a couple corrections for you

Hi, Bruce –

For the record, my byline is Katherine, not Kathy. And I guess I can understand your frustration at not having a story that reflects your advocate’s view of marijuana as a safe , cure-all drug, appropriate for all ages. However, I stand by my reporting, which I think was a responsible effort to bring awareness to an increasing problem of irresponsible doctors given way too much leeway with an untested drug on adolescents.

- kathyellison November 25, 2009 10:28AM

Oh dear. I generally don’t like to get into fights with reporters, but I’m grateful that Opposing Views allowed me to post the following response:

First, Katherine, I apologize for using your name as you signed it on your emails to me rather than as published in your byline. Nevertheless, I find it frustrating that you appear to be deliberately misinterpreting both what I’ve written here and what I said on the phone during our lengthy conversation.

You know full well that I don’t consider marijuana a cure-all and that I do not expect you to endorse my opinions in print. I do expect you, in reporting a scientific issue, to actually address the relevant science in a way that will enlighten readers.

Your story failed to explain meaningful scientific evidence provided to you by both me and Paul Armentano suggesting a positive effect of marijuana on ADHD as well as the biochemical basis for such an effect being plausible. You included a scientifically nonsensical quote from Stephen Hinshaw calling marijuana for ADHD “one of the worst ideas of all time” because marijuana disrupts attention and memory in normal people. But we know that the brains of ADHD patients don’t work like those of normal people — which is why stimulants like Ritalin have a calming effect, the exact opposite of their effect on most of us. Did you even bother to ask Hinshaw this obvious followup question?

You also included a cavalier quote from Edward M. Hallowell claiming that marijuana use “can lead to a syndrome in which all the person wants to do all day is get stoned, and they do nothing else” — without bothering to note that this so-called “amotivational syndrome” has been debunked again and again. One example that I sent you, and which you apparently ignored, was the 1999 Institute of Medicine report commissioned by the White House, which states on pages 107-108, “When heavy marijuana use accompanies these symptoms, the drug is often cited as the cause, but no convincing data demonstrate a causal relationship between marijuana smoking and these behavioral characteristics.” Many other expert reviews have come to the same conclusion.

I am not asking you to agree with me or to tout marijuana as a cure-all, which it manifestly is not. As a longtime health journalist myself, all I am asking is for you to do your homework as a reporter.

Sad as it is to contemplate, kids do get deadly illnesses like cancer and AIDS. Medical marijuana dispensary operator Charles Lynch faced an enhanced federal prison sentence for providing medical marijuana to 17-year-old cancer patient Owen Beck, who survived his cancer partly thanks to Lynch’s help, and who attempted to testify on Lynch’s behalf but was barred from doing so. And millions of young people with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) have been prescribed stimulants like Ritalin and Adderall, whose side effects can include psychotic symptoms and interference with growth, not to mention sudden death when used by patients with some preexisting heart conditions.

Unfortunately, a story in Sunday’s New York Times looking at marijuana as a treatment for young people with ADHD managed to avoid shedding much light on the issue. Instead, the focus seemed to be on sensational quotes (“worst idea ever,” “safer than aspirin”) rather than a serious look at the science.

Writer Kathy Ellison did briefly reference a study in the journal Schizophrenia Research, but without properly explaining it. Of the 25 young people with ADHD in this study, the marijuana users scored healthier than non-users on nearly every measure of mental functioning, including specific measures of hyperactivity and disorganization. This was particularly striking because in the same study a separate group of individuals at genetic risk for schizophrenia were made worse by marijuana. The published study includes a discussion of the biochemical mechanisms by which marijuana might help ADHD. This is consistent with published case reports that have found a beneficial of THC on ADHD.

Meanwhile, ABC’s “Good Morning America” did a more respectful job in reporting on the mom of an autistic child who says that a small amount of marijuana, administered under a doctor’s care, has literally saved her child’s life. Others have told similar stories.

We don’t know nearly enough yet to state definitively that marijuana is helpful for youthful ADHD and autism. But we do know enough to say that proper research is urgently needed, and that this is a serious enough issue that the media need to treat it seriously.

The story quotes John Lovell, lobbyist for several California police groups and the major voice for maintaining prohibition: “We get revenue from alcohol,” he said. “But there’s way more in social costs than we retain in revenues.”

If that’s the best they can do, the debate is over. The main social cost of alcohol comes from its tendency to promote violent and aggressive behavior, something marijuana simply doesn’t do, as explained in this article from the journal Addictive Behaviors. Not long ago, an independent panel of experts rated alcohol as significantly more dangerous than marijuana, in an article published in the prestigious journal The Lancet (unfortunately, the summary of the article you can read online for free doesn’t include the chart ranking various drugs).

If we want to reduce the social costs associated with booze, evidence suggests giving adults a safer, legal alternative makes sense. Mr. Lovell, meet reality.

The New York Times weighed in on the marijuana debate July 17 with an article that tilted distinctly in the direction of unwarranted hysteria.

Built around a series of anecdotes involving individuals who got into difficulty with marijuana — which is entirely possible — the story fell apart when it got to the science.

For example, it referred to a 2004 Journal of the American Medical Association study that “suggested that the stronger cannabis is contributing to higher addiction rates.” But the Times failed to note that this study did not provide any actual evidence that higher-potency marijuana is leading to higher rates of abuse or dependence. While such a suggestion was offered by the authors, it was pure speculation, as the study was not designed to determine the effects of potency. And it was arrived at by ignoring relevant data.

According to the official diagnostic criteria, a person can be  diagnosed  as a ”substance abuser” because of ”recurrent substance-related legal problems” — without any other symptoms. During the period of the JAMA study, marijuana arrests skyrocketed, from 300,000 in 1991 to well over 700,000 in 2001. Given the complete lack of scientific evidence that high-potency marijuana is more addictive, the massive increase in arrests represent a more plausible explanation for the increase in purported “marijuana abuse.”

The story also failed to note that there is no scientific consensus that increases in potency represent any risk at all. For example, an examination of the issue published last year in the journal Addiction noted that claims about increased potency date back to at least 1975, but that “more research is needed to determine whether increased potency … translates to harm for users.”

And the Times, which gave little space to scientists not hysterical about marijuana, let all sorts of utter nonsense go unrefuted, including National Institute on Drug Abuse director Nora Volkow’s bizarre claim that “it’s going to take some real fatalities for people to pay attention” to marijuana. Given that the number of proven fatalities caused by marijuana’s direct effects remains zero, basic journalism should have required the Times to get a contrasting view from one of the many scientists with at least some grip on reality.