I probably sound like a broken record talking about marijuana not being a dangerous drug. So today, I give you the words of Christopher Ingraham in The Washington Post. He says:
Compared with other recreational drugs — including alcohol — marijuana may be even safer than previously thought. And researchers may be systematically underestimating risks associated with alcohol use.
Those are the top-line findings of recent research published in the journal Scientific Reports, a subsidiary of Nature. Researchers sought to quantify the risk of death associated with the use of a variety of commonly used substances. They found that at the level of individual use, alcohol was the deadliest substance, followed by heroin and cocaine.
And all the way at the bottom of the list? Weed — roughly 114 times less deadly than booze, according to the authors, who ran calculations that compared lethal doses of a given substance with the amount that a typical person uses. Marijuana is also the only drug studied that posed a low mortality risk to its users.
These findings reinforce drug-safety rankings developed 10 years ago under a slightly different methodology. So in that respect, the study is more of a reaffirmation of previous findings than anything else. But given the current national and international debates over the legal status of marijuana and the risks associated with its use, the study arrives at a good time. . .
What is unique is how these substances are treated under the law, and particularly the way in which alcohol and nicotine essentially get a free pass under the Controlled Substances Act, the cornerstone of the nation's drug policy. This study's authors note that legislative classifications of psychoactive drugs often "lack a scientific basis," and their findings are confirmation of this fact.
Given the relative risks associated with marijuana and alcohol, the authors recommend "risk management prioritization towards alcohol and tobacco rather than illicit drugs." And they say that when it comes to marijuana, the low amounts of risk associated with the drug "suggest a strict legal regulatory approach rather than the current prohibition approach."
In other words, individuals and organizations up in arms over marijuana legalization could have a greater effect on the health and well-being of this country by shifting their attention to alcohol and cigarettes. It takes extraordinary chutzpah to rail against the dangers of marijuana use by day and then go home to unwind with a glass of far more lethal stuff in the evening.
I don't disagree about cannabis. But I'm not too thrilled with the blunt category. Methamphetamine is only moderate risk? You've got to distinguish between short term and long term effects. Opioid users have this tendency to die suddenly, but tend to clean up fairly well -- even after long periods of use. Meth and cocaine users tend to destroy their kidneys just as alcohol users tend to destroy their livers. As a society, we've come a long way in terms of having a clearer view of cannabis. But we are still pretty simplistic (and moralistic) when it comes to drugs more generally.
ReplyDeleteWhat I've found really interesting has been the research on cannabis smokers and driving -- that it doesn't have much effect. But it doesn't surprise me. I suspect that drunk drivers are bad not so much because of slower thinking as because of their greater aggressiveness. I like alcohol in small doses. But there is no doubt that it is a pox on our society. And God knows American society more than most could use a whole lot more cannabis.
Personally, I don't think any drug should be illegal. You can't fight a social and medical problem by making it a crime. We should have learned that by now. There are two legitimate ways to fight drug use. The first is treatment. Treatment should be available for anyone who wants it -- and no one should be forced into it (because it only works when a person is ready to accept it). The second is education. And by education, I mean tell the TRUTH -- not the kind of lies and propaganda the government told us about marijuana for decades.
ReplyDeleteYes. I'm not in favor of the drug laws either. Just the same, I'm not too keen on the state of drug treatment. But it does seem to be getting better. But my expectations are small these days. I would be thrilled if we could increase access to methadone treatment and provide universal syringe exchanges. For decades, I've been pushing a simple thing: if they live, almost all drug addicts eventually get clean. So let's keep them alive and disease free. I'm not as up on the data as I used to be, but in 1970, the average heroin user was only addicted for three years. More recent studies seem to indicate about five. Regardless, we aren't talking a lot of time. But it doesn't matter what the drug is. We just need to be humane about it. That isn't what our current system is based on.
DeleteI generally agree with what you are saying, but I'm not that worried about the state of drug treatment (except that there probably isn't enough programs). I worked as a parole officer for many years -- and if there's one thing I learned, it's that the quality of the treatment program is not nearly as important as the desire of the user for treatment. If a person wants to quit, then any program they choose will work. And if a person doesn't want to quit, then no program will work. And forcing a person into a program, no matter how good the program is, is destined to fail.
ReplyDelete