Chronic[les]: Blunt Language and Joint Efforts

Author's Note: The following is not meant to examine the morality of cannabis use. It is meant to highlight the disparity between science and law, and the resulting struggle between what is logical and what is lawful. Whatever your feelings are on marijuana use, understand that the laws of the United States are purposefully ignorant.

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) defines Schedule I drugs as "substances, or chemicals... with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse." Apropos, cannabis is labeled as such a drug, wherein it carries stiff penalties for possession, use, distribution, and trafficking. It rubs shoulders, in fact, with the likes of heroin, LSD, Ecstasy, Quaalude, and peyote (which is approved only for certain religious rites of native tribes).

All of this begs a single, relevant question. Who says what "accepted medical use" is?

Apparently, that responsibility falls firmly on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Let's be clear, if it isn't already; the FDA is an Executive agency within the US Government. As an agency, they work closely with the DEA to regulate medical marijuana research.

Based on what we already know, let's establish a few things. Firstly, marijuana is a narcotic by order of the DEA. Secondly, a narcotic is a drug that dulls senses, relieves pain, or induces sleep (marijuana fits this description). Thirdly, narcotics in excessive doses can cause stupor, coma, or convulsions.

The first point is not one that is up for contention. That's a cold, hard fact. Point two really isn't up for contention either. Marijuana has been proven effective in pain management, cancer treatment, and numerous other neurological disorders. The third point, however, is where marijuana fails to fit the implied description.

I really hate to come at this entry with dictionary in hand, but it's important to know what words mean before we use them, or acquiesce to their incorrect use. It has a direct and measurable impact on the interpretation of the standards being applied. So, here we go....

Stupor is generally defined as "a condition of greatly dulled or completely suspended sense or sensibility" or "mental torpor." More elaborate descriptions explain the absence of response to all but the most base stimuli, such as pain, shock, bright light, or loud noise. There has never been a recorded case of a person smoking themselves unconscious. Asleep? Certainly. But never unresponsive.

Coma is an extended state of unconsciousness, lasting days, or even years. In this state, even extreme stimuli mentioned above are ineffective. Given that marijuana is not known to induce stupor, it's proven completely incapable of inducing coma.

That brings us to convulsions. Typically manifesting as rapid, uncontrolled muscle movements, loss of speech, and occasionally soiling oneself, it should be noted that cannabinoids have been successfully used in treating and preventing these symptoms. Epilepsy has been effectively treated by canabidiol (CBD), a chemical found only in marijuana.

Given that the three major, negative narcotic effects cannot be attributed or associated with marijuana, it seems unfair at this point to lump it in with known dangerous drugs. But is that enough to rest on? Hardly.

The DEA also stipulates that Schedule 1 drugs have a "high potential for abuse." This clause is not defined, nor is clarification given. However, we can infer what is meant by comparing it to Schedule 2 drugs, which also have "a high potential for abuse, with use potentially leading to severe psychological or physical dependence." So there you have it. Schedule 1 drugs like marijuana carry a high risk of psychological or physical dependence. But, does it?

Cannabis Use Disorder is a condition in which a cannabis user experiences some degree of dependence. Dependence is vastly different from addiction, but is often used as a proxy in surveys studying the possibility of cannabis addiction, so the proof of addiction is highly questionable. Around 9% of marijuana users (dependent on their age at the time habitual use begins) develop some degree of dependency. Physical dependence has not been identified (see my entry Chronc[les]: But not for the Gander for a description of the condition HYPERALGESIA associated with opioid abuse).

By way of comparison, 15% of alcohol users, 23% of heroin users, and 32% of tobacco users develop dependency. According to an article published by the New York Times, of heavy marijuana users who attempt to quit "...some get withdrawal symptoms such as irritability, sleeping difficulties and anxiety that are usually described as relatively mild." The painful, and sometimes life-threatening, ordeal of getting off of other drugs would place marijuana withdrawal somewhere in the range of 'mild hangover'.

That really only leaves one question. How dangerous is it to overdose on marijuana? Here's the thing... depending on how you define an overdose, it's effectively impossible to do. The amount of marijuana that it takes to kill a user is estimated to be 40,000 times greater than what it takes to get a user stoned. It must be estimated because the actual number hasn't been found yet. Though one could make the argument that an overdose is characterized by paranoia, vomiting, tremors, and other physiological symptoms that pass within 20-30 minutes.

The state of Oregon (oregon.gov) has available through their website a report issued by the Institute for Cannabis Therapeutics which states "...enormous doses of Delta 9 THC, All THC and concentrated marijuana extract ingested by mouth were unable to produce death or organ pathology in large mammals..." Smaller animals, like mice, did die. However, as the article points out, this dose would be equivalent to an average person (154lbs) eating 46lbs of marijuana. That's a lot of hooch. It should be noted, you can die by alcohol poisoning with as little as five times the intoxicating dose.

With all of this in mind, there's one issue that needs to be cleared up. By whose estimation is marijuana as dangerous as heroin or cocaine? By whose estimation is there no accepted medical use? As we established earlier, the DEA and FDA. But who are they? They're law makers and enforcers. The DEA and FDA are not lead by doctors, and the doctors that they do employ are tasked with ensuring compliance, not providing medical advice. The leaders are not medical professionals with extensive lab or research experience. Yet they hold all the keys and guard all the locks. They are the worst possible entities to have the responsibility of making medical recommendations.

There isn't a single scrap of evidence that marijuana is addictive, toxic, or carcinogenic. There are mountains of evidence that it has medical value. Habitual users only suffer minor psychological withdrawal symptoms. Occasional users experience no adverse side effects. Yet we jail people for inordinate periods of time for possession of a non-lethal, non-addictive, non-toxic plant. Because why? Because bureaucrats said so.

I'm neutral over the notion of recreational marijuana use. I have no more interest in whether people smoke out or drink. Although, alcohol intoxication has the tendency to make you think you can do anything, including drive, whereas marijuana intoxication makes you want to sit on the couch. In that respect, I'd rather people toked out than slam tequila.

I'm a considerable advocate for the use of medical marijuana. I've seen its effects first hand, and the more I learn about its advantages and safety of use, the more convinced I am in the failure of our government on yet another level. This is an under-investigated issue with myopic officials at the helm. There is no scientific reason to classify marijuana as it is.

Your elected officials, their representatives, appointees, and assignees say otherwise. Ignorance speaks. Loudly. Those in power are listening.