C A N N A B I S & A D D I C T I O N
THE FALSE versus THE FACTS
(c) 1997 Ian Williams Goddard
The journal SCIENCE (06/27/97) [1] recently published two
studies on marijuana, also known as cannabis, purporting to
establish not only a similarity in the neurological effects
of cannabis and hard drugs such as heroin and cocaine, but
also a causal link between cannabis use and addiction to
hard drugs.
The Washington Post [2] claims these studies indicate
"Marijuana may be a far more insidious drug than generally
thought, and apparently alters the brain chemistry of pot
smokers in ways that may make them particularly vulnerable
to 'hard' drugs such as heroin or cocaine..." As the
journal SCIENCE states [1a]:
Compared to drugs such as heroin and cocaine,
many people consider marijuana a relatively
benign substance. But two studies [1b] [1c]
in this issue demonstrate disturbing simi-
larities between marijuana's effects on the
brain and those produced by highly addictive
drugs such as cocaine and heroin.
The studies were conducted by Scripps Research Institute
(SRI) in California [1b][3] and the Universidad Complutense
de Madrid (UCM) in Spain [1c][4]. Both studies were funded
by the U.S. federal government via the National Institute
on Drug Abuse (NIDA) [5].
WHAT THE SRI STUDY ACTUALLY SHOWS
The SRI study is purported to demonstrate that cannabis
induces addiction-related neuroadaptive effects in the
limbic system of the rat brain in a fashion identical to
that induced by alcohol, cocaine, and opiates. However,
while the psychoactive agent in cannabis is THC, the psy-
choactive agent used in the SRI study was not THC but the
synthetic drug HU-210 [6], which is said to be like THC.
I called SRI to ask if HU-210 is found in the cannabis
herb and was informed that it is not found in cannabis.
Therefore, as a matter of fact, the SRI study tells us
nothing about the neurological effects of any chemical
found in cannabis. Nevertheless, we are being told the
study indicates that cannabis is more dangerous than we
thought, which is false and misleading. But the study
is even more misleading.
When users of drugs such as alcohol, cocaine, or opiates
withdraw from the use of those drugs, neurons [7], or
brain cells, in the amygdala [8] begin producing CRF
(corticotropin-releasing factor) [9], which in turn pro-
motes stressful symptomology associated with withdrawal.
Unlike alcohol, cocaine, or opiates, however, THC in can-
nabis is eliminated from the body very slowly, lingering
for days after the psychoactive effect has passed. This
prevents brain cells from experiencing a sudden THC with-
drawal, and thus prevents them from going "cold-turkey."
It is believed that the slow release of THC may account
for the mild-to-null withdrawal symptoms, and thus low
incidence of addiction, associated with cannabis. As
the SRI study observes [1]:
A clear-cut abstinence syndrome is rarely
reported [by cannabis users], presumably
because of the long half-life of cannabi-
noids, which precludes the emergence of
abrupt abstinence symptoms...
However, the plan of SRI researchers was to shut down
the anti-addiction mechanism associated with THC by arti-
ficial intervention in an effort to force brain cells to
go "cold turkey." Then, it seems, if levels of the with-
drawal-symptom-inducing agent CRF were found to have in-
creased, the researchers would, as they did, extrapolate
from those findings that cannabis may be more addictive
than previously thought. However, that extrapolation is
false and misleading, because the study was designed to
artificially induce withdrawal symptoms.
According to the design of the study, SRI researchers in-
jected rats for two weeks with the synthetic drug HU-210
-- which like THC is released from the body very slowly --
and then suddenly replaced HU-210 with SR-141716A, which
blocks the uptake of HU-210 by brain cells. This sudden
blocking of HU-120 by the antagonist SR-141716A forced
brain cells to experience a sudden withdrawal of HU-210.
As a result, brain cells did begin to release the addic-
tive-stress-inducing agent CRF in the very same fashion
observed during heroin, cocaine, and alcohol withdrawal.
Because the sudden withdrawal of HU-210 forced by the
intervention of SR-141716A caused withdrawal symptoms in
the rat brain, the SRI researchers and the press extrapo-
late that for humans, without being blocked by SR-141716A,
THC in cannabis, which was not even used in the study,
"may be a far more insidious drug than generally thought,"
[2] and even worse, that cannabis could promote addiction
to hard drugs.
These tortured and outrageous extrapolations stretch reason
beyond breaking. Not only did the SRI study fail to use THC
in a study being used to demonize THC, but the SRI research-
ers deliberately sabotaged the natural anti-addiction mechan-
isms associated with THC, and then once sabotaged, proceeded
to suggest that cannabis is more addictive than previously
assumed. That is clearly false and misleading.
To dismantle the natural anti-addiction mechanism of a
chemical like THC and to then propose that THC is more addic-
tive than we thought is exactly like testing the safety of
Ford cars by testing a group of Hondas, which are like Fords,
that have had their brakes dismantled, and then after the
predictable results declaring: "Fords are more dangerous
than we thought." It's simply outrageous.
The SRI researchers manufactured artificial conditions and
results and then propose that those artificial conditions
apply to natural conditions -- that is inherently false.
Is it a coincidence that SRI's manufactured results are
exactly the results that their federal financiers would
most likely want as a logical adjunct to federal efforts
to demonize the safe and medically effective herb cannabis?
WHAT THE UCM STUDY ACTUALLY SHOWS
The Universidad Complutense de Madrid (UCM) study in Spain
[1c], also funded by NIDA, demonstrated that in laboratory
rats, both heroin and THC increased extracellular concentra-
tions of the neurotransmitter dopamine [10] in the exterior
portion of the nucleus accumbens located in the central
brain [8]. Dopamine is strongly associated with pleasure.
The tortured line of reasoning that the UCM study is being
used to foster is that because THC activates neurological
systems associated with pleasure and because heroin activates
neurological systems associated with pleasure, THC tends to
be equivalent to heroin and thus cannabis could lead to
heroin addiction.
While the UCM study highlights purported neuro-reactive
similarities between THC and heroin, the UCM study makes
light of the fact that nicotine also increases dopamine
levels in the brain -- strange, the lack of arm-waving
hysteria over fear that nicotine will lead to heroin
addiction. Contrary to the media hype, the UCM study
does not actually present any evidence that THC causes
or leads to heroin addiction.
TO THE CONTRARY
Contrary to the claim that cannabis use may promote hard-
drug use, research indicates that where cannabis is decrim-
inalized, and thus is more available, there is an inverse
cannabis "stepping-stone" effect that causes people to be
attracted away from lethal hard drugs and toward the rela-
tively safe and available cannabis herb. For example, a
Rand Corporation study published in the Journal of the
American Statistical Association (09/93 v.88, #423) found
in the 12 states that decriminalized cannabis between 1973
and 1978, the number of hospital emergency-room visits
for hard drugs dropped. [11] So as a matter of fact,
cannabis can act as a gateway away from hard drugs.
THE FACTS ABOUT CANNABIS AND ADDICTION
Research clearly indicates not only 1) that the majority
of those who use cannabis at some point in their life do
not become cannabis addicts, but 2) that the majority of
current cannabis users are not cannabis addicts:
1. (a) The 1993 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse
[12] found that of Americans age 12 and above, approximately
34% had used cannabis at some point in their life; however,
in the past year only 9% used cannabis, while in the past
month only 4.3%, and in the past week only 2.8%.
(b) A longitudinal study published by the Department of
Health and Human Services found a high "discontinuation
rate" for cannabis use. The study followed a group of high
school seniors from 1975 to 1989. While in high school
(1975) 77% of the group used cannabis; however, by 1989
only 26% of the group had used cannabis in the last year,
and only 16% had used it in the past month. [13]
2. Approximately 91% of cannabis users are not addicted
to cannabis according to the SRI study in the journal
SCIENCE [1], which references extensive research [14]
indicating that only "9% of cannabis users may meet
criteria for substance dependence." In absolute contrast
to cannabis, tobacco is ten times more addictive, with
a full 90% of all tobacco users using tobacco at a rate
defined as dependent. [15]
The reason cannabis is not as addictive as other drugs is
simply because the discontinuation of use results in only
mild withdrawal symptoms, if any at all. In one study
found in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
[16], sudden withdrawal of THC resulted in mild withdrawal
symptoms. The human subjects in that study were given oral
doses of 180 to 210 mg of THC -- equivalent to upwards of
20 joints -- per day, then the doses were suddenly stopped.
The researchers observed that the resulting mild withdrawal
symptoms, which included poor sleep and restlessness, might
not manifest in cases were normal doses of THC are used.
It is common knowledge among professionals in the field of
of drug-abuse research that cannabis is the least addictive
drug. For example, The New York Times (08/02/94) [17] pub-
lished the following addiction-risk ratings:
How Experts Rate Problem Substances
Dr. Jack E. Henningfield of the National
Institute on Drug Abuse and Dr. Neal L.
Benowitz of the University of California
at San Francisco ranked six substances...
1 = Most serious 6 = Least serious
Henningfield Ratings
Substance Withdrawal Dependence
Nicotine 3 1
Heroin 2 2
Cocaine 4 3
Alcohol 1 4
Caffeine 5 5
+ Marijuana ---> 6 ----> 6
Benowitz Ratings
Substance Withdrawal Dependence
Nicotine 3* 4
Heroin 2 2
Cocaine 3* 1
Alcohol 1 4
Caffeine 4 5
+ Marijuana ---> 5 ----> 6
As we can see, the experts consistently ranked cannabis
the "least serious" drug in key measures of addictivity.
"Least serious" could also be defined as "safest." And
yet in 1995 approximately 500,619 people were arrested
in the US for possession of the safest drug. [18] Over
10 million have been arrested for cannabis since 1965.
[19] Consuming space needed to house violent offenders,
approximately 17% of federal prisoners are in prison
for violating cannabis laws. [19] Is this logical? No.
CONCLUSION
The evidence clearly indicates that with cannabis, unlike
the hard drugs, most people can take it or leave it and
come-and-go as they please. While cannabis may share some
neuro-reactive similarities with hard drugs as defined in
the UCM study, it is misleading to suggest an equivalence
between cannabis and hard drugs based upon the manufactured
results in the SRI study or upon the findings of UCM study.
Ironically, the effort to establish an equivalence between
cannabis and heroin is more likely to induce cannabis users
to try heroin. For example, the drug dealer who has only a
supply of heroin tells the disappointed cannabis consumer:
"Well, try this heroin... Don't worry about addiction, SRI
and UCM researchers say heroin is about the same as pot."
In short, it could very well be the misleading extrapola-
tions derived from the SRI and UCM studies, not cannabis,
that will lead cannabis consumers to use hard drugs.
**********************************************************************
Visit Ian Williams Goddard ------> http://www.erols.com/igoddard
______________________________________________________________________
REFERENCES___________________________________________________________
[1] SCIENCE: Drug Addiction: Marijuana: Harder Than Thought?
Vol. 276, no. 532127, June, 27 1997, pages: 2048-2054.
[1a] http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/276/5321/1967
[1b] http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/276/5321/2050
[1c] http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/276/5321/2048
[2] THE WASHINGTON POST: Marijuana's Effects on Brain Studied.
By Curt Suplee, Friday, June 27, 1997; A10-11.
http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1997-06/27/162L-062797-idx.html
[3] Scripps Research Institute: http://www.scripps.edu
[4] Universidad Complutense de Madrid: http://www.ucm.es
[5] NIDA: http://www.nida.nih.gov
[6] HU-210 (delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol dimethyl heptyl) is the synthetic
cannabinoid used in the Scripps study. HU-210 is not found in
cannabis.
In the SRI study, HU-120 was used in place of THC (delta-9-
tetrahydrocannabinol). THC is found in cannabis.
[7] Neurons: http://www.norml.org/research/ref/ota/ota_1/ota_bx1a.html
http://www.dac.neu.edu/units/bouve/pt/pth1366/pharm.htm
[8] Human brain: http://data.club.cc.cmu.edu/~julie/brainstuff/index.html
[9] CRF: http://www.beri.co.jp/scop/data/scop.1.008.011.001.001.001.html
[10] Dopamine (C8H11NO2): http://ils.unc.edu/dopamine/dopahome.html
[11] JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION: "The Effect of
Marijuana
Decriminalization on Hospital Emergency Room Drug Episodes,
1975-1978."
By K.E. Model, Sept. 1993, v.88, #423 p.11.
Abst:
http://www.rand.org/cgi-bin/Abstracts/getab.pl?11328626-11329761
[12] 1993 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, MD.
[13] Drug Use Among American High School Seniors, College Students and
Young
Adults, 1975-1990, Vol II (1992), p 31. By L.D. Johnston, P.M.
O'Malley,
J.G. Bachman. Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, MD.
Abstract: http://sunspot.health.org/pages/ru-20050.html
[14] INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADDICTION: J.Halikas, et al. (20)701 (1985).
PHARMOCOLOGICAL REVIEW: L.Hollister. (38)1 (1986).
EXPERIMENTAL CLINICAL PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY: J.Anthoney, et al. (2)244
(1994).
[15] Nicotine Dependance, 1997, Treatment Research Center,
Department of Psychiarty, University of Pennsylvania.
Text: http://www.med.upenn.edu/%7Erecovery/nicotine.html
[16] Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: "Clinical Studies of
Cannabis
Tolerance and Dependence," Jones, R.T. et al, 282:221-39, 1976.
[17] THE NEW YORK TIMES: Is Nicotine Addictive? It Depends On Whose
Criteria You Use. By Philip J. Hilts, August 2, 1994, p. C3.
Text: http://www.pantless.com/~pdxnorml/NYT_addictive_080294.html
[18] Marijuana Arrest Record: http://www.mpp.org/arrest95.html
[19] Marijuana Arrests and Incarceration in the United States:
Preliminary Report. By Chuck Thomas, Marijuana Policy
Project, December 1995. http://www.mpp.org/arrest94.html
Thanks to THE LINDESMITH CENTER
(http://www.soros.org/lindesmith)
for pointing to this addiction data:
http://www.soros.org/lindesmith/exposing/claim9.html
This report will be found at:
http://www.erols.com/igoddard/hemp-add.htm
Other reports by Ian W Goddard on cannabis:
http://www.erols.com/igoddard/hemp-med.htm
http://www.erols.com/igoddard/hempsafe.htm
(c) 1997 Ian Williams Goddard - Free to copy nonprofit with attribute.
**********************************************************************
Visit Ian Williams Goddard ------> http://www.erols.com/igoddard
***********************************************************
Visit the Cackling Grackle commentary page
Return to Patrick's Altered States Page
Return to Patrick's Weird Politics Page