You got me to thinking, Boris ...
Marijuana smoking associated with kidney damage
The authors, Lambrecht et al, in Nephron, 70:494496, 1995, report on a 29-year-old man admitted to the hospital with severe pain in his back. He had smoked marijuana for 10 years, and just prior to admission had smoked several marijuana cigarettes and consumed several bottles of beer. No other psychotropic drugs were used. An area of damage in the right kidney resulting from a block in the major branch of the right kidney artery was detected. Toxicology screening on the urine revealed cannabinoids. All other causes of acute kidney infarction were excluded. The world's literature on cannabis effects on the kidney was reviewed by the authors.
Commentary: This report is the first one showing clotting off of an artery to the kidney resulting from acute marijuana smoking. The cardiovascular effects of marijuana are well-known and include dilation of peripheral blood vessels resulting in blood pressure changes and reflex, speeding up of the heart rate. If the heart rate is inadequate, there may be drops in blood flow to organs such as the kidney with resulting thrombosis of small arteries. Marijuana is known to be associated with myocardial infarction and stroke (Zachariah SB, Stroke 22:406-409, 1991; Charles et al. Clinical Toxicology 14:433-438, 1979). It is also possible that the marijuana damaged the blood vessels directly, as has been suggested for other drugs of abuse, such as amphetamines (Baden et al. New England Journal of Medicine, 284:111-113, 1971). It is clear from this case report, however, that a previously healthy male with acute ingestion of marijuana can clog the blood vessels of a major organ. (Marijuana Research Review, v.3, #2, 6/1996)
"A Publication of Drug Watch Oregon".
http://www.satcom.net.au/apfdfy/Research.html
I bring up this article for two reasons. First, please note in the summary portion, the patient had smoked marijuana for 10 years, and just prior to admission had smoked several marijuana cigarettes and consumed several bottles of beer. Furthermore, I can relate to the kidneys at this point, as I am about to start the third round of random antibiotics for what my doctors thought was kidney-related and has now turned into a head-scratching fiasco. Though cancer is scratched off the list and the host of veneral and incidental bacterial tests have all come up negative, I now get a high-end antibiotic (Tequin) for a month, just to see what happens. My specialist's official opinion of whether marijuana use, especially considering my rate of consumption, is involved in the puzzling internal bleeding (even at the level of physical damage from coughing) is a firm, "No." My physician didn't ask if I wanted to quit nicotine; if you smoke, you get a prescription of antibiotics from him. In fact, he even attempted to prescribe a double-cycle on the grounds that if I had a girlfriend (I'll skip the gory details of
that) who smoked, it would be beneficial to me if she tried to quit at the same time. This is the only time he has acknowledged my marijuana use. He advised, "It's tougher to quit cigarettes if you're still smoking pot. Make brownies."
Thus, the first reason I bring this up is that it is all well and fine to work with what data you have. If the data is that thin, well, it's that thin. But based on ...
* 10 years marijuana use
* Smoked several joints and drank several beers
* No other psychotropic drugs were used (that night, or ever?)
* Urinalysis revealed cannabinoids
... I must take issue with the first sentence of the commentary.
This report is the first one showing clotting off of an artery to the kidney resulting from acute marijuana smoking. I find this to be extremely irresponsible. Was the patient dehydrated? If so, is patient chronically dehydrated? We accept ten years marijuana use, but what is patient's history of alcohol use? (Does alcohol use contribute to dehydration, perhaps chronically?)
Thus I would hope to provide at least one example of the myths surrounding marijuana's harm.
Secondly, I want to rip into Drug Watch. I ran a Google search on "marijuana" and "carcinogen", and the results were stacked with articles decrying marijuana as more toxic than cigarettes. Uniformly, the sites refer to a report at
www.drugwatch.org which does not seem to exist at this moment. (The whole of drugwatch.org is, at this moment, unavailable.) I cannot presently read the report which these articles cite; this disturbs me in a propaganda way, and I await the .org's return to webdom. I have cited above, at satcom.net, a collection of newsletter articles from Drug Watch Oregon. Needless to say, I'm wondering how many grams of marijuana thirty-five pounds gets you in the UK; some of their stories invoke images of the Reefer Madness craze. But more to the point, I want to know where
they get their study on marijuana as a carcinogen, and if that data includes nicotine use. Frankly, if they are accusing marijuana in the form of the newsletter, I can guarantee you there's something they're trying to hide about their data.
Essentially, Boris has presented a few issues on which I would like to comment. It's not that anyone will assert that smoking pot is physically healthy the way drinking a protein shake is supposed to be healthy. But you'll notice that nobody is campaigning against bacon because a guy who had a heart attack ate bacon that morning, and had eaten bacon fairly regularly over the years.
I present
http://www.drugs.indiana.edu/publications/iprc/factline/marij.html ...
Several facts about marijuana smoking have produced persistent concern about its effects on the respiratory system. First, marijuana is smoked "unfiltered," and the cigarette is consumed almost entirely. Also, marijuana is deeply inhaled, and when it is smoked, the smoke is held in the lungs for several seconds. Marijuana smoke contains carbon monoxide, nitrosamines, benzopyrene, and over 60 cannabinoid compounds. All of these are respiratory irritants and potential carcinogens. Long-term use has been shown to produce precancerous cell changes and several recent studies suggest that marijuana smoking can lead to lung cancer. Users have reported symptoms such as hoarseness, coughing, laryngitis and bronchitis.
This isn't that bad of a paragraph. There's only a couple of quick notes I want to comment on here:
* "...marijuana smoke is smoked unfiltered ...." This is the primary reason why any good stoner prefers smoking a bong. Better yet is the
idea of the vaporizer, which heats the marijuana to the THC release point (apparently just over 100 centigrade works well), and thus eliminates much of the particulate exhaust. Unfortunately, vaporizers have a few technical problems. Even better yet is the notion that, when it's legal, I can
eat the stuff. This is the best way to use marijuana, but it is exceptionally expensive. I had the wonderful experience of attending a dinner where marijuana was used extensively in the food, most notably in the butter. The process is a bit time-consuming but well worth it if you're into marijuana. But the problem is that the pot-butter costs about $150 a pound to make. As delightful as it is, so much more sublime than smoking the stuff, it's prohibitively expensive to cook with marijuana.
* "... potential carcinogens ... lung cancer ...." I think the use of the word "potential" is a perfectly acceptable word; you'll find no argument from me, except that I've seen nothing about the cannabinoids themselves being carcinogenic, or even potentially so. As to the lung cancer accusation ... you rarely see this anymore--the info at the site was updated five years ago--because it's an extremely tenuous link. For instance, Partnership for a Drug-Free America dropped that part of their campaign in the 1980s and early '90s when someone finally thought to ask, "Um ... how many of the stoners in that report smoked
cigarettes? And how does this affect the data?[/i]
Driving performance is impaired, due to altered perception of space and time, and reduced ability to make quick decisions.
This is an interesting notion. It seems fairly common-sense, except that there really isn't any way to determine the practical result of this except by extrapolating laboratory-observed data. I've actually heard of a report that says habitual pot-smokers get in
less traffic accidents; the two reasons I don't pull that report out is twofold: A) I've never gotten my hands on it, and B) it's a self-reporting study, as I've been advised.
I accept the cited assertion. It's a no-brainer. But, unlike alcohol, the
apparent practical effect of this altered perception has yet to be observed. That is, pot smokers behind the wheel aren't slaying people by the thousands. Part of the reason for this is that such impairment is a no-brainer; generally,
most stoners I know do not like to drive stoned. I do know some people who drive stoned, but their driving doesn't scare me in the least; more directly, though ... have you ever noticed how many stoners
get where they're going, and then spark up? Take a concert, for instance: who wants to get high, drive an hour to the arena, find parking, walk to the show, and come down before the opening band hits the stage? (I will assert firmly here that what happens then is that people start
drinking alcohol because it's the drug that's available.) I except Phish shows from the
take a concert assertion for the simple fact that it's a moot-point: I wouldn't be surprised if the audience at the last Phish show I attended walked a combined two-hundred pounds through the front gate; if you were at the show, you were stoned, and there was flat-out no way around it. In the case of concerts, I might digress and wonder what the point is of serving alcohol to people and then trying to flush them out of the parking lot as fast as possible. Literally, people trying to sober up before they hit the road are being ordered by security teams to get the hell out. There's no cabs, there's no buses, and there's only the cops and ten-thousand other cars ... get your drunk ass on the road, boy! It's a fair question when considering the legalization of marijuana and the potential difficulties it might invite. Stoners after a Phish show usually do just fine about thirty minutes after they're out of the gate, not two hours.
A picture has emerged of amotivational syndrome, which can be described as a massive and persistent loss of ambition that is replaced by chronic apathy and passivity toward goals and the future.
I'm well aware of marijuana's effect on motivation, but I was lazy before I ever smoked pot. Similarly, I once pinned my mother down when she was talking about my pot smoking and my behavior: "I started smoking pot when I was 18. Even
you have told me that I acted depressed when I was 13." And besides, without attempting to be flippant, it truly does seem to me that the above citation describes the American Youth. I well remember apathy and passivity toward goals and future. Except that they weren't my goals, but the ones I was told to have. I sometimes wonder if, when we talk about drugs, we somehow pare away certain factors. Sure, I hate my job; sure, I could get a better one. But I love my job for two reasons: it pays me enough to live, and it doesn't come home with me. I decided I wanted to be a writer when I was five years old, and I'm still at it like an idiot. I stopped telling people every time I started a novel when I was 14. I would love, just once, to tell people I
finished one, and if I'm apathetic toward normal social standards, including marriage and family, job and economic status, keeping up with the Joneses, even home ownership and so forth, it's not because of marijuana but because I'm not willing to do the things necessary to be married, or not willing to crack myself in half trying to pay for a house. I'd rather relax and learn how to write. If I sell one, and have a razor-sharp agent, I will very easily be able to afford to take part in society. But I would definitely charge that such an idea as marijuana-related
amotivational syndrome, as described above, is a little bit superstitious.
But overall, what I'm complaining about is the environment in which marijuana is discussed.
U.S. and Indiana laws classify marijuana a Schedule I Controlled Substance, which means:
1. Marijuana has a high potential for abuse.
2. There is no currently accepted medical use for marijuana in the United States.
3. There are no accepted safety guidelines for marijuana use.
1) This is a point that legalization advocates harp on. Marijuana is described by Schedule 1 as having as high a potential for addiction and as high a physical toll as crack and heroin.
2) There's a reason for this. And shortly, when the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Co-Op beats the hell out of the Fed before the Supreme Court, point 2 will become invalid.
3) That's only because the people who write such guidelines refuse to consider such guidelines. What I really find macabre about point 3 and Schedule 1 in general is that Congressional Republicans put up the Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act of 1999 in an effort to make the writing of such guidelines illegal. To apply MAPA's proposed standards to marijuana--for theory's sake--I would be facing multiple federal felony counts for this post alone.
To place marijuana on Schedule 1 is dangerous. I cannot count the number of times I had to explain to my friends that just because marijuana isn't as dangerous as they say is no good reason to go do cocaine or methamphetamine.
Lastly, I would like to refer to the "Myths & Facts" section of the indiana.edu page.
MYTH: Marijuana is safe because it is a plant.
FACT: Many plants are toxic and unsafe for human use, including marijuana.
So is rhubarb. But people know how to consume it
safely. There are many plants more dangerous to our health than marijuana that are perfectly legal becuse people know how to use them. Marijuana: You set it on fire and put it in your lungs to force a set of reactions in your brain. This is not, generally speaking, "safe" to do to anything. But if this general degree of safety addressed is appropriate, I will retreat to the comfortable argument of pointing out that nicotine and alcohol are legal and taxed.
MYTH: Marijuana users do not go on to use other drugs.
FACT: Studies show that marijuana users may have a predisposition to use other drugs.
I pick on caffeine because it is so prevalent in American culture. What is our obsession with caffeine? I can go buy caffeinated water! To me, drinking water infused with a diuretic is an exercise in futility. But it's caffeine, so we
like it. I think it's a fairly safe assertion to say that most drug users' first drug addiction was caffeine. Bill Maher, on 3/21, refuted the "Gateway Drug" theory with the simple assertion that the gateway drug is alcohol. How many pot smokers smoked pot before cigarettes? I've met a few, but they're quite rare. That studies show that marijuana users
may have a predisposition to use other drugs is no cause for it to be illegal.
MYTH: Marijuana relieves stress.
FACT: Marijuana, like all drugs, merely postpones coping with problems and deadlines; marijuana can lead to depression.
I think this is assumptive. Marijuana relieves stress. Sure, some people hide within its smokey veils; even I do that from time to time. I guess I could go spend forty bucks on booze, but why do I want a hangover? That's just another problem to cope with.
MYTH: Marijuana is safer than alcohol.
FACT: Marijuana contains carcinogenic chemicals, and it is a dangerous substance that should not be considered a "safe" alternative to other drugs.
Are we making the comparative "safer" equivalent to "safe"? It is safer to wear a bulletproof vest into combat, but that does not make combat safe. To be a little more relevant ... yes, marijuana is definitely a safer drug than alcohol.
MYTH: Marijuana expands the mind.
FACT: Marijuana clouds the mind, interfering with memory, speech, comprehension and decision-making ability.
Marijuana does do funny things to the mind. But if the "FACT" portion is any reason to make marijuana illegal ....
MYTH: Marijuana today is safer than earlier varieties.
FACT: Horticultural development has increased the potency of marijuana and added many other dangerous chemicals.
First, I have never heard the "MYTH" portion asserted by anyone except anti-drug people in "Myth and Fact" sessions. Which leads to ...
Yes, we
know the stuff is stronger. Anyone who's smoked Purple Kush or MTF or blueberry knows this. But this is less a difference in "danger" than, say, the difference between a wine cooler and Everclear.
Lastly, how has horticultural development "added many other dangerous chemicals"? I will even go so far as to take the simplistic interpretation of "added chemicals" and note that organic marijuana offers a far-better quality spectrum than marijuana grown with chemical fertilizer. Most of the (few) growers I've met over the years dislike normal pesticides. As I've never known a huge plantation grower, I can say that the favorite insecticide of smaller growers seems to be made of pepper oil. But any "new" chemicals occurring in marijuana over the years would be either wholesale genetic changes or else naturally-occurring chemicals that only come out during optimized growth.
I will stop now, and offer the following note to Boris ... where I got started on this rant was the line about marijuana being little different from tobacco in its health effects. On the one hand, they might be similar processes, but to the other, they're not as severe. To yet another hand, I am unhappy at the appearance of a muddled issue of marijuana carcinogenic effect and the idea of how many stoners smoke cigarettes. When the study came out that smoking both pot and cigarettes dramatically increased lung damage, I did not doubt this; this is another of those no-brainers, it seems to me. But I have never seen cigarette use tied into a carcinogenic marijuana assertion. I wanted also to mention that I think designer drugs lose their attractiveness when people know what they do. But in the case of the latest, MDMA, there seems to be low addictive potential for a reason that I, while I choose not to use MDMA, can sympathize with. I cannot take psilocybin frequently. As in daily. At a lower dose, yes. But pushing my consumption is difficult; I know I'm capable of using shrooms weekly, but I do not because I do not want to. But if I've soared on an eighth of cubensis on Friday, my body will literally refuse to accept more on Saturday. I am told by most of the MDMA users I know that they, too, know this circumstance. But despite the glowing reviews from friends, everyone knows I will not take the drug because it has methamphetamine in it, and I know the damage it can do. Meth and heroin are the only two drugs in my life with a death count, and the heroin user died of AIDS that may well have resulted from his ridiculously promiscuous sex life. (Strangely, at no time that I knew him was he an addict in the junkie sense; I cannot explain his ability to use heroin at will. As he was into S&M, though, maybe he liked the kicks.)
Of punishment, I wanted to note that the drug itself is not, in my opinion, cause for punishment. A person has as much right to become addicted to
glue if they want as they do to commit suicide the quick way. I'm all for mandatory rehabilitation for those convicted of certain crimes while under the influence, but why should someone have to confess to felonies before they can receive treatment?
And I wanted to ask, of banning drug use in public places: Are you referring to a sidewalks, parks, &c.? I understand the idea of opium rooms and hash bars, but are you considering, say, a nightclub, a public place?
However, the idea of arresting or citing people for Walking Under the Influence is a little ridiculous. And I wanted to comment directly on one thing:
I like clean air and detest smoke, and there should be no reason why people like me should be denied a right to clean lungs simply because certain others personally choose to waive it.
You are correct that you should be allowed to keep your lungs clean.
* I feel the same way about cars and fossil fuels and the industrial section of Tacoma, Washington. For the record, I also feel the same way about most perfumes and colognes. I'm sorry, but just because someone wants to smell like an hallucinogenic moose doesn't mean I have to put up with it. Dior makes me bleed on contact; most women's perfumes cause vertigo and migraines; most men's colognes cause nausea.
* Considering the cigarette wars, I resent the idea of forcing restaurants and bars to go smoke-free by law. If you want clean lungs, go ahead and eat somewhere else, as such.
After all ... considerations of other people get strange when intoxication is involved. For instance, I can be arrested for standing on the sidewalk and drunkenly shouting at people. But if I'm spitting and shouting and stomping around with a Bible in my hand, I have the right to annoy the hell out of people. I don't understand this. Disturbing behavior is disturbing behavior. As far as that goes, if I'm high and you can't tell except for the smile and the red eyes, it's none of your business and you shouldn't be looking.
Aspirin kills more people than marijuana.
thanx much,
Tiassa
