Dr. Sanjay Gupta says we have been misled on marijuana

  • Thread starter Greg Bernhardt
  • Start date
In summary: In Canada, where it's been decriminalized for personal use, the number of teenagers using it has dropped. This is likely due to the fact that it's no longer seen as "cool" or rebellious, and also because it's harder for them to access it since it's not sold by dealers on the street anymore. It's also easier to regulate and enforce age restrictions when it's legalized and sold through legitimate businesses.In summary, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, a medical expert and filmmaker, has changed his stance on marijuana and now advocates for its legalization. He has extensively researched the topic and found that the harm caused by criminalizing marijuana outweighs the potential harm of its use. Gupta argues that marijuana should not be classified as
  • #1
19,412
9,961
Over the last year, I have been working on a new documentary called "Weed." The title "Weed" may sound cavalier, but the content is not.
I traveled around the world to interview medical leaders, experts, growers and patients. I spoke candidly to them, asking tough questions. What I found was stunning.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/08/health/gupta-changed-mind-marijuana/

I know he's promoting his new show, but I doubt he'd risk his reputation on something like this if he didn't know what he was talking about.
 
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #2
Little surprise, if only more money would go into research to establish the chemical components responsible for the medicinal properties. Clearly one plant is not the other, there are many different strains with different properties.
 
  • #3
The latest study I read. Perhaps he forgot to read the latest, largest and longest study.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America - PNAS

Persistent cannabis users show neuropsychological decline from childhood to midlife

Abstract

Recent reports show that fewer adolescents believe that regular cannabis use is harmful to health. Concomitantly, adolescents are initiating cannabis use at younger ages, and more adolescents are using cannabis on a daily basis. The purpose of the present study was to test the association between persistent cannabis use and neuropsychological decline and determine whether decline is concentrated among adolescent-onset cannabis users. Participants were members of the Dunedin Study, a prospective study of a birth cohort of 1,037 individuals followed from birth (1972/1973) to age 38 y. Cannabis use was ascertained in interviews at ages 18, 21, 26, 32, and 38 y. Neuropsychological testing was conducted at age 13 y, before initiation of cannabis use, and again at age 38 y, after a pattern of persistent cannabis use had developed. Persistent cannabis use was associated with neuropsychological decline broadly across domains of functioning, even after controlling for years of education. Informants also reported noticing more cognitive problems for persistent cannabis users. Impairment was concentrated among adolescent-onset cannabis users, with more persistent use associated with greater decline. Further, cessation of cannabis use did not fully restore neuropsychological functioning among adolescent-onset cannabis users. Findings are suggestive of a neurotoxic effect of cannabis on the adolescent brain and highlight the importance of prevention and policy efforts targeting adolescents.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/08/22/1206820109.abstract
 
  • #4
Evo said:
The latest study I read. Perhaps he forgot to read the latest, largest and longest study.
He's read the studies. He used to be strongly on the other side of the fence. He has since switched, and I join him. Marijuana needs to be legalized. And not just for medical usage, but for all usage.

I don't use it, and I hope my children don't use it. We would be better off as a society if it didn't exist. That's just wishful thinking, though. It does exist. Criminalizing it has not worked. We should have learned our lesson from the failed experiment in making alcohol an illegal drug. That experiment didn't work, just as our war on drugs is not working. Our war on drugs has succeeded in one regard only: It has made the US into a gulag. While we have only 5% of the world's population, we have 25% of the world's prisoners. The harm done by the drug to a small fraction of its users pales in comparison to the harm done to society as a whole by making marijuana a class I narcotic.

With regard to the study you mentioned, Gupta has looked at it, along with 20,000 other studies. Almost all (94%) of the studies on marijuana in the US that are allowed to go forward are designed to find harm. It's a drug. Of course they'll find harm of some sort. There is also a harm in keeping it illegal. These competing harms need to be weighed against one another.
 
  • #6
Greg Bernhardt said:
It doesn't sound like he's saying it's completely safe. He's arguing against its harsh label of being a schedule 1 substance.
I agree it should be legalized and age restrictions placed on it, of course that might just make it even easier for more underaged kids to get their hands on it.

Sorry, DH, I didn't realize he had read about the irreversible neurological damage and psychosis caused by teenage smoking. I was surprised that it was buried so far down in the article and just a small blurb with no link to the studies. I think those studies are extremely important. I don't know if that is the reporter's fault or Gupta's. IMO, that should have been at the top with links.

DH said:
There is also a harm in keeping it illegal. These competing harms need to be weighed against one another.
Please post the sources for this. Are you talking about the illegal aspect? Isn't it a misdemeanor for small personal amounts?

Marijuana for medical purposes is available in a number of states already.
 
Last edited:
  • #7
Evo said:
The latest study I read. Perhaps he forgot to read the latest, largest and longest study.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America - PNAS



http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/08/22/1206820109.abstract

This study pertains to abuse by adolescents with developing brains; it's not particularly relevant in the bigger picture.
 
  • #8
Evo said:
The latest study I read. Perhaps he forgot to read the latest, largest and longest study.

Just to state the obvious: alcohol (also) causes irreversible neurological damage, especially for developing brains (fetal–adolescent). I'd like to see a study that shows the impact of alcohol vs marijuana use.
 
  • #9
Pythagorean said:
This study pertains to abuse by adolescents with developing brains; it's not particularly relevant in the bigger picture.

Uh ... how are adolescents not part of the bigger picture?
 
  • #10
Evo said:
I agree it should be legalized and age restrictions placed on it, of course that might just make it even easier for more underaged kids to get their hands on it.

Not sure what it's like in the states but in the UK weed is very, very easy to get hold of regardless of age, I remember kids easily selling it at school. I'm all for legalisation as part of a more sensible drugs policy with the biggest advantages I can see being raising money through taxes and fostering a more intelligent attitude to recreational drugs in general by allowing politicians to have proper discussions beyond polarised view points.
 
  • #11
I agree with lowering the classification of it but, I don't think that making it 100% legal is a good thing. Speaking from experience, it's definitely not good for the IQ. Still, I think that the existing federal laws and penalties are too severe.

Like many people, I've been watching the events of the last few years and it appears that the federal government has adopted a don't ask, don't tell attitude about state decisions to allow medical marijuana and/or decriminalize it. I haven't heard of any instances where the feds are attempting to procecute anyone in those states and I hope that it stays that way. I know that this will eventually lead to most or all of the states eventually having legal pot. But, perhaps gradually phasing it in will ease the potential euphoria that could otherwise occur - I would hate to see the whole country have a giant smoke party like some of the news stories that I saw after Colorado and Washington legalized it.
 
  • #12
phinds said:
Uh ... how are adolescents not part of the bigger picture?

"adolescents [are] not part of the bigger picture" is not what I said, but if you're missing the irrelevance of a nitpicking a single article vs. 2000 articles:

-marijuana is a schedule 1 narcotic - consider alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, are all non-medicinal drugs available over the counter.

-marijuana has medicianl benefits (which is the significant portion of the Dr.'s point) again, we have lots of medicines that you shouldn't just give to children that are not schedule 1 (especially amphetamines and opiates).

So this really has no bearing on the obscene legal classificaiton of the drug in the context of already available drugs that are much more harmful.
 
  • #14
Pythagorean said:
-marijuana has medicianl benefits (which is the significant portion of the Dr.'s point)
But these "medicinal benefits" have current legally available alternatives. Medical marijuana for sleep, nausea, minor pain, loss of appetite, and muscle tension aren't life threatening. Yes, I'm glad about the little girl with the seizures. Hopefully there will be studies on what, specifically, helps so that children are not at risk of neurological damage (if possible).

http://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/drugs-alcohol/5-common-uses-of-medical-cannabis.htm

I don't feel like searching, but the majority of people that get prescriptions for cannabis don't use it medically. As the guy that owns one of the largest medical marijuana chains in CA said, in truth, he just smokes it to get stoned. So until I decide to find the articles on it, I'll say IMO.

This is why I am ok with putting it in the same class with alcohol.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
Evo said:
But these "medicinal benefits" have current legally available alternatives. Medical marijuana for sleep, nausea, minor pain, loss of appetite, and muscle tension aren't life threatening.

Why buy it when you can grow it?
 
  • #16
Greg Bernhardt said:
Why buy it when you can grow it?
:tongue:
 
  • #17
No, that
"medicinal benefits" have current legally available alternatives.

I think that's only true of the fraudulent medical conditions people use to get a recreational pass. (I.e. the "5 most common")
 
  • #18
Pythagorean said:
No, that

I think that's only true of the fraudulent medical conditions people use to get a recreational pass. (I.e. the "5 most common")
Ah, I'd agree. In the documentary I saw, they were getting prescriptions for treatment of "allergies" and other nonsense and they were all laughing about it. It's this sort of thing that makes my blood boil. It's this sort of thing that hinders serious studies of potential medicinal uses. People see the fraud and vote down legalization for legitimate uses.
 
  • #19
That being said, I also think it should be in the same realm as alcohol legally. I'd even be willing to make a trade for alcohol if it had a chance of reducing drunk driving, domestic violence, etc. Of course, nobody would go for that: it would cause OWSx100.
 
  • #20
Pythagorean said:
That being said, I also think it should be in the same realm as alcohol legally. I'd even be willing to make a trade for alcohol if it had a chance of reducing drunk driving, domestic violence, etc. Of course, nobody would go for that: it would cause OWSx100.
It might not lead to domestic violence (can't fight when you're falling asleep). But that's why it's dangerous while driving. I have had the misfortune to be a passenger in a car where the driver was stoned on marijuana, veering into oncoming traffic, entering one way streets the wrong way, sideswiping cars, plowing into parked cars, walls, driving over esplanades, driving into railings, falling asleep at the wheel, setting themselves on fire, yes, joints exploding while driving is not good. It's a miracle I survived since the BIG thing when I was in my teens was for people to get into a car and light up.
 
  • #21
Evo said:
It might not lead to domestic violence (can't fight when you're falling asleep). But that's why it's dangerous while driving. I have had the misfortune to be a passenger in a car where the driver was stoned on marijuana, veering into oncoming traffic, entering one way streets the wrong way, sideswiping cars, plowing into parked cars, walls, driving over esplanades, driving into railings, falling asleep at the wheel, setting themselves on fire, yes, joints exploding while driving is not good. It's a miracle I survived since the BIG thing when I was in my teens was for people to get into a car and light up.
Ah, memories.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8pEKwVl9tA
 
  • #22
Evo said:
It might not lead to domestic violence (can't fight when you're falling asleep). But that's why it's dangerous while driving. I have had the misfortune to be a passenger in a car where the driver was stoned on marijuana, veering into oncoming traffic, entering one way streets the wrong way, sideswiping cars, plowing into parked cars, walls, driving over esplanades, driving into railings, falling asleep at the wheel, setting themselves on fire, yes, joints exploding while driving is not good. It's a miracle I survived since the BIG thing when I was in my teens was for people to get into a car and light up.

I'm not surprised such anecdotes exist, but I predict that if you were more rigorous and did the statistics driving under the influence of alcohol would have a much higher mortality rate vs. number of users than marijuana.

This study seems to confirm my intuition:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2722956/Similar findings, but with the caveat that this is scientific journalism reporting on a different study:

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-11-medical-marijuana-laws-traffic-deaths.htmland summaries from a pool of more studies:

http://norml.org/library/item/marijuana-and-driving-a-review-of-the-scientific-evidence
 
  • #23
Here is more recent study.

New Study Shows Cannabis Effects On Driving Skills

Mar. 1, 2013 New research appearing online today in Clinical Chemistry, the journal of AACC,

Cannabis is second only to alcohol for causing impaired driving and motor vehicle accidents. In 2009, 12.8% of young adults reported driving under the influence of illicit drugs and in the 2007 National Roadside Survey, more drivers tested positive for drugs than for alcohol. These cannabis smokers had a 10-fold increase in car crash injury compared with infrequent or nonusers after adjustment for blood alcohol concentration.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130301122256.htm

Your second link isn't a valid journal, nor does it give specifics, legalized medical marijuana is limited in both time, area and number of participants. For an economist to say he pulled some statistics, you must admit, is rather feeble. :biggrin:

norml (and their sources shown) aren't current and many don't meet peer review or acceptable journal criteria.

I am a firm believer in "don't take intoxicants and drive". I don't care what they are. Don't do it.

This has nothing to do with should it have the same status as alcohol, which I support. Do it and drive...no.
 
Last edited:
  • #24
More

To examine the link between marijuana use by drivers and risk of a car accident, researchers at Columbia University did a meta-analysis of nine epidemiologic studies and found that drivers who test positive for marijuana or report driving within three hours of marijuana use are more than twice as likely as other drivers to be involved in motor vehicle crashes. The researchers also found evidence that crash risk increases with the concentration of marijuana-produced compounds in the urine and the frequency of self-reported marijuana use.

According to the investigators 8 of 9 studies found that drivers who use marijuana are significantly more likely to be involved in crashes than drivers who do not. Only one small case-control study conducted in Thailand, where the prevalence of marijuana use is far lower than reported elsewhere, was the exception.

Full study findings are published online in Epidemiologic Reviews.

The analysis indicates that 28% of fatally injured drivers and more than 11% of the general driver population tested positive for non-alcohol drugs, with marijuana being the most commonly detected substance.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111006173453.htm
 
  • #25
Evo said:
I agree it should be legalized and age restrictions placed on it, of course that might just make it even easier for more underaged kids to get their hands on it.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448346/
We found no evidence to support claims that criminalization reduces use or that decriminalization increases use.

Conclusions. Drug policies may have less impact on cannabis use than is currently thought.
 
  • #26
Monique said:
Yes, it's hard to tell. I was thinking back to my youth and friends whose parents drank and smoked were always stealing their parents cigarettes and alcohol. My mother didn't drink or smoke, so I had no easy source, I never started smoking and didn't really start drinking until I was 24.
 
  • #27
In Maine, if you have a prescription for an accepted use (relief of arthritis pain, for instance), you can possesses up to 6 mature flowering plants. In practical terms, that's about the best you can do anyway since our growing season is so short. No way to get more going, unless you have a greenhouse.
 
  • #28
This also is related to the above study.

Clin Chem. 2013 Mar;59(3):478-92. doi: 10.1373/clinchem.2012.194381. Epub 2012 Dec 7.
BACKGROUND:
Cannabis is the most prevalent illicit drug identified in impaired drivers. The effects of cannabis on driving continue to be debated, making prosecution and legislation difficult. Historically, delays in sample collection, evaluating the inactive Δ(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) metabolite 11-nor-9-carboxy-THC, and polydrug use have complicated epidemiologic evaluations of driver impairment after cannabis use.
CONTENT:
We review and evaluate the current literature on cannabis' effects on driving, highlighting the epidemiologic and experimental data. Epidemiologic data show that the risk of involvement in a motor vehicle accident (MVA) increases approximately 2-fold after cannabis smoking. The adjusted risk of driver culpability also increases substantially, particularly with increased blood THC concentrations. Studies that have used urine as the biological matrix have not shown an association between cannabis and crash risk. Experimental data show that drivers attempt to compensate by driving more slowly after smoking cannabis, but control deteriorates with increasing task complexity. Cannabis smoking increases lane weaving and impaired cognitive function. Critical-tracking tests, reaction times, divided-attention tasks, and lane-position variability all show cannabis-induced impairment. Despite purported tolerance in frequent smokers, complex tasks still show impairment.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23220273
 
Last edited:
  • #29
D H said:
Marijuana needs to be legalized. And not just for medical usage, but for all usage.
Indeed!
 
  • #30
Cannabis is the most prevalent illicit drug identified in impaired drivers
More prevalent than alcohol?
 
  • #31
Monique said:
More prevalent than alcohol?
Illicit, alcohol is legal here if you are 21 or older, and it is legal to drive with a blood alcohol level below .08. It used to vary by state, but I recently read that most states have agreed upon the lower .08 level.
 
Last edited:
  • #32
I really don't get the replies here, the topic is that people have been misled on marijuana. What? It should be a schedule 1 drug, because you shouldn't smoke and drive? That's not a good argument, check the requirements for schedule 1 drugs:

* The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
* The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
* There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

That's what should be argued.
 
  • #33
Monique said:
I really don't get the replies here, the topic is that people have been misled on marijuana. What? It should be a schedule 1 drug, because you shouldn't smoke and drive? That's not a good argument, check the requirements for schedule 1 drugs:

* The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
* The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
* There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

That's what should be argued.
Obviously marijuana does not fall under those three criteria. Unfortunately, attempts to remove it from the Schedule 1 classification have failed.

*Warning: the following wikipedia excerpt is not peer reviewed. :tongue:

Since 1972, there have been numerous proposals in the United States to remove cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, the most tightly restricted category reserved for drugs which have "no currently accepted medical use". Rescheduling proponents argue that cannabis does not meet the Controlled Substances Act's strict criteria for placement in Schedule I, and therefore the government is required by law either to permit medical use or to remove the drug from federal control altogether. The government, on the other hand, maintains that cannabis is dangerous enough to merit Schedule I status. The dispute is based on differing views on how the Act should be interpreted and what kinds of scientific evidence are most relevant to the rescheduling decision.
continued...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_cannabis_from_Schedule_I_of_the_Controlled_Substances_Act

Even if it were legalized, I wouldn't use it unless it was in a pill or liquid form. I am against inhaling concentrated smoke of any kind to avoid damage to my lungs.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
Evo said:
Even if it were legalized, I wouldn't use it unless it was in a pill or liquid form. I am against inhaling concentrated smoke of any kind to avoid damage to my lungs.

A reason why I say more money needs to go to research and regulations should be less strict. A friend of mine is a senior in a company that researches these plants, but they always run into legislation and are regularly operating in a grey area. They have been on the verge of bankruptcy for years, but somehow manage to get by.

And if it is legal you don't have to use it, just like you don't have to smoke cigarettes just because they're legal (which are far more harmful btw).
 
  • #35
Dr Gupta's show "weed" will be aired tonight on CNN at 7pm CST. Should be interesting.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
<h2>1. What did Dr. Sanjay Gupta say about marijuana?</h2><p>Dr. Sanjay Gupta, a neurosurgeon and medical correspondent for CNN, stated that he had previously been misled about the potential benefits and risks of marijuana, but after extensive research, he now believes that it has legitimate medical uses and should be reclassified by the government.</p><h2>2. How has Dr. Gupta's stance on marijuana changed?</h2><p>Dr. Gupta's previous stance on marijuana was that it had no medical value and should remain a Schedule I drug. However, after researching and interviewing patients and experts, he now believes that it has potential medical benefits and should be reclassified as a Schedule II drug.</p><h2>3. What are the potential medical uses of marijuana?</h2><p>According to Dr. Gupta, marijuana has shown potential in treating various conditions such as chronic pain, epilepsy, and anxiety. It has also been found to be helpful in managing symptoms of multiple sclerosis and cancer treatment side effects.</p><h2>4. How has the government's classification of marijuana affected research?</h2><p>The government's classification of marijuana as a Schedule I drug has made it difficult for researchers to conduct studies on its potential medical benefits. This has hindered the progress of understanding the drug's effects and potential uses.</p><h2>5. What changes does Dr. Gupta suggest regarding marijuana?</h2><p>Dr. Gupta suggests that marijuana should be reclassified as a Schedule II drug, allowing for more research to be conducted on its potential medical uses. He also believes that it should be made available for medical use in all states and that the government should regulate and tax it similarly to alcohol and tobacco.</p>

1. What did Dr. Sanjay Gupta say about marijuana?

Dr. Sanjay Gupta, a neurosurgeon and medical correspondent for CNN, stated that he had previously been misled about the potential benefits and risks of marijuana, but after extensive research, he now believes that it has legitimate medical uses and should be reclassified by the government.

2. How has Dr. Gupta's stance on marijuana changed?

Dr. Gupta's previous stance on marijuana was that it had no medical value and should remain a Schedule I drug. However, after researching and interviewing patients and experts, he now believes that it has potential medical benefits and should be reclassified as a Schedule II drug.

3. What are the potential medical uses of marijuana?

According to Dr. Gupta, marijuana has shown potential in treating various conditions such as chronic pain, epilepsy, and anxiety. It has also been found to be helpful in managing symptoms of multiple sclerosis and cancer treatment side effects.

4. How has the government's classification of marijuana affected research?

The government's classification of marijuana as a Schedule I drug has made it difficult for researchers to conduct studies on its potential medical benefits. This has hindered the progress of understanding the drug's effects and potential uses.

5. What changes does Dr. Gupta suggest regarding marijuana?

Dr. Gupta suggests that marijuana should be reclassified as a Schedule II drug, allowing for more research to be conducted on its potential medical uses. He also believes that it should be made available for medical use in all states and that the government should regulate and tax it similarly to alcohol and tobacco.

Similar threads

Replies
64
Views
8K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
8K
Back
Top