% of
British drug users have ever used it) followed by ecstasy (25%).
The average drug user has tried just under 2.5 different illegal
drugs, with men trying a greater number than women. In particular, men
are significantly more likely than women to have tried hallucinogens
such as LSD and magic mushrooms, as well as harder drugs such as crack.
Curiosity is the most common reason for starting to take drugs. More
than two out of three who have taken drugs cite curiosity as the primary
reason for starting. Wanting to fit in with friends and peer pressure
are also important factors, with one in four attributing their usage of
drugs to one or the other. There is an interesting gender distinction
with men more likely than women to succumb to peer pressure (13% and 8%
respectively), while women are more likely than men to take drugs in
order to fit in with their friends (16% and 11% respectively).
It is
possible that the willingness to fit in with friends is a more important
factor than these results would suggest, as older drug takers are more
willing to admit that this was the spur to their usage. It is also true
that those who no longer take drugs are far more likely to admit that
they wanted to fit in with friends than those who continue to take them
(17% and 4% respectively).
In total, 13% of Britons would consider taking drugs in the future.
This figure includes both current users and those who have taken them in
the past, a majority of whom (65%) are unwilling to do so again.
However, 4% of Britons who have never previously tried drugs would
consider doing so in future. If drugs were decriminalised that
consideration figure would increase fourfold (to 16%), demonstrating the
deterrent effect of their current legal status, particularly among
younger people; 30% of 16-24s who have never previously taken drugs
would at least consider doing so if they were decriminalised.
Any change
to the legal status of drugs would also potentially drive usage rates
among those at the top of the social hierarchy, who possibly have too
much to lose to risk being caught taking drugs at present; 47% of
non-users in social grade A would consider taking drugs if they were
decriminalised.
Unsurprisingly, marijuana is the drug that people are most likely to
consider taking in the future (81% of considerers would do so) followed
by cocaine (28%), ecstasy (28%), magic mushrooms (22%) and speed (20%).
Buying & selling drugs
The vast majority of drug users buy their drugs from people they
know; only one in 10 buys drugs from strangers. In most cases (65%) the
user doesn’t have any direct contact with the dealer, leaving the
transaction to a friend who buys on their behalf. Women are particularly
keen to avoid direct contact with a dealer, with 73% asking friends to
buy them instead (compared with 57% of male drug users).
An even more impersonal way of buying drugs is via anonymous online
marketplaces such as Silk Road.
Despite a clear desire for impersonal
transactions, only 2% of those who have ever taken drugs have bought
from the internet. However, among those who currently take drugs this
figure jumps to 16%, suggesting it is becoming a more common method of
acquiring drugs. These internet purchases may be purely for personal
use, but our data suggests that a significant proportion are for resale
purposes; 45% of those who have sold drugs for profit have purchased
drugs from the internet. Rates of internet usage for the purpose of
procuring illegal drugs peaks in the 25-34 age group (8%) and those
living in the south-east or London (6%).
One in 10 drug users has sold drugs in order to make a profit.
However, as we have seen, most people do not buy their drugs from a
dealer, but from friends who purchase on their behalf. Therefore, it’s
unsurprising that more than double that number (21%) have supplied them
to friends without making any profit from the transaction. At present,
the law does not differentiate between those who supply drugs for profit
and those who supply to friends without profiting.
However, a
significant minority of Britons (39%) believe that the law should make a
distinction and the number supporting this legal distinction has
increased, from 30%, in 2008.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, attitudes diverge based on drug consumption
history: among those who have ever taken drugs (many of whom will have
taken advantage of friends purchasing on their behalf) 62% believe the
law should make a distinction between drug suppliers.
Among those who
have never taken drugs, this number falls to 29%. The vast majority
(86%) of those who have supplied drugs to friends without making a
profit believe the law should differentiate, although it is interesting
to speculate on the reasoning of the 14% within this group who feel the
law should treat all drug dealers the same. Those who advocate blanket
treatment of drug dealers may want to consider that it is young Britons
who are most likely to have supplied drugs to friends for no profit; 16%
of all Britons aged 25-34 say they have done so.
Expenditure
The average British adult spends £32.05 per month on alcohol, £18.19
per month on tobacco products and £8.24 per month on illegal drugs.
However, these figures are based on all adults, irrespective of whether
they drink, smoke or take drugs. If we remove those who spend nothing on
each of the categories in an average month, the figures change
significantly. The average smoker spends £76.73 on tobacco and the
average drinker spends £54.58 per month on alcohol.
In terms of active
drug users, 39% say they do not spend anything on drugs in an average
month, which helps to reduce the overall monthly expenditure of this
group to £45.31. If we just consider those drug users who do spend money
on drugs in an average month, average expenditure increases to £74.36.
In addition to the money they spend on drugs, active drug users also
spend significantly more than the national average on alcohol (£66.62
per month) and tobacco products (£53.68 per month).
Men spend more than women on each of the three categories and the
25-34 age group are also the highest spenders in each category. Perhaps
it’s simply a function of higher prices in the capital, but those living
in London and the south-east are also the highest spenders in each of
the three categories.
Legality
Britons are generally unconvinced about the prospect of the “war on
drugs” ever being fought to a successful conclusion; it is only 16% who
believe it can be won. Those who have first-hand experience of drugs are
even more doubtful, with only 12% predicting a successful outcome of
the “war on drugs”. Possibly as a direct result of this pessimism we
have seen a sharp rise in the proportion of Britons who believe that
certain drugs should either be legalised or decriminalised (27% in 2008,
39% in 2014). Men (45%) are more likely than women (34%) to feel that
some drugs should be legalised or decriminalised, and almost half of
Britons aged 25-34 (48%) and 35-44 (46%) advocate legalisation.
Among
those who used to take drugs, but no longer do, 57% support some
legalisation/decriminalisation, and among those who currently take
drugs, this figure increases to 86%.
The vast majority of those advocating a change to the legal status of
drugs do not advocate a blanket treatment of all drugs; only 3% believe
that all of them should be either legalised or decriminalised.
Indeed,
for many people the issue appears to be primarily focused on the
legality of marijuana, which 88% of those advocating change believe
should be legalised or decriminalised. In total, 52% of all Britons
believe we should follow the example of Colorado and Washington and
legalise the sale and possession of marijuana for both medical and
non-medical use. Those aged 25-34 are most likely to support this (60%)
but it is significant that 45% of those aged 65 or older (who tend to be
the most conservative in their attitudes to drugs-related issues)
concur.
It is also interesting that 43% of people who have never taken
drugs believe marijuana should be legalised (this rises to 73% among
drug users). Support for a change in law peaks in London and the
south-east (57%) and men are more likely than women to support change
(58% and 45% respectively).
Strong support for a change in the legal status of marijuana seems to
be linked to a perception that it poses relatively little harm to the
health of the user. Asked to rate a selection of both legal and illegal
drugs based on the health risk they pose, our survey placed marijuana at
the very bottom of the risk hierarchy, below both alcohol and tobacco.
Britons aged 35-44 are most likely to consider marijuana relatively
benign, but this view is shared across the age spectrum. The drugs that
Britons believe pose the greatest health risks are hard drugs such as
heroin and crack, and it appears that most make a clear distinction
between marijuana and drugs of this type.
Despite widespread support for a change in legal status for
marijuana, it is still a minority (27%) who feel that the drug laws in
this country are not liberal enough. However, this figure has increased,
from 18% in 2008, and the proportion who feel the drug laws are too
liberal has decreased over the same period (32% in 2008, 27% in 2014).
We expect that attitudes towards this issue will continue to shift as
attitudes correlate directly with age; among the youngest (16-24) only
14% believe the laws are too liberal, while 33% say they are not liberal
enough.
In contrast, among the oldest (65+) 40% believe the current
drug laws are too liberal and only 19% not liberal enough. The results
for this question also provide more evidence that men tend to be more
liberal in their attitudes to drugs than women.
Nearly half of Britons (47%) would support a scheme whereby certain
illegal drugs were available on prescription to registered drug addicts.
Support for a scheme of this type has increased slightly, from 44% in
2008, with levels of support highest in London and the south-east, where
more than half (53%) of the population would support the scheme.
Support may be related to the belief that a high level of street
crime is either directly or indirectly linked to drugs and that
decriminalisation of hard drugs would lead to a reduction in street
crime.
Britons estimate that 50% of all street crime is linked to drugs,
with the estimate peaking in the north (54%). There is a direct
correlation with social grade in that those in the lower social grades
attribute a much higher proportion of street crime to drugs than those
who are higher up the social ladder.
We have actually recorded a consistent drop in estimates of the link
between drugs and street crime (66% in 2002, 56% in 2008 and 50% in
2014) but the link between drugs and crime is clearly established and
46% of Britons feel that levels of street crime would reduce if hard
drugs were decriminalised (up slightly from 44% in 2008).
Those who
currently take drugs are most likely to feel that decriminalisation
would reduce street crime (72% do so) but 43% of those who have never
taken drugs agree. Britons aged 16-24 are most likely to believe that
street crime would reduce if hard drugs were decriminalised (64%).
Despite the high levels of crime associated with drugs, the vast
majority (95%) of drug users have never committed a criminal act in
order to fund their purchase of drugs. That is a reflection of the fact
that most drug users do not believe they have ever had a problem with
drugs, and those who commit criminal acts to fund drug purchases
invariably have a problem: among those who admit to a drug problem, 67%
say they have committed criminal acts to feed their habit.
Men are more
likely to develop drug problems, and they are also more likely to commit
crime to feed their habit (9% of male drug users have done so compared
with 1% of female drug users). Drug users in London and the south-east
are most likely to have resorted to crime to fund drug purchases (10%
have done so).
Legal highs
One in 10 Britons has taken legal highs, ie drugs not currently
covered by misuse of drugs laws (also known as new psychoactive
substances (NPS). Usage of legal highs is most common among young
Britons; 16% of 16-24s and 19% of 25-34s have taken them. Regionally,
use is highest in London and the south-east, where 16% have taken them.
While legal highs are most likely to be taken by people who also take
illegal drugs (44% of current drug users have taken legal highs), 4% of
those who have never taken an illegal drug have taken legal highs.
The NHS Choices website warns that, despite their current legal
status, “legal highs can carry serious health risks”. While this message
has clearly been absorbed by the majority of those who take them (72%
of this group believe legal highs are more dangerous or pose the same
level of danger as illegal drugs) there are still 29% of legal high
users who believe they are less hazardous to health than illegal drugs.
The youngest users of legal highs (ie 16-24s) are twice as likely to
believe they are less harmful than illegal drugs (30%) than believe they
are more harmful than illegal drugs (15%).
Usage of synthetic drugs such as spice, which mimic the effects of
cannabis and are often sold as natural highs, is lower than usage of
legal highs; only 4% have tried synthetic drugs. Of those who currently
take illegal drugs, 18% have tried synthetic drugs. Usage is greatest in
London and the south-east (8%) and among 16-34s (9%).
Nearly half of all Britons (49%) consider themselves either “very” or
“quite” knowledgeable about drugs. Knowledge levels correlate directly
with age, with the youngest most likely to consider themselves
knowledgeable (71% of 16-24s are “very” or “quite” knowledgeable) and
each successive age group gradually less likely to consider itself
knowledgeable.
Predictably, knowledge also correlates with usage; 88% of current
users are knowledgeable and while knowledge levels are significantly
lower among non-users (42%) they remain fairly high. One reason for
these high knowledge levels among non-users is because many of us have
known someone we believe has a serious problem with drugs; 38% of
Britons do so, up from 32% in 2008.
Only 13% of those who have taken drugs themselves believe they have
had a problem. Among those who have had a problem themselves, 89% know
others in the same situation. Scotland is the region where the highest
proportion (50%) currently know someone, or have known someone, with a
serious drug problem and it also happens to be the region where drug
knowledge levels are highest (68% consider themselves knowledgeable).
Children & drugs
Do you have a child aged between 12 and 35 years?
Yes = 37%
No = 63%
Among those who participated in our poll, 37% have children aged
between 12 and 35 years old. In a sign that parenthood does not
necessarily curtail drug usage, 39% of current drug users have a child
in that age range.
Among
parents there is a high level of realism regarding the drug usage of
their children; just under one in five (19%) are certain that their
children have taken drugs, while a further 27% concede that they
probably have. In total, 46% of parents of children aged 12 to 35 say
their children have either certainly or probably taken drugs.
Mothers are more likely than fathers to say their children have
certainly taken drugs (23% and 16% respectively) and parents in London
and the south-east are most likely to say their children have either
certainly or probably taken drugs (56% in total). Parents who have taken
drugs themselves are more likely than those who haven’t to say their
children have certainly tried them (34% and 12% respectively). Parents
who are currently married are less likely to believe their children have
taken drugs (61% don’t believe they have) than parents who are divorced
(45%) or single (41%).
Among those parents who do not currently know or suspect that their
children have previously taken illegal drugs, only 4% believe their
children would be likely to take drugs in future.
Prescription drugs
Usage of prescription drugs for recreational purposes is not common,
but is growing in popularity. In 2008, 4% of Britons said they had used
prescription drugs recreationally. That figure has now increased to 6%
and is particularly prevalent in the south-west and Wales (9%) and
London and the south-east (9%). Prescription drugs are particularly
popular among higher social grades; 20% of the social grade A group have
taken prescription drugs recreationally.
One in three of those who currently take illegal drugs has taken
prescription drugs to get high, but the practice is not limited to users
of illegal drugs; 3% of Britons who have never taken illegal drugs have
used prescription drugs recreationally. The most popular prescription
drugs, when used recreationally by those we spoke to, include Valium,
temazepam, diazepam, Co-codamol and tramadol.
Nearly one in four people (23%) have suffered side-effects or
withdrawal symptoms from drugs prescribed to them by their doctor, and a
significant minority (30%) do not believe that drugs prescribed by
their doctor have been fully investigated for possible side-effects.
Key workers
There are high levels of public support for the routine drug testing
of a wide variety of key worker groups. Support for routine testing is
highest for groups whose ability to perform to the optimum has a very
direct impact on our safety, such as pilots, train driver, police, and
doctors/nurses.
The same direct link between performance and public safety is not
true of other key worker groups and support for testing is consequently
lower.
However, as a clear indication that we feel these groups should
be held to the highest possible standard, a large proportion also
support the introduction of routine drug testing for teachers (61%),
politicians (55%) and lawyers (45%). Generally women are more likely
than men to believe each of these key workers should undergo drugs
tests. Support for routine drug testing also increases with age.
Sex & drugs
Nine per cent of the population have, at some point, taken drugs in
order to improve their sex life. There is no clear evidence that the
drugs they have taken for this are illegal, as opposed to legally
available drugs such as Viagra. However, it is noticeable that illegal
drug users are significantly more likely than those who have never taken
illegal drugs to have used some form of drug in order to improve their
sex life (16% and 6% respectively).
Men (15%) are significantly more likely than women (4%) to have taken
drugs to improve their sex life. In terms of age, the 25-34 age group
is most likely to do so (14%) followed by the 65+ age group (10%). It
may be reasonable to assume that the older group are more likely to be
using legally available drugs for this purpose.
Methodology
A sample of 1,080 UK adults was interviewed by Opinium Research
between 8 and 14 July 2014 via an online questionnaire, ensuring
absolute anonymity. Interviews were conducted with respondents across
the country and the results have been weighted to reflect the profile of
all UK adults. Not all percentages add up to 100 due to rounding.
