|
Cannabis Campaigners' Guide News Database result:
|
|
Cannabis kills
Thomas Stuttaford The Times
Tuesday 31 Jul 2001 One of the social paradoxes of the 21st century is that the more environmentally friendly and green a person's lifestyle, the more likely he or she is to discuss the evils of pollution, carcinogens, the dangers of DNA research and questions of genetic make-up - while enveloped in the blue haze of cannabis smoke. The youthful protesters against global industry and the pharmaceutical industry (which has revolutionised medicine and agriculture, helping to prevent mass starvation in the developing world), are also those who advocate the taking of a drug, cannabis, that would fail its safety tests at the animal stage of testing, let alone unrestricted use in human beings. This is why I do not support its legislation. Few doctors have not seen the sudden mental changes that can follow intoxication with cannabis. In the short time that I was involved with large numbers of drug-dependents - mainly, but not exclusively, young people - it was a comparatively common occurrence. The argument always deployed to belittle the importance of this well-known phenomenon is that the personality of many of those who are apt to become cannabis-dependent is essentially a flawed one, and that the easygoing, hearty rugby or hockey player with an outlook as phlegmatic as that of his or her parents would not be affected in the same way. Even if this were true, it ignores the obvious truth that there is a large and important minority of people, often clever and aesthetic, but with a vulnerable personality, who might have had happier and more productive lives if they hadn't smoked pot and developed one of the psychological conditions associated with it. The ability of cannabis to change the slightly bizarre behaviour of a young person carrying a genetic disposition to schizophrenia, from that described as being characteristic of a schizotypal personality disorder, to the disordered thought and behavioural pattern of someone with a frank psychosis is now accepted. The ability of cannabis to cause other psychotic and neurotic conditions, as well as precipitating schizophrenia, is well documented. Likewise, its deleterious effect on short-term memory, with all its attendant disadvantages, is well known. The physical disadvantages of cannabis are less well described. Young people rarely think about mortality: death is for older age groups. They may worry, or claim to worry, about the long-term effects of pesticides, food additives, exhaust pollution and eating the right sort of fat (in the more extreme cases, no fat at all), but they prefer to ignore that even in the short term, cannabis can be a killer. Twenty years ago M.B. Holmberg presented statistics based on a study of 1,000 16-year-olds that showed that those who had been regular cannabis smokers at that time were five to eight times more likely to have died over the following ten years. Not only were they more likely to have ended up at the undertakers but there was a greater probability that they had spent time in hospital or under the care of doctors or social workers. They had a greater incidence of disease and social problems. In Holmberg's study 10 per cent of the regular cannabis smokers at the age of 16 were recognised as suffering from a psychosis during the ten-year follow-up period. Much of the excess mortality in young cannabis-takers occurred among the psychotic patients who obviously were prone to suicide and accidental death. A study has shown that even in the early 1980s, when cannabis wasn't as strong as it is now, someone who smoked cannabis once every ten days ran nearly two-and-a-half times the risk of being involved in a road accident. A later survey has put the risk of road accidents greater than this. D.H. Gieringer, writing on marijuana, driving and accident safety in The Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, suggests that the true figure of accident-proneness in driving is three to five times that of those who do not use cannabis regularly. This was demonstrated to me many years ago when I was working with drug-dependent patients. I was to speak in a debate opposing the legalisation of cannabis. My opponent, a university lecturer of great charm, offered to give me a lift to the debating hall because he wanted to demonstrate how cannabis-smoking did not affect driving. After a terror-inducing drive, which could compete in the nonchalance stakes with a French taxi driver's, he abandoned the car - parking would not be the right word - feet from the pavement. He was happy with his performance. "There you are, Tom," he said, "I told you it would be nothing like driving with someone who has been drinking." Not all the excess deaths of regular cannabis-takers, as opposed to non-smokers, can be attributed to suicide and accidents. Cannabis has been commonly smoked in Western society for only the past 40 years or so. So its long-term effect as a cancer inducer has until recently been conjectural. It is known that there is twice as much tar in cannabis as in tobacco, and there is evidence that this tar is carcinogenic. Tests have shown that most cannabis smokers - President Clinton is the obvious exception - aim to inhale deeply and to retain the smoke for as long as possible. As a result of these two factors, a person who smokes a joint rather than a cigarette will ingest four times as much tar. It is not therefore surprising that not only does the tissue of cannabis smokers show pre-malignant changes but that there is now evidence of an increased incidence of many cancers. Research workers at New York's Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre, one of the top ten cancer centres in the world, found that on average regular smokers of cannabis were 30 times more likely to develop cancer of the neck, throat, mouth and larynx than those who never inhale marijuana. Other research in the early 1990s demonstrated that these tumours appear between ten and 30 years earlier than in non-cannabis takers. These cancers struck more often and at an earlier age in cannabis smokers than in other people. The Sloan-Kettering researchers analysed their statistics. The response, as would be expected, was dose-related. The risk of head and neck cancer was doubled by smoking any marijuana, and those who smoked more than a joint a day increased the incidence by five times. If they also smoked cigarettes, as most did, the incidence of head and neck cancers increased 36 times. Cigarettes and cannabis are a deadly mixture. The SloanKettering researchers, like those from the Swedish National Institute of Public Health, had no doubts about the ability of cannabis to induce cancer of the lungs, mouth, pharynx (throat) and larynx (voice box). In all probability, it also increases cancer of the oesophagus. Workers on psycho-active drugs have also studied the effects of cannabis on the heart and cardiovascular system. They have shown that when patients are stoned they suffer palpitations, cardiac arrhythmias and a drop in blood pressure that may, for instance, induce dizziness when they stand up. In a fit young person the general view is that these changes are more likely to be inconvenient and disturbing than dangerous. There have been one or two cases of heart attacks recorded in young people after heavy cannabis use, but they were not shown to be necessarily the result of the heavy cannabis use. The news is less encouraging for those who smoked cannabis in the 1960s and 1970s and have never given it up. They should not be too sanguine about its effect on their ageing cardiovascular systems. Older people with heart disease or high blood pressure have been shown to be adversely affected by smoking cannabis. Whenever cannabis and hormones are discussed, the story is usually told of a young Swedish patient who had started smoking cannabis before he was 12. He was a heavy cannabis smoker by the time he was 16. The boy was undersized, had no pubic hair, small testicles and an underdeveloped penis. His testosterone levels were abnormally low for a boy of his age. He stopped smoking and it was as if a miracle had happened. He grew, his testosterone levels returned to normal and once again he could go proudly into the communal showers after PE. This is only a single case and has therefore little scientific value, but it is a good illustration of an extreme example of the changes that can follow heavy smoking of cannabis. Men who smoke too much cannabis may well, for instance, develop heavy breasts. When I was working in Whitechapel a Rastafarian told me that he could notice no difference between alcohol and a spliff. "You drink whisky, doctor, and become impotent; I take ganga and become impotent. The only difference is that I get red eyes and you don't." He was right about the whisky, and the red eyes, but knew nothing about my sex life - it was in pre-prostatectomy days. To judge from my chats with heavy cannabis takers, it seems that though they claimed the drug enhanced sexual sensations, in many cases it also reduced potency. It is known that heavy doses of cannabis can induce foetal malformations in animals. There has been much argument about whether it also causes an increase in stillbirth and foetal abnormality rate in human beings. At present, the case for this could be described only as unproven, but it reduces sperm counts, and when there is so much worry from the green movement about the reduction in sperm counts over the past century, it would seem a pity to hasten the process. Most of us with children and grandchildren whose own opinions on the legalisation of cannabis weren't formed by its widespread use in undergraduate days will continue to worry about its psychological and neurological effects (admirably described recently by Professor Susan Greenfield in The Times). The former has been a source of anxiety for 40 years. We should never forget that cannabis induces both physical and mental changes.
After you have finished reading this article you can click here to go back.
|
This page was created by the Cannabis Campaigners' Guide.
Feel free to link to this page!