Columns, Opinion

KASTRITIS: Due to scientific potency, marijuana should not be legalized

Tobacco and alcohol are two powerful substances that have become deeply ingrained into the American way of life. While these two substances possess social and personal functions, their adverse health effects are well-established. With a consideration of the social changes of the past four years, it now seems that marijuana, also known as cannabis, is unfortunately accelerating its presence in our culture. While I personally do not support the legalization of marijuana for recreational purposes, and while I can understand the arguments in favor of its decriminalization, what is of greater importance to me is that voters become informed and truly understand the health impacts of the drug.

In 2012, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts proposed the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes throughout the state and was met with an overwhelming response of “Yes,” with approximately 63.3 percent of responders voting in favor of the measure. Now, in 2016, the Commonwealth will propose to the public the legalization of recreational marijuana. Regrettably, the latest polling, as of the first week of October, by the Western New England University Polling Institute indicates that 55 percent of those polled were in favor of the measure, as opposed to 39 percent against the measure. Though the social and economic arguments in favor of the legalization of recreational marijuana have some merit, the growing scientific insights into the very clear negative health effects of marijuana say otherwise. Furthermore, its proximate inhibiting effects to human tasks should generate substantial, if not overwhelming, caution against its legalization both in the state and nationwide.

Decades of medical research have clarified the properties of marijuana and its adverse health effects to non-prescribed users, and we need not comprehensively describe those effects here. Marijuana is produced from the desiccated leaves of the Cannabis sativa plant. The Drug Enforcement Administration classifies marijuana as a psychoactive agent. When smoked in a joint, users can experience short-term problems with balance and coordination, increased heart rate and appetite, problems with learning and memory, hallucinations, anxiety, panic attacks and psychosis. Long-term effects can include mental health problems, chronic coughing, frequent respiratory infections. When combined with other substances such as alcohol, symptoms include increased heart rate, blood pressure and a further slowing of mental processing and reaction time. These adverse health effects are neither theoretical nor alarmist; in the United States, marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug. Extensive research indicates that regular marijuana users, especially those who start at a young age, are more likely to try more dangerous drugs, thereby classifying marijuana as a potential gateway drug. Essentially, I invite you to visit the websites of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute of Drug Abuse to fully realize the adverse effects of recreational marijuana for yourself.

How these data affect and are affected by the voting in Massachusetts is a fair question. As it stands, the proposed measure would permit persons over the age of 21 years to possess 1 ounce of marijuana outside their residences and to possess up to 10 ounces of marijuana inside their residences, as well as grow up to six marijuana plants in their residences. While I understand and partially support the economic and social arguments in favor of decriminalization, this support does not negate the very real adverse health effects of marijuana. Personally, I think it to be best if the resulting vote in November were “No,” and the issue was deferred until more fundamental social issues were addressed. The essential question is whether economic and social justifications can outweigh the considerable concern arising from the adverse health effects of substances such as marijuana. The essential question is how we come to prioritize the benefits and drawbacks of a substance as potent as marijuana.

More Articles

8 Comments

  1. Do you fear Alzheimer’s? “THC blocks an enzyme called acetylcholinesterase, which speeds the formation of amyloid plaque in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s disease. The Alzheimer’s drugs Aricept and Cognex work by blocking acetylcholinesterase. When tested at double the concentration of THC, Aricept blocked plaque formation only 22% as well as THC, and Cognex blocked plaque formation only 7% as well as THC.” From “Marijuana May Slow Alzheimer’s” at WebMD. Also there have been several recent news articles on how cannabinoids reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s. Fewer Alzheimer’s cases is just one of the more positive results from cannabis use. People with bowel disorders, pain (especially neuropathic pain), depression, PTSD, epilepsy, diabetes, migraines, and many other conditions can also benefit from cannabis.

    And playing the “think of the children” card? In states where cannabis is legalized, rates of adolescent use go DOWN! Street dealers will sell to a 10 year old with the cash. In a legal dispensary, you can’t even get past the front desk without picture ID!

    The “dangerous” physical health effects of long-term cannabis use are outlined in these recent articles, “Study says long-term pot use causes poor gum health – but not much else” (Guardian – June 1, 2016) and “Marijuana Use Linked to Increased Gum Disease Risk” (Yahoo – October 12, 2016). And earlier study-based article came to much the same conclusion, “No detectable association between frequency of marijuana use and health or healthcare utilization” (MedicalXPress – 2013).

    And in over 4,000 years of written medical history, there has never been a single fatal cannabis overdose. You can’t say that about most pharmaceutical drugs, or even aspirin!

    Cannabis legalization will NOT cause the sky to fall!

    • Hi,

      Thanks for sharing your opinion. I welcome any peer-reviewed scientific evidence that indicates clearer medical benefits of marijuana, but the consensus is not definitive. However, my stance on the issue is more nuanced than perhaps that which was reflect in my column. What I am concerned with is the greater access, though regulated by the Commonwealth, to marijuana by those who are neither biologically mature nor medically necessitated to use the drug, and the long-term health effects it produces. Note that the proposal by the Commonwealth indicates the volumes of the drug that would be permissible by law: see Section 7.

      As for greater access by minors, my question is why should the abundance of marijuana be any different than, say, alcohol with regards to the ease of access to minors in spite of their minor status. While I support the anticipated shrinking of the black market/street market once marijuana is legalized, I would suspect that its access would be no different than alcohol is to minors currently; I invite you to consult the statistics on the matter. Again, note the text of the proposal where it references personal use and possession of marijuana.

      Furthermore, if the arguments are such that the negative health effects of marijuana are not clear, which is debatable, then I would not support the logic that it is safe to proceed with its legalization “just because we do not necessarily know” whether it is truly “unhealthy;” on the contrary, I would advocate for a more cautious stance, hence, my opinion column. And finally, I suggest that you consult your evidence before making broad claims: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6428a6.htm.

      Please feel free to contact the Daily Free Press if you would like to correspond more in the future.

      Best,

  2. Have you actually read the Question #4 25 page ballot proposal ?

  3. Lies upon lies! Let’s debate the merits of cannabis using truth for a change.

    Cannabis has changed my life. I consume a microdose daily and never get high. The benefits I have seen personally, and which I believe based on what I now understand about the human Endocannabinoid System (ECS) and its role in human health, are benefits that more people should be exploring for themselves, should be front and center in any discussion about the repeal of cannabis prohibition.

    In the year and a half that I have been using cannabis daily (without getting high) I have stopped needing to take several pharmaceuticals including, anti-depressants, pain killers, muscle relaxants and sleeping pills. These highly complex, man-made chemicals come with a huge list of potentially deadly side-effects and none of them have worked as well for me as cannabis. I have lost over 20 pounds, I eat better, I exercise more, I sleep better and have better relationships in all aspects of my life.

    Now that medical science is starting to understand the ECS it is clear to me that I, and many others who may never have heard of it, have suffered from Clinical Endocannabinoid Deficiency (CECD). I fully credit adding a small amount of cannabinoids to my daily diet (again, I never get high) that I obtain from cannabis (a natural and god given plant, unadulterated by big pharma) with these life saving changes.

    Those who stand against Question 4 seem to do so based solely on decades old reefer-madness rhetoric while ignoring the latest that medical science has to offer on the subject. And they do so at the cost of public health, not in defense of it. If they truly cared about public health that would allow a plant that is safer by all objective standards to be discussed openly and honestly so that people who may need it to live better lives have the opportunity to explore that possibility.

    Can there be negative health effects? Yes; when used irresponsibly and to excess. Sure, people who stick a gram or two of cannabis flower in their bongs and smoke it over the course of 10 minutes will likely end up with some of the problems listed in this article. I use that same amount over the course of a month or two and in a year and a half have never experienced even one of these doomsday side effects.

    Making cannabis legal opens the door to honest communication and the opportunity to educate people on the safe and proper way to incorporate cannabis in their diet (without getting high).

    And to the people who just want to get high I say well, this is America and who am I to stand in your way? Just don’t do anything stupid that hurts anyone else.

    • Hi,

      Thanks for sharing your opinion. Indeed, the medical insights that are constantly being gained are clearing the picture on the medical effects of marijuana-but are they convincing enough to warrant its legalization in the manner described by the Commonwealth? I noted that you use “microdosing,” rather than outright smoking in a bong or blunt, and that you never get high; I am genuinely glad that such a practice has conferred positive health and lifestyle impacts for you.

      However, what my column intend, as well as the medical facts and medical authorities that it cited, was to highlight the decades of research that have not clarified the health benefits of marijuana (but have clarified the health detriments of its abuse) enough to warrant its widespread use by individuals over the age of 21 in the Commonwealth, and perhaps even more broadly, eventually throughout the United States. And, as you noted, you agree, that there do exist individuals who will engage with marijuana in the manner you described and in the manner that health officials warn against. That is the essence of what I was attempting to discuss in my column, that perhaps a greater caution is needed because, given the text of the proposal and its potential ramifications, marijuana access will change.

      Please feel free to contact the Daily Free Press if you would like to correspond more in the future.

      Best,

  4. It’s embarrassing reading prohibitionists arguments for arresting people for a plant which is far safer than alcohol, tobacco, OTC, and prescription pharmaceuticals. End the war. Yes on 4!

  5. More of the same pervasive ‘bias against the null hypothesis’ regarding the so called ‘dangers of cannabis’ while at the same time the multiple medical benefits are virtually ignored.

    I wish the writers of articles like this would clear up their own ignorance via simple google search for the 2 following terms ‘Cannabis, Apoptosis, Anti-angiogenesis’ (How TCH and CBD kill cancer cells via the CB1 and CB2 receptors) as well as a search for US patent number 6630507 that lists cannabinoids as neuro-protective agents.