The main active ingredient in marijuana is delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), but both an oral THC and a buccal spray of THC and cannabidiol are available and are far safer than smoking dried cannabis. Cannabis smoke contains many of the same carcinogens as tobacco, and case-control studies suggest that cannabis smokers are at increased risk for prostate cancer and for head and neck cancer.3 Cannabis smokers are also at increased risk for bronchitis.4 Even if cannabis were vaporized and inhaled rather than smoked, the rapid delivery of high THC doses increases the risk of psychomotor impairment and addiction.
If you scroll down to the bottom to find the reference for the cancer claim, you find a study done by Donald Tashkin in 2002. Here is the article in question. What I would like to know is why this doctor chose to ignore this more recent study that did not show an association between marijuana smoking and cancer. Too bad I don't know a doctor that I can ask about this.
I am a bit curious about the claim that the rapid delivery of THC increases the risk of psycho-motor impairment. There is no study cited for that claim. But I have plenty of anecdotal evidence from experienced recreational users that the dosage of cannabis is much more difficult to control with orally ingested marijuana as opposed to smoked or vaporized marijuana. When you eat it you don't get the full effects for at least an hour. With smoked cannabis you feel the effects immediately. If you eat too much cannabis, you won't know it until the effects are felt an hour later. But why would you need to cite a study as proof of that claim when you have decades of reefer madness to rely on?
Under "Risks Associated with Use", we read about the risk factors of adolescent use of cannabis. I have no idea why this is relevant, unless there are adolescents out there with legal cannabis prescriptions.
From a public health perspective, the Health Canada program is fundamentally unjust and harmful. The program diverts resources to an unproven substance of uncertain efficacy with abuse liability, contributing to the public’s perception of cannabis as a harmless recreational product with therapeutic benefits.
I wonder if this guy lobbied the Tories to cut medical marijuana research funding. Coffee, sugar, sex, tobacco, online gambling, VLTs and shopping all have abuse potential. Should we ban those substances and activities too? And why is this relevant in an article about the medical uses of marijuana? So many questions, so little time.
Forty-seven percent of 18- to 19-year-olds in Canada have smoked cannabis in the past year, and 5% of Canadians report at least 1 concern related to cannabis. Six thousand patients were treated for cannabis dependence in Ontario in 2000, which likely represents a small fraction of those who need help. As one author stated, “… the costs to society are continuing to mount from past neglect of this continuing health problem.”11
What does this have to do with treating AIDS and cancer patients? How is continuing to deprive them of medicine going to help the plight of so-called addicts? Why is this relevant?
If legislators wish to decriminalize cannabis possession, they should do so without disguising it as medical therapy. Smoked medical marijuana is unnecessary and unsafe, especially in the doses allowed by Health Canada, and it distracts physicians and the public from the widespread harm caused by cannabis use and dependence.
Actually it's the public that wishes to decriminalize possession of cannabis. Legislators have been extremely reluctant to address this issue. The legal status of the drug is not relevant to the question of whether cannabis is a valid medical treatment. Even legal prescription drugs can be abused. I suspect reefer madness compels this doctor to believe that keeping marijuana illegal protects the public, despite the overwhelming evidence that illegal marijuana does not prevent people from using it.
No comments:
Post a Comment