Big Jolly Politics

politics in Harris County and Texas

Legalizing marijuana debate part 4

by

hunter white marijuana
Hunter White

Round Two: Rebutting Rebuttal
By Hunter J. White
Written 3/19/18

I have been called on to respond to claims made by Mr. Degeyter. Mr. Degeyter has specifically taken issue with three points made in my rebuttal to Mr. Katz’s wild claim that “marijuana is the most dangerous drug of all time.” Mr. Degeyter’s issue seems to break down into three primary points. First, Mr. Degeyter takes issue with the claim that marijuana is not a gateway drug. Second, Mr. Degeyter claims that marijuana does not provide lifesaving medicine to people. Finally, Mr. Degeyter claims that people in fact overdose on marijuana and it is potentially fatal.

Gateway Drug Round Two

Mr. Degeyter has taken issue with one of the studies I put forward debunking the well-worn claim that marijuana is a gateway drug. What appears to be at issue here is determining correlation, and causation.

What I find particularly shocking is how the National Institute of Drug Abuse study Mr. Degeyter has quoted in his rebuttal was used. Mr. Degeyter quotes, “When discussing cross-sensitization studies NIDA states, ‘These findings are consistent with the idea of marijuana as a “gateway drug.”’”

However, Mr. Degeyter fails to finish the quote in the same line which goes on to state: “However, the majority of people who use marijuana do not go on to use other, ‘harder’ substances. Also, cross-sensitization is not unique to marijuana. Alcohol and nicotine also prime the brain for a heightened response to other drugs”[1] Cherry-picking is fun, but misleading when we quote scientific studies. To accuse me of misleading readers, while Mr. Degeyter misleads readers regarding the study I quoted seems disingenuous and counterproductive to making the point. Taken together, the quote supports my position that there is nothing intrinsic in marijuana use that makes a user more likely to use harder drugs.

Simply put, other factors play a much greater part in deterring later hard drug use. Race, socioeconomic status,[2] geographic location, mental health, genetics, family support structures, and social interactions play a much greater part in determining later hard drug use. This is exactly what I stated and cited. These factors, of course, appear to get a pass from Mr. Degeyter. Of note, Mr. Degeyter only addressed one of the numerous studies I offered to support my rebuttal of Mr. Katz’s claim. Taken holistically, with numerous studies suggesting that marijuana is not unique as a gateway drug, that other substances such as alcohol have stronger correlations with harder drug use, and that other factors have larger roles in determining later hard drug use (such as those I explicitly state), I am confident that marijuana is not a gateway drug. For reference, I will include ten more studies to bolster my claim beyond the numerous ones cited in my original article that Mr. Degeyter failed to address[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. Perhaps Mr. Degeyter will take the time to read all of my citations, before picking just one line from one study to take issue with.

I find it challenges credulity that Mr. Degeyter seeks to parse out the difference between using the chemical compounds of marijuana, which Mr. Degeyter seems to accept as not causing later hard drug use, and the act of using substances containing those drugs, which magically does cause later hard drug use.

Marijuana and the definition of “lifesaving”

Improving quality of life means “lifesaving.” To suggest otherwise seems to underscore either a disingenuous engagement with the argument presented, or a complete naiveté of what it means to suffer or know someone who suffers with chronic debilitating conditions. If marijuana relieves chronic pain, that is saving someone’s life. It may not cure the underlying condition, but it makes life bearable and worth living. As someone who represents those in matters of Social Security, you would think Mr. Degeyter would have firsthand knowledge of what even minor relief from the agony of chronic disease would mean to those who suffer.

I would like Mr. Degeyter to tell the thousands of Texas veterans who use marijuana to stave off the insidious creeping thoughts of PTSD induced suicidal ideation that marijuana has not saved their lives.[14] Would Mr. Degeyter care to look cancer patients in the eyes and tell them that marijuana has not saved their lives by relieving them of the agonizing pain of chemotherapy[15] and giving them a chance to eat an keep food down without waves of nausea? I would like Mr. Degeyter also to stand before the families whose children’s’ seizures are now under control because of marijuana and tell them that their child’s life has not been saved[16] because marijuana is only treating the symptoms. I want Mr. Degeyter to find any patient suffering from chronic illnesses who have found relief in marijuana and tell them that marijuana has not saved their lives by returning them to a state of being that they can bear.

What I find interesting are the points with which Mr. Degeyter has chosen not to engage. For instance, Mr. Degeyter claims marijuana does not save lives because it only treats symptoms, yet he has overlooked the studies in my rebuttal which show opioid overdoses and deaths have dropped in states with medical marijuana programs.[17]  Having medical marijuana as an alternative to opioids for pain management is saving lives, and the proof is in the numbers. Mr. Degeyter also seems unaware that suicide rates have dropped in states with medical marijuana programs, which studies have attributed to increases in the quality of life in those with chronic illnesses.[18]

Further, Mr. Degeyter has also failed to account for the long-term damage to organ systems which come with prolonged use of many prescription drugs which are absent from medical marijuana. Medical marijuana may not cure chronic pain, but it will save a chronic pain sufferer from eventual liver and kidney failure associated with long term opioid use. The same could be said for the heightened risk of suicide associated with long term anti-depressant, anti-convulsant, and anti-psychotic medication commonly used to treat PTSD, and seizure disorders.

Mr. Degeyter may wish to claim that effectively treating symptoms is not synonymous with lifesaving medication. He is free to have that opinion. However, I am sure if Mr. Degeyter engaged with those who suffer chronic longer-term medical disorders, and those who care for those with disorders such as cancer, PTSD, MS, ALS, seizure disorders, chronic pain, and numerous other chronic conditions, he would learn that alleviating symptoms and giving back one’s quality of life is synonymous to lifesaving for them. The comments to his rebuttal from those who suffer from chronic illnesses and find relief in marijuana reflect as much.

Semantics and Overdoses

Mr. Degeyter has also taken issue with my characterization that it is impossible to overdose on marijuana. Mr. Degeyter correctly points out that the number of emergency room visits for ingestion of marijuana is not high but seems to hedge his bet that a fatal case of marijuana use may be just around the corner.

Let us begin with a simple observation from two governmental bodies that monitor overdose-related deaths—the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The DEA, in its own fact sheet on marijuana, admits that there has never been a fatality from an overdose of marijuana.[19] Let us compare that to the 64,000 deaths resulting from all legal and illegal drugs last year.[20] The CDC’s annual reports on drug overdoses and deaths have recorded zero deaths attributable to marijuana alone in its history.

In fact, it appears that it is difficult to find reliable statistics of the number of non-fatal overdose of marijuana. While Mr. Degeyter is correct that the number of emergency room visits relating to marijuana have seen a small increase, to characterize them as overdoses appears to be a designation of his own design, rather than a statistical fact recorded by the administrative bodies responsible for tracking such events.

Mr. Degeyter may seek to distinguish what is mean by overdosing on marijuana. Let us be clear then. It is practically impossible to have a fatal overdose of marijuana. I believe the 1988 Administrative law findings challenging the controlled substance act characterization of marijuana as a Schedule I drug put it best: “A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within about fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response. . . . In practical terms, marijuana cannot induce a lethal response as a result of drug-related toxicity.”[21]

With zero deaths recorded as a direct result of marijuana use and no consensus on what is or is not an overdose of marijuana, it appears Mr. Degeyter is the one making a misleading claim about the risk of marijuana overdoses. These findings on their face destroy Mr. Katz’s claim that “marijuana is the most dangerous drug of all time,” as it has never killed anyone directly unlike the host of legal drugs currently prescribed for medical use and a host of illegal drugs.

Arguing the semantics of the risk posed by the overuse of marijuana seems pointless when the mere fact that no one has ever died of marijuana alone is enough to negate Mr. Katz’s original premise that “marijuana is the most dangerous drug of all time.”

A Word on Schizophrenia

Mr. Degeyter is correct, and I agree with him here. This is why I explicitly stated, “Simply put, if one has this predisposition, they should avoid the drug.” Like all drugs, certain members of the population simply should not consume it. I do not see any disagreement in our positions.

Conclusion

I admire Mr. Degeyter for seeking to clarify some of the points I raised. In fact, I agree that some of these points could have been stated in clearer and more precise language, certainly with better proofreading and editing. I suppose I took for granted a simple indulgence of hyperbole as a tool of persuasive writing in rebutting the completely non-hyperbolic claim that “Marijuana is the most dangerous drug of all time” put forward by Mr. Katz.

Even so, Mr. Degeyter appears to have engaged in some hyperbole of his own. It is not blatant falsehood to state that marijuana is saving lives. I have provided the studies to support that in terms of opioids and suicides amongst the chronically ill. Further, it is incorrect to claim that mitigating symptoms is not lifesaving, as this position betrays a total lack of understanding or empathy with what it means to suffer a chronic debilitating condition. That, Mr. Degeyter is the blatant falsehood, not my statement.

Citations

[1] Levine A, Huang Y, Drisaldi B, et al. Molecular mechanism for a gateway drug: epigenetic changes initiated by nicotine prime gene expression by cocaine. Sci Transl Med. 2011;3(107):107ra109. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.3003062.

[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3663768/

[3] https://www.nap.edu/read/6376/chapter/1 (Page 100 – 101)

[4] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/development-and-psychopathology/article/understanding-the-association-between-adolescent-marijuana-use-and-later-serious-drug-use-gateway-effect-or-developmental-trajectory/D697455A87C3AE50B4092489082DADAC

[5] https://www.rand.org/pubs/external_publications/EP20021208.html

[6] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26645418

[7] http://news.unm.edu/news/study-finds-legal-cannabis-may-reduce-use-of-dangerous-prescription-drugs

[8] https://www.bakerinstitute.org/bennett-charts/

[9] Joy, Janet E., Stanley J. Watson Jr., and John A. Benson Jr., Division of Neuroscience and Behavioral Research, Institute of Medicine, “Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999).

[10] IOM, “Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base,” 1999.

[11] https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB6010.html

[12] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735816300939

[13] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/dar.12667

[14] http://www.fox7austin.com/news/local-news/veterans-advocating-for-medical-marijuana-deliver-petition-to-abbott

[15] https://www.mystatesman.com/business/texas-patients-sharpen-plea-for-medical-marijuana-legalization/yBh6E2lU7Oz4UUir6EQmhO/

[16] http://cw39.com/2018/02/26/marijuana-as-medicine-two-houston-families-struggle-with-epilepsy/

[17] http://ftp.iza.org/dp6280.pdf

[18] http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301612

[19] https://www.dea.gov/druginfo/drug_data_sheets/Marijuana.pdf

[20] https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/overdose-death-rates

[21] http://www.ccguide.org/young88.php

Rebuttal to Hunter White’s Post on Marijuana

by

Posts here at Big Jolly are political in nature and therefore debatable.  Generally, out of respect to the authors, regular contributor or guest, I won’t offer a rebuttal as the marketplace of ideas should not be stymied.  However, in regards to the legalization of marijuana the facts/claims need to be clearly and accurately articulated as the issue is relatively new and opinions are still being formed.  To that end, this rebuttal is offered to correct some perceived misstatements and to add nuance to the argumentation in Mr. White’s post for the purpose of better evaluation and opinion formation.

“Other studies contradict Mr. Katz and Mr. Halls claims that marijuana is a gateway drug…Other studies by the National Institute of Drug abuse bolster the claim that marijuana is not a gateway drug”

“Truly the gateway drug idea itself is simply absurd. There is nothing intrinsic in marijuana that makes users more likely to use other drugs.”

These two points are related and discussed together.  In an emerging field it’s not unusual to find contradictory studies.  As long as the studies are peer reviewed arguing the specific studies are appropriate argumentation as they have scientific support to some degree.  Studies are like the saying about statistics, “He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts – for support rather than for illumination. ~ Andrew Lang.” You can find studies to support both sides of most scientific propositions.  So the fact that Howie and Mr. White can both point to studies doesn’t do much for illumination.

What’s striking, though, is Mr. White refers to the National Institute of Drug Abuse for support that marijuana isn’t a gateway drug.  This brings us to the claim that the gateway drug idea is simply absurd. Although Mr. White is correct in claiming “there is nothing intrinsic in marijuana that makes users more likely to use other drugs” the statement is misleading.   Just because the individual components don’t “make[]users more likely to use other drugs” doesn’t mean marijuana use doesn’t “make[] users more likely to use other drugs.”  Who published information in support of a gateway element to marijuana?  None other than the National Institute of Drug Abuse (hereinafter NIDA). Specifically, NIDA points to the studies showing the cross-sensitization as a result of marijuana exposure.

Just because none of the components in marijuana makes “harder” drug use more likely doesn’t mean that marijuana itself doesn’t.  When discussing cross-sensitization studies NIDA states, “These findings are consistent with the idea of marijuana as a “gateway drug.”” Does this mean that marijuana users will go on to use harder drugs? No, and NIDA acknowledges the same.  However, it does lend some support to the concept of a gateway drug.  Claiming otherwise isn’t accurately presenting the current state of the science.

“[D]eny life saving medicine to millions of Americans each year because of this outdated and factually incorrect theory.”

Let’s leave out the opinion of “outatdated an factually incorrect theory” and look at the claim of “deny life saving medicine to millions of Americans each year.”  To assess this claim it’s necessary to look at exactly what medical marijuana is used to treat.  In order to be “life saving medicine” the medicinal use needs to be directed at curative measures rather than symptom control.  With that in mind, let’s look at what the studies on medical marijuana say the purpose of the marijuana is in treatment.

Looking at National Institute of Health publications, the studies looking at medical marijuana show treatment is for: treatment of chronic noncancer pain specifically neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia, rheumatoid arthritis, and mixed chronic pain; chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting; patient-reported spasticity scores and central pain or painful spasms when used for MS.  Successful treatment in these areas would improve quality of life, but cannot be considered to be life saving medicine.  Even turning to the states that approved medicinal marijuana doesn’t support the life saving medicine argument as the “conditions accepted by states that allow medicinal cannabis relate to relief of the symptoms of cancer, glaucoma, human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, and MS.”  Emphasis added.  Treating symptoms isn’t life saving, so these treatments are out when arguing life saving medicine.  This leaves us with epilepsy as the condition that may support the claim.

In regards to epilepsy the same article notes CBD, not THC, can be used as an adjunct treatment to other antiepileptic treatment. Any given seizure has an extremely small chance of mortality.  However, epilepsy prevalence is 2.2 million people.   Out of this population, thirty to forty percent are uncontrolled seizures. Splitting the difference gives uncontrolled seizures prevalence at 770,000.  This number is the cap, and would be further reduced by the nature of the seizures.  Not all of the seizures will be tonic-clonic and therefore dangerous.  Not all tonic-clonic seizures are without aura reducing the danger further.  CBD doesn’t eliminate all the remaining seizures.  While it’s not possible to completely eliminate the chance of death from seizures, the claim of marijuana as “lifesaving medicine to millions of Americans” doesn’t survive factual analysis.

“It is impossible to overdose on marijuana.”

This statement may or may not be factually accurate depending on how someone defines overdose.  What’s not up for interpretation is someone can get marijuana poisoning.  While the absolute number of marijuana poisoning events isn’t high, it is increasing.  So far none of the instances of marijuana poisoning have been deadly, but the effects can be severe, with documented instances of respiratory arrest and ventilator use necessary.   So while it’s potentially accurate to say it’s “impossible to overdose on marijuana” that’s a misleading argument.

“Mr. Katz claims that marijuana use poses a risk of triggering Schizophrenia, however what he fails to point out from the study he sites, or findings from other studies on this subject is that risk is only prominent in those who already have a genetic predisposition to Schizophrenia… Mr. Katz fearmongering obscures the reality of the findings.”

Both gentlemen seem to not understand schizophrenia. In order to be schizophrenia the disease must exist outside the presence of the effect of a substance, legal or illegal.  This is directly addressed in DSM-V which states, “The disturbance is not attributable to the direct physiological effects of a substance (eg, a drug of abuse, a medication) or another medical condition.”  However, there is support for marijuana leading to earlier onset of schizophrenia. While there’s no causal effect between marijuana and the incidence of marijuana, there is some evidence for marijuana hastening the onset of schizophrenia.  Given how debilitating schizophrenia is, the only word to describe this is tragic.

 

Conclusion

I don’t like criticizing others ideas.  The marketplace of ideas is what makes democracy great.  However, the marketplace is only as good as the ideas proffered.  In instances where misleading argumentation is being proffered, or flat out false facts being offered to support an idea in the marketplace of ideas, it’s important to set the record straight for the sake of the marketplace.

Take the dueling articles as you will.  This is an attempt at informative writing rather than persuasive writing.  But when forming your own opinion keep some things in mind.  The evidence doesn’t support the claims that marijuana is lifesaving medicine for millions of Americans.  That’s simply a blatant falsehood.  It is possible to be harmed by over-consumption of marijuana.  Don’t let the technicalities of what is and is not an “overdose” cloud the issue.  Over-consumption of marijuana is harmful and potentially deadly.

Marijuana is NOT the most dangerous drug of all time

by

hunter white marijuana
Hunter White

Rebuttal to “ Marijuana is the most dangerous drug of all time ”
Written by Hunter J. White
Written 3/16/18

My name is Hunter White, I am the Communications Director for the national Republican Political organization Republicans Against Marijuana Prohibition (RAMP) and I write today to respectfully disagree with Mr. Katz’s characterization of marijuana as the most dangerous drug of all.

Mr. Katz article lays out a host of scary claims about marijuana. Mr. Katz argument seems to break down into three main points. First, Mr. Katz claims that marijuana is a gateway drug to harder drug use. Second, Mr. Katz claims that marijuana is unsafe, and poses a substantial risk to public health. Finally, Mr. Katz claims that organized crime will reap the befit of legal marijuana.

Marijuana as a gateway drug

Mr. Katz begins his argument by claiming that marijuana is a gateway drug. He sites his own personal experiences as a narcotic enforcement officer, and a 20-year study conducted by Professor Wayne Hall which Mr. Katz claims supports his contention.

To begin, anecdotal experiences are no replacement for actual scientific testing. If anecdotal experiences could, then marijuana would be legal as hundreds of thousands of cancers sufferers, epilepsy sufferers, MS, Parkinson’s, ALS, and those suffering from a host of other illness would be able to access marijuana.

Mr. Katz also claims that Professor Hall’s study backs up his claim. Unfortunately, it appears that Mr. Katz did not bother to read Mr. Hall’s study or is disingenuously choosing to ignore large portions of that study. Mr. Hall’s study did not claim that Marijuana is highly addictive, the precise language of the study was “If cannabis is not addictive then neither is heroin or alcohol.” A subtle distinction, but notable for its difference from Mr. Katz claim that the study reflects that marijuana is highly addictive. An honest marijuana advocate would never claim that marijuana is not additive. The issue is how additive it is. Studies from the national Institute of Health put the rate of marijuana addiction at 9% of users. For a frame of reference Heroin has an addiction rate of 23%. It is also important to note that almost in substance or behavior can become psychologically addictive. There is nothing intrinsically special about drug use. If a substance or activity effects the brains dopamine reward pathways, it can become addictive.

Other studies contradict Mr. Katz and Mr. Halls claims that marijuana is a gateway drug. Vice systematically lays out, with citations, a point by point dismantling of this argument. To put it simply, there are other factors besides marijuana use that have significantly greater impacts on the likelihood that one will go on to use other drugs besides marijuana. Socioeconomic class, preexisting mental health issues, family background, geographic location, and genetics play significantly bigger parts of addiction than marijuana use alone. Mr. Katz simply confuses correlation with causation, a common logical fallacy. Mr. Katz should also note that Mr. Halls study makes the same logical mistake by failing to account for other risk factors of addiction beyond marijuana use itself. Other studies by the National Institute of Drug abuse bolster the claim that marijuana is not a gateway drug. The vast majority of marijuana users never go on to harder drugs. This conclusion is supported by studies from the Benjamin Center of Public Policy Initiatives at SUNY New Paltz. in which the authors conclude the idea that marijuana use is a gateway to using harder drugs is a myth. A study conducted by The National Academy of Sciences and the RAND corporation found “marijuana has no causal influence over hard drug initiation.”. In fact, Mr. Katz overlooks studies that indicate that if any such gateway drug really existed alcohol seems to be it.

Truly the gateway drug idea itself is simply absurd. There is nothing intrinsic in marijuana that makes users more likely to use other drugs. The idea that some drug would make you more likely to use other drugs stretches credibility. Science does not support Mr. Katz position, or the gateway drug theory, and certainly science does not support the proposition that we should continue to lock up hundreds of thousands of Americans a year, and deny life saving medicine to millions of Americans each year because of this outdated and factually incorrect theory. Thus Mr. Katz claim that the marijuana is a gateway drug is factually false.

Further, it should be noted that Mr. Katz gateway drug theory could support an argument for legalization itself. As it currently stands marijuana is a black-market product. This means it is sold by drug dealers who often have access to other drugs as well. By moving marijuana to a safe regulated, and legal market, marijuana users would no longer have to go to drug dealers who would offer other harder drugs.

Marijuana is Unsafe

Mr. Katz next argument appears to be a litany of studies demonstrating that marijuana is unsafe for human use. Let us first begin with some simple observations. There has never been a recorded death due to marijuana alone. It is impossible to overdose on marijuana. Dronabinol is an FDA approved treatment for mitigating pain, vomiting, and appetite loss from chemotherapy drugs. To be FDA approved, it must show a clinically significant effect on those symptoms. Dronabinol is synthetic THC, the primary active ingredient in Marijuana. Apparently, the FDA believes that the active drug in marijuana is effective in treating the very symptoms Mr. Katz claims it is ineffective at treating.

Moreover, for every claim of marijuana’s ineffectiveness in treating symptoms or disorders Mr. Katz sites, there is a contradicting study to say marijuana is an effective treatment. Mr. Katz claims the American Epilepsy Society says that marijuana is ineffective and yet its most recent study published in 2017 states that CBD, the other primary active ingredient in marijuana is an effective treatment for treatment resistant forms of epilepsy. A glaring omission on his part.

Mr. Katz claims that marijuana is ineffective at treating pain. I suppose his alternative is to continue the use of prescription opioids which have fueled the opioid epidemic. Thankfully studies seem to undermine his position. Marijuana is effective at treating pain. I will say that again, and again, and again. Marijuana is an effective alternative to opioid pain treatments. What is more, chronic pain sufferers overwhelmingly prefer marijuana-based pain treatment to opioid based pain treatment citing marijuana as more effective, with less side effects, and less risk of addiction. Opioid use has fallen in states which have legalized medical marijuana, which further undermines Mr. Katz claim that marijuana is a gateway drug. Further, the Federal Government seems to believe that marijuana is an effective treatment for chronic pain, as it has already given out patents for its use for that very purpose.

Mr. Katz claims that American Glaucoma Society believes that marijuana has no scientific basis for treatment. This is factually incorrect, as numerous studies published by the American Glaucoma society indicate that marijuana effectively lowers interocular pressure, rather the American Glaucoma Society has raise concerns that the pressure reduction is short term, requiring follow up doses. This is a far different position than Mr. Katz claims they take. Further, Mr. Katz omits why the American Glaucoma Society expresses that the risk may out weigh the benefits, as the studies cite the current illegality of the substance as a major risk factor. What is more, the common theme from many of the American Glaucoma Society reports is that more scientific research is needed, rather than marijuana is ineffective. It is also important to note that the Federal government seems to believe that marijuana is a safe and effective treatment for glaucoma as the Compassionate Investigational New Drug program currently gives four glaucoma patients one ounce of marijuana a month to treat their glaucoma following a federal court ruling which found marijuana to be scientifically effective at treating the condition. Another glaring omission on Mr. Katz part.

Mr. Katz claims that Marijuana causes damage to the brain. This is simply not true. I repeat, marijuana use does not cause brain damage, or brain abnormalities. What is more, the Federal Government seems to take this position, as the Department of Health and Human Services holds a patent on marijuana as a neuroprotector, meaning the Federal Government believes it actually protects the brain rather than harming it. I am sure Mr. Katz just overlooked all the contrary evidence, rather than trying to deliberately mislead on this point.

Mr. Katz claims that marijuana is ineffective at treating symptoms of MS, and yet study, after study, after study, after study, after study seem to contradict Mr. Katz claim. What is also important to note is that all of these studies call for more research and note the current illegality of the product as a risk factor for use.

Mr. Katz claims that marijuana use poses a risk of triggering Schizophrenia, however what he fails to point out from the study he sites, or findings from other studies on this subject is that risk is only prominent in those who already have a genetic predisposition to Schizophrenia. Simply put, if one has this predisposition, they should avoid the drug. This not unlike any other risk factor or side effect of any other drug which exist. Mr. Katz fearmongering obscures the reality of the findings.

Mr. Katz cites foreign studies which indicate that immediate marijuana use is associated with impairment in ones’ ability to operate a motor vehicle and increases the risk of an accident. This should not be a surprise, if you are stoned, you should not drive, just like if you are drunk, you should not drive. Oddly enough, Mr. Katz fails to mention that studies from the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration which indicate that while the detectable amounts of marijuana in those who have experienced accidents has risen slightly in states which have legalized recreational marijuana, the relative risk posed by marijuana impairment is low if any, and significantly lower than the risk posed by alcohol consumption. Further, studies in the states on vehicle accidents and marijuana use have been unable to determine a causal link between marijuana use and accidents, only an increase in the detachable amounts of marijuana in one’s system. This is significant to note as marijuana can remain in detectable amounts in one’s body for up to 90 days after use with no effect on cognitive functioning. Once again, Mr. Katz appears to be confusing correlation with causation, or he is just cherry-picking studies which support his Prohibitionist position.

Simply put, for every study Mr. Katz cited, there are a host of other studies contradicting those claims. Further, several of the studies he cites have glaring omissions such as qualifiers for risk factors, or account for outside risk factors contributing to results.

Legal Marijuana Will Increase Illegal Marijuana Revenue

Mr. Katz final claim, interestingly enough, seems to be that legal marijuana will lead to an increase in illegal marijuana revenue. This statement is questionable to say the least. Mr. Katz is of the opinion that marijuana users will continue to seek the black-market marijuana because it is tax free.

With marijuana reform sweeping this county, the conversation about the effective tax rate for marijuana is becoming increasingly important. States like California are already set to lower their tax rate on marijuana to snuff out black-market competition. Marijuana cannot be taxed too highly or else Mr. Katz fear would be justified. However, states like Colorado, Oregon, Alaska, and Washington have all adopted tax rates which have effectively snuffed out the intrastate marijuana black-market.

Mr. Katz claim stretches credulity. States like Colorado, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska have all shown that marijuana users are willing to pay a sizeable tax on marijuana if they can get access to a safe, clean, regulated product without the fear of violence inherent in the back-market.

Historical examples also seem to undermine Mr. Katz argument. Alcohol and Tabaco are highly taxed products, in some states even more highly taxed than marijuana. However, these states do not suffer a rampant black-market of bootleggers and illicit tobacco dealers. When people have a safe, legal option they are willing to pay more for the peace of mind of knowing their product is free of pesticides, molds, and other containments. People are willing to pay more to know the strength and potency of their product.

Mr. Katz claim is further undermined by the fact that studies have found that Mexican drug cartels are moving away from marijuana as a revenue source. However, cartels will continue to smuggle marijuana into states like Texas and Arizona for as long as legal marijuana remains inaccessible. Further, Mr. Katz claims also seems to overlook the fact that violent crime has gone down in states which have decriminalized, or legalized recreational marijuana.

Simply put, Mr. Katz concerns are, in some sense valid, but his conclusion and reasoning are not. Marijuana users would gladly pay a bit more for safe legal access, the cartels are pulling out of the marijuana market as cheaper, safer marijuana becomes available, and crime is dropping because if this safe, legal access.

Conclusion

I respectfully disagree with Mr. Katz’s characterization of the risk of marijuana. Worse yet, I believe that Mr. Katz is either grossly misinformed, willfully ignorant, or completely blind to the mountains of contradicting evidence that exist for each and every one of his positions. Mr. Katz has utterly failed to accurately reflect the real risk of marijuana and has done so without ever once acknowledging contrary facts and evidence to his position.

It is wholly irresponsible to allow one’s own personal bias to be a reason to deny medicine to millions of Americans who suffer needlessly. It is morally reprehensible to use one’s prejudices to justify incarcerating hundreds of thousands of Americans each year. It is completely shameful to allows one’s narrow view deny billions in economic growth to Americans in need of good, stable jobs. It is utterly contemptable to take to the public forum and seek to scare readers of the danger of something that they have little to no reason to fear.

Thus, for the reason cited above, I must respectfully dissent from Mr. Katz views along with the millions of Americans who know the truth. Marijuana is effective medicine. Marijuana is safe, and marijuana is not “the most dangerous drug of all times.”

Marijuana Is The Most Dangerous Drug Of All

by

Despite the naysayers, marijuana is truly a gateway drug. Searching for a better high, many marijuana users turn to more potent drugs like heroin, meth and other mind-altering substances.

During the six years I specialized in narcotics enforcement, I came into close contact with dozens of hardcore heroin addicts. Each and every one of those heroin users started out on pot. The same can be said for most of the cocaine users and the users of other potent drugs that I came into contact with. And those addicts were not restricted to the riffraff of society. I busted two doctors and several lawyers for heroin use. They all started out with a ‘harmless’ puff or two of pot.

Marijuana is the most dangerous drug of all because the advocates of pot have conned most people into believing cannabis is innocuous.

The drumbeat of claims that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol is pure hogwash! Even former President Obama said alcohol was more harmful, but I suspect he made that statement to justify his admitted use of pot. Although the occasional user of pot is unlikely to switch to more potent drugs, when he is under the influence of cannabis, he is every bit as dangerous behind the wheel of a car as is the driver under the influence of alcohol.

There are those who question the constitutionality of a law that criminalizes people for smoking a plant and who say that people have the right to do whatever they want as long as they do no harm to others. Tell that to the innocent victims in Colorado and Washington where, according to state police reports, car crashes involving drivers under the influence of pot have surged significantly ever since those states legalized recreational marijuana.

Pot advocates claim marijuana users are laid-back and non-violent. More hogwash! People under the influence of marijuana are just as unpredictable as those under the influence of alcohol. At times they are calm, but at other times they are aggressive. As a narcotics enforcement officer, I personally battled it out with quite a few pot heads … and when making arrests I always tried to avoid provoking any physical altercations.

Marijuana is innocuous? Quite to the contrary! Pot may cause psychotic reactions such as delusions and paranoia, and lead to fatal car crashes. Even claims that marijuana has medical benefits are in dispute and appear to be a hoax.

The American Epilepsy Society says: “Marijuana itself has major shortcomings as an epilepsy treatment … evidence for efficacy in treating seizures does not meet the necessary standard to recommend it to patients.” Worse, researchers state that “marijuana use or withdrawal could potentially trigger seizures in susceptible [epilepsy] patients.”

The pot proponents keep trumpeting phony claims that marijuana provides relief to glaucoma patients, eases pain, nausea and vomiting in in chemotherapy patients, and eases multiple sclerosis (MS) muscle contractions, sleep disorders and Tourette’s symptoms.

The American Glaucoma Society has written: “There is no scientific basis for marijuana’s use in treatment,” and there is evidence that it could actually do damage.

And a study conducted with 6,500 volunteers by England’s prestigious Bristol University showed that cannabis does not ease pain, nausea and vomiting in chemotherapy patients, nor does it ease MS muscle contractions, sleep disorders and Tourette’s symptoms.

A study by Dr. Penny Whiting and her team at England’s University of Bristol found that cannabis does not ease pain, nausea and vomiting in chemotherapy patients, MS muscle contractions, sleep disorders or Tourette’s symptoms.

A 20 year study by a team led by Professor Wayne Hall, a drug adviser to the World Health Organization, found cannabis is highly addictive, causes mental health problems, doubles the risk of developing psychotic disorders, including schizophrenia and opens the door to hard drugs.

There have been a number of studies showing that cannabis had caused heart problems in the young and middle-aged. Doctors in Wales noted that there is evidence pot can trigger heart attacks, with the risk increasing 4.8 times in the first hour after smoking the weed. They also noted that studies have shown marijuana affects blood flow, increases the heart rate, causes high blood pressure when sitting down and low pressure when standing up.

The Journal of Neuroscience reports that researchers from Harvard Medical School and Chicago’s Northwestern University have discovered that smoking pot even casually once or twice a week can damage the nucleus accumbens and the amygdala, both core structures of the brain which are linked to emotion, motivation and addiction.

The Drug Abuse Recognition Journal reports there is mounting evidence that cannabis may increase the risk for schizophrenia in the developing mind and the Archives of General Psychiatry reports that people who smoke pot are more likely to develop a psychotic illness such as schizophrenia earlier than those who do not use marijuana.

The British Medical Journal reports that a review of nine studies found that drivers were more likely to be involved in a collision with another car after smoking marijuana. Smoking cannabis within three hours of getting behind the wheel could almost double the risk of a serious crash.

A study headed by Marie-Odile Krebs, professor of psychiatry at the National Institute of Health and Medical Research (INSERM) laboratory in France, found that among 190 patients with schizophrenia, 121 of whom had used marijuana, cannabis appeared to affect the age of psychosis onset in a subgroup of 44 patients. The affected patients either had their first symptoms within a month of smoking pot for the first time, or experienced a severe worsening of psychotic symptoms each time they smoked.

A study just released by Finnish researchers who worked alongside Cambridge and Queensland experts, showed that smoking cannabis just five times as a teenager raises the risk of psychosis. Researchers at the University of Ohio found a similar link between cannabis and psychosis.

And the British Journal of Psychiatry reports that a study of more than 6,000 volunteers that were tracked from their 15th birthday until they turned 30, also showed a link between cannabis and psychosis.

Unfortunately, the voices of those that debunk medical marijuana and who consider pot to be dangerous are drowned out by those who insist that marijuana is innocuous. But what about all those glowing testimonials about marijuana having cured or reduced seizures and other ailments? A few slugs of Jim Beam or Jack Daniel’s probably would have done the same.

So America is merrily on its way to becoming a nation of pot heads. People will be smoking Marlboro Marijuana, Cannabis Camels, Lucky Weed, Stoner Pall Mall, etc. Oh, and don’t forget there’s also edible marijuana.

The Mexican drug cartels are not at all unhappy to see the legalization of pot in our country. The cartels are counting on a significant increase in the use of heroin, cocaine, meth and other mind-altering substances. And they’ll still be raking in lots of cash from the sales of marijuana here because many pot users prefer to buy their drug on the tax-free black market.

And now we have all those headlines about the opioid epidemic. That epidemic isn’t all due to prescription drugs. Heroin is an opioid too.

Some of you will say I’ve lost my mind or call me a moron and other insulting names, but take it from an old narc, there can be no doubt that marijuana is the most dangerous drug of all. If it were not for pot, there would be a lot fewer users of heroin and other mind-altering substances. There would be fewer psychotic episodes. And there would be fewer fatal car crashes.

To those cost conscious conservatives who want to legalize pot so as to stop ‘wasting’ money on enforcement and reap a tax bonanza instead, think again! Sure, you’ll both save and make a bunch of money, but in human terms, at what cost?

Marijuana is innocuous … that’s one of history’s biggest con jobs.

GOP candidates should campaign on reform of civil asset forfeiture laws

by

The federal civil asset forfeiture reform bill introduced by Republican Presidential candidate Rand Paul is only four pages long and with Governor Abbotts’ signature on SB 339 legalizing limited use of marijuana extracts, could be just the spark to ignite a campaign conversation on reform of civil asset forfeiture laws. No one has sympathy for pot traffickers who have their Maserati’s, Range Rovers and designer watches seized through the use of civil asset forfeiture but if GOP candidates were to weave true stories of civil asset forfeiture abuses into their platform & stump speeches and focus on instances where the lives of everyday, law abiding American citizens were impacted this could be a uniting campaign issue.

Here’s an outline of the premise.

Under current law, LEO’s may seize property without due process of law. Senator Rand Paul’s FAIR (Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration Act) would require the states to abide by state law when forfeiting seized property.

From a July 25, 2014 Washington Post article:

Sen. Rand Paul yesterday introduced S. 2644, the FAIR (Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration) Act, which would protect the rights of citizens and restore the Fifth Amendment’s role in seizing property without due process of law. Under current law, law enforcement agencies may take property suspected of involvement in crime without ever charging, let alone convicting, the property owner. In addition, state agencies routinely use federal asset forfeiture laws; ignoring state regulations to confiscate and receive financial proceeds from forfeited property.

The bill would also require states “to abide by state law when forfeiting seized property.

Texas Governor Abbott just signed SB 339 into law this past Monday. From the Huffington Puffington Post:

Abbott’s signing makes Texas the 15th state to allow for limited medical use of marijuana-derived oils. Twenty-three other states have adopted broader laws that allow for some form of legal and regulated cultivation, sale or production of multiple strains of medical marijuana for multiple debilitating conditions. The federal government considers all forms of marijuana to be illegal and classifies the plant as one of the “most dangerous” with no medical value.

Do you see the foundation of the premise? Do you see another reason why Ann Lee of R.A.M.P fought so hard to remove restrictions on the use of marijuana?

Now for some of the true stories of civil asset forfeiture abuses and their effect on the lives of everyday, law abiding American citizens. Because there must be safeguards and limitations on the use of civil asset forfeiture funds, right?

Let’s go to a Missouri Citizens Review Board hearing.

Scroll to the 8:56 minute mark of the video (WARNING: LNSFW)—“nope, no limitations on the use of civil asset forfeiture funds. We base it on something that would be nice to have that we can’t get in the budget…It’s kinda like pennies from heaven to get you a toy you need.”

Scroll to the 10:40 minute mark of the video (WARNING: LNSFW) to learn how Montgomery County, Texas used civil asset forfeiture funds to buy margarita machines, kegs of beer and bottles of Crown Royal liquor.

Harris County voters also need an explanation of why the District attorney’s office and the City of Houston opposed HB3717 this past Legislative session.

From the Local Government Impact statement:

Harris County reported that there would be a significant fiscal impact to the county. The Harris County District Attorney’s Office (HCDAO) uses forfeited funds to supplement the Commissioner’s Court Budget. In 2014, the HCDAO forfeited a total of $11,521,763 under Chapter 59, Code of Criminal Procedure. Of this amount, Harris County Sheriff Office received $1,831,817.  The constables’ offices received $554,178, HCDAO received $3,233,189.50, part of which was used to purchase body cameras for patrol officers, and the Harris County Commissioner’s Court received $329,405.42, which was used to fund drug and alcohol abuse training and counseling.  

The City of Houston reported that there would be a negative fiscal impact of $4,700,000 per year. 

Are body cameras for patrol officers considered to be a necessary “toy” funded with “pennies from heaven”?

Tell us your thoughts.

Do you think campaigning on reform of civil asset forfeiture laws is an issue that could unite voters across all party lines?

Post your thoughts in the comments section.