For decades, prohibitionists have claimed that marijuana is a “gateway drug” that inevitably leads to use of harder substances like heroin and cocaine — despite the fact that every objective study ever done on the gateway theory has determined that it’s absolute crap.

Last week, researchers at the University of New Hampshire released yet another study discrediting the gateway theory. Their findings, based on survey data from more than 1,200 students in Florida public schools, showed that a person’s likelihood to use harder drugs has more to do with social and environmental factors than whether or not they’ve ever tried marijuana.

"There seems to be this idea that we can prevent later drug problems by making sure kids never smoke pot," lead researcher Dr. Karen Van Gundy, associate professor of sociology at UNH, told CBS News. "But whether marijuana smokers go on to use other illicit drugs depends more on social factors like being exposed to stress and being unemployed - not so much whether they smoked a joint in the eighth grade."

These findings echo virtually every other previous study done on the topic. In 2008, for example, the RAND Corporation found that “[t]he gateway theory has little evidence to support it, despite copious research,” and the federal government’s own Institute of Medicine, in a report commissioned by the drug czar’s office, has declared that “[t]here is no evidence that marijuana serves as a stepping stone [to other drugs] on the basis of its particular physiological effect.”

In a news release last week, the UNH researchers urged American drug policy makers to reconsider current penalties in light of their findings. “Employment in young adulthood can protect people by 'closing' the marijuana gateway, so over-criminalizing youth marijuana use might create more serious problems if it interferes with later employment opportunities,” Van Gundy said.

Of course, no one should expect these findings to have much of an impact on prohibitionists’ rhetoric, since that would require them to acknowledge, well … reality. But it was encouraging to see this study reported in such mainstream news outlets as The Los Angeles Times, Business Week, and CBS News. The next time some dishonest prohibitionist tries to call marijuana a gateway drug in print or on the air, any reporter or anchor worth their salt should be able to point out that there isn't any scientific evidence to support the gateway theory. But maybe that’s wishful thinking.

Read more

British scientists warn increasing hostility toward scientific evidence that contradicts political agendas could hinder the collaborative relationship policy and science enjoys in Britain, the Guardian reported yesterday.

Last November, the British government ignored the advice of its Scientific Advisory Board and moved marijuana into a more dangerous class of drugs, a move described by top scientists at the time as "a sad departure from the welcome trend … of public policy following expert scientific advice."

Of course, here in the United States, government has been ignoring its scientific advisors on marijuana policy for decades, at least since Nixon first lined his bird cage with the two-year study he commissioned recommending marijuana's decriminalization.

And that unwelcome trend continues to this very day here, as evidenced by drug czar Gil Kerlikowske's recent lie that marijuana "has no medicinal benefit." Not sure who Kerlikowske's scientific advisors are, but the one we taxpayers use, the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine, says: "Nausea, appetite loss, pain, and anxiety … all can be mitigated by marijuana."

Then again, it doesn't take a scientist to know that it's wrong to deny sick people medicine that eases their pain, or to arrest responsible adults because they prefer a drug that's safer than alcohol or tobacco.

Read more

Apparently, the Iowa Board of Pharmacy's standard of proof for the efficacy and safety of medical marijuana is pretty high. Much higher, than that of, say, the National Academy of Science's Institute of Medicine, which in 1999 concluded, "Nausea, appetite loss, pain, and anxiety are all afflictions of wasting and all can be mitigated by marijuana."

The board was required by a court order to evaluate the scientific evidence surrounding medical marijuana Monday to determine whether it ought to be reclassified under the state's controlled substances list.

But the board's justification for rejecting the evidence presented said much more about the board's condescending attitude toward medial marijuana and its advocates than it did about the evidence itself.

Seizing on one small point made by advocates – that 13 states had already passed medical marijuana laws – here's what Guthrie County pharmacist DeeAnn Wedemeyer-Oleson had to say:

I liken this a lot to when I was a junior in high school and I pleaded to my dad that the time I should be allowed to stay out at night should be extended to one o'clock in the morning.

I said, I was a junior in high school and all my other friends got to stay out until one o'clock in the morning. And he said, 'well if all of your friends jumped off the bridge, does that mean you should jump off the bridge?'

That's cool. I liken Wedemeyer-Oleson's logic to when I was in kindergarten and would stick my fingers in my ears and sing loudly whenever a grownup would try to tell me something I didn't want to hear.

[update: Carl Olsen, whose group won the court order that led to the pharm board's review, makes an important point in comment #3 that I missed in my original post. The argument that 13 states already accept medical marijuana's safety and efficacy is by no means small. It should have been crucial to the board's decision if they'd applied the Iowa legal standard of whether marijuana has any accepted medical use in the United States. Thanks for clarifying that, Carl.]

Read more

On March 17, 1999, the Institute of Medicine -- in a report commissioned by the White House -- declared, "Nausea, appetite loss, pain, and anxiety are all afflictions of wasting and all can be mitigated by marijuana."

The report acknowledged the drawbacks of smoking and urged creation of a "rapid-onset, nonsmoked cannabinoid delivery system," but added, "In the meantime, there are patients with debilitating symptoms for whom smoked marijuana might provide relief." Studies published since 1999 have verified that marijuana vaporizers provide just the sort of rapid, nonsmoked delivery the IOM suggested.

Federal officials disregarded -- and sometimes baldly misstated -- the findings, prompting co-author Dr. John Benson to tell the New York Times in 2006 that the government "loves to ignore our report. ... They would rather it never happened."

Now, we have a new president who speaks regularly of letting scientific data, not ideology, drive policy, and who has said he would put an end to Drug Enforcement Administration raids aimed at undermining state medical marijuana laws. Is a new and more rational day finally dawning?

Those in the Washington, D.C., area can catch what should be a lively discussion of the IOM report and its impact hosted by the Cato Institute on March 17, featuring MPP executive director Rob Kampia and University of California researcher Dr. Donald Abrams, whose studies have further documented marijuana's medical value, and medical marijuana opponent Robert Dupont. Click here for details and reservation information.

Read more

A systematic review and accompanying commentary in the June 17 issue of CMAJ, the medical journal published by the Canadian Medical Association, look at the side effects of cannabinoid medications. The results are generally reassuring.

Researchers reviewed published studies of various cannabinoid preparations, including Marinol, the THC pill, and Sativex, a marijuana-based oral spray (but not, unfortunately, smoked or vaporized whole marijuana). They found no increase in serious or life-threatening reactions to the drugs as compared to placebo. The less serious side effects that did occur were just what you'd expect -- dizziness, for example. But the commentators expressed concern over the relative lack of data on smoked marijuana and on long-term use of other cannabinoids.

We could have such data if the U.S. government wanted us to. The Feds have been giving medical marijuana to a small number of patients for over 30 years in a program closed to new enrollment in 1992, but have never published any data on these patients, of whom only four now survive. And back in 1999 the Institute of Medicine raised the possibility of doing "n-of-1 studies" (for example, by reopening that closed federal program) in order to collect data while allowing access to medical marijuana for patients in great need. The suggestion was ignored.

Once again, our government is doing everything it can to avoid knowing that medical marijuana is safe and effective.

Read more

The other day I had a lengthy discussion with two producers at a national TV network. It was an unnerving lesson in what we're up against as we try to educate the mainstream media.

The network had just broadcast a completely uncritical story on a report from a private think tank that serves as a drug war cheerleader. It had reported completely preposterous claims about supposed dangers of increased marijuana potency causing lung cancer or sending thousands to emergency rooms as if they were undisputed fact. I'd called to complain, and to their credit the producers called back.

Also to their credit, they asked tough questions about the points I was making. I want reporters to do that, as I never make statements to journalists that I can't back up with published scientific evidence. And I do think the discussion made some progress (which is why I'm not naming names). But it also became clear that they never applied the same level of skepticism to claims made by prohibitionists. 

As we discussed the evidence that marijuana smokers don't have higher lung cancer rates and that THC and other cannabinoids have documented anti-cancer activity, I mentioned that the 1999 Institute of Medicine report stated that marijuana has not been proven to cause any type of cancer. "But that was 1999," one of the producers said. "With the increased potency now, it's a whole different drug!" 

She had no idea she'd just repeated a completely fictional White House talking point as if it were revealed truth. 

I patiently explained that the notion that the claimed doubling of THC levels makes today's marijuana "a whole different drug" makes no more sense than to claim that wine is a different drug than beer because it contains about three times the alcohol -- a notion no one would take seriously. I also noted that higher potency would decrease any lung cancer risk, because users would get more THC (which fights cancer) with less smoke, and it's the smoke that contains any potentially carcinogenic compounds. 

The producers believed they had done due diligence in researching the think tank's claims: "We checked them with the National Institute on Drug Abuse." The idea that a government agency that has long been an integral part of the drug war might not be a completely impartial source regarding marijuana had not occurred to them.

They listened to me. I think they heard. I hope they understood.

Read more