A long but worthwhile Keating Government study on cannabis use

[Paladin]

Hi all.

 

For those it may interest, I have found a pretty balanced review of the literature around cannabis use. This was commissioned by the Keating government in 1994 (since rescinded) and represents, I believe, the last attempt by an Australian government to get all the facts around the dangers and impacts of cannabis use. It's an important document for that reason.

 

It's also pretty encouraging in its assessment of cannabis use and makes the following points, among others. Note that these are accurate findings at the time of the report, in 1994, and are to be understood in that context. That said, as the last survey of its kind, this document still represents the most up-to-date information that our government has:

 

1. Cannabis is the most widely used illicit drug in Australia, having been tried by a third of the adult population, and by the majority of young adults between the ages of 18 and 25. Over 30% of Australian citizens are criminals by this definition.

 

2. There is good reason to legalise THC use for certain medical conditions.

 

3. Reports that THC levels in contemporary cannabis strains are 'more potent' than cannabis strains in the 60s are unsupported

 

4. You can't ingest or smoke enough cannabis to die from overdose

 

5. Don't put others at risk while driving stoned. "This study points out that the SINGLE MAJOR risk from cannabis use is it's effect on psychomotor performance. Read that again. The biggest risk identified here is not that your body or mind will be adversely impacted, but rather that "Intoxication produces dose-related impairments in a wide range of cognitive and behavioural functions that are involved in skilled performances like driving an automobile or operating machinery. " So, erm, don't do those things. That said, while alcohol has been established as a risk factor in road accidents, no such information exists around cannabis use. "A general consensus of forensic toxicologists is that blood concentrations associated with impairment after smoking cannabis have not been sufficiently established to provide a basis for legal testimony in cases concerning driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of cannabis. " Also, "There is no controlled epidemiological evidence that cannabis users are at increased risk of being involved in motor vehicle or other accidents. This is in contrast to the case of alcohol use and accidents. . ."

 

6. "Given the duration of large-scale cannabis use by young adults in Western societies, the absence of any epidemics of infectious disease makes it unlikely that cannabis smoking produces major impairments in the immune system. "

 

7. "There is insufficient new evidence to change the conclusions reached by the Institute of Medicine in 1982, namely, that although the smoking of marijuana "causes changes to the heart and circulation that are characteristic of stress... there is no evidence... that it exerts a permanently deleterious effect on the normal cardiovascularsystem..." (p72)"

 

8. "There is strong continuity of development from adolescence into early adult life in which many indicators of adverse development which have been attributed to cannabis use precede its use, and increase the likelihood of using cannabis." This supports the view that cannabis use among adolescents is caused by pre-existing problems, rather than being the cause of later problems. That said, the report strongly recommends that adolescents do not become chronic (daily) users of cannabis, which makes perfect sense to me.

 

9. "The evidence that chronic heavy cannabis use produces an amotivational syndrome among adults is equivocal. "

 

10. "The weight of the available evidence suggests that the long-term heavy use of cannabis does not produce any severe impairment of cognitive function. "

 

11. "A suspicion that chronic heavy cannabis use may cause gross structural brain damage was provoked by a single poorly controlled study using an outmoded method of investigation, which reported that cannabis users had enlarged cerebral ventricles. This finding was widely and uncritically publicised. Since then a number of better controlled studies using more sophisticated methods of investigation have consistently failed to demonstrate evidence of structural change in the brains of heavy, long-term cannabis users. "

 

Etc etc etc.

 

A comparison between chronic alcohol and tobacco use and chronic cannabis use shows that cannabis is the lesser of the three evils. Smoking cannabis isn't great for you - but inhaling any form of smoke isn't either, and tobacco is considerably worse. If you're a regular user, do yourself a favor and vape. Daily use of cannabis is much better for you than daily use of alcohol, which messes your body and brain up badly. And which one is illegal again? (EDIT: MORE ON THIS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE POST)

 

Also, note the emphasis here on chronic, daily use. Essentially, there is no data to support making claims about occasional recreational use.

 

Anyway, I won't keep rabbiting on. But, this was a comprehensive, objective report commissioned BY THE GOVERNMENT for the purposes of informing policy. It is useful to cite and quote (especially in dealings with the government) for that reason. And then Howard got in soon after. . .

 

http://www.healthyactive.gov.au/internet/m...cannab2-ch1.htm

 

EDIT: The report makes the point that to fully appreciate the "probable and possible adverse health and psychological effects of cannabis" it needs "to be placed in comparative perspective to be fully appreciated. A useful standard for such a comparison is what is known about the health effects of alcohol and tobacco, two other widely used psychoactive drugs. Cannabis shares with tobacco, smoking as the usual route of administration, and resembles alcohol in being used for its intoxicating and euphoriant effects." Cannabis stacks up very well against these legal substances, is less harmful than alcohol even when abused, and if not smoked (ie: eaten, absorbed, vaped, etc) has nowhere near the health dangers of tobacco use.

 

http://www.healthyactive.gov.au/internet/m...annab2-ch93.htm

[louise]

Monograph series no.43, Illict Drig Use in Australia is also a good read... recinded in 2008.

[sew850i]

Good post Paladin,

 

It amazes me really... This is on a government based website, yet they continue to feed us with bullshit, whats going on in the parliament... makes me wonder.

[louise]

These are recinded documents, that means the government no longer endorses these ideas. The one I mentioned above link was recinded by the Rudd government. On this he is worse than Howard. Edited March 12, 2010 by lou lou

[sew850i]

Ohh i see, we gotta push for more scientific studies..

[louise]

Yeah, exactly... in particular, scientific studies with findings that match the government's current policy stance.

[Paladin]

As Lou Lou points out, the practice is to rescind a document after governmental policy changes (or in some cases where an independent report contains inconvenient information). This in no way indicates that the information contained therein is inaccurate, and these works may still be cited as reputable academic resources.

 

That's a really interesting document there also, Lou Lou. Thanks for adding to the knowledge pool here. Of particular interest to me were the following figures:

 

A 1998 NDS household survey revelaed the following reported useage levels:

 

Cannabis (ever) circa 40%

Cannabis (in the last 12 months) circa 20%

 

This compares to:

 

Tobacco (ever) circa 75%

Tobacco (in the last 12 months) circa 25%

 

So again we're left with - any law that makes 40% of citizens criminals is an unjust law.

 

The fact that this unjust law actively prevents research, thereby rendering so many truths officially unknown, also beggars belief. We DO need more research to determine both the pros and cons of this amazing plant that 40% of all citizens in our country have tried (likely more, as this study is 12 years old and use among the younger section of the population is much, much higher than among retirement-home types). And that research can't take place in the current legal framework. So, cannabis is guilty until proven innocent - with all sorts of official burdens in place on the road to proving that.

 

EDIT: I just crunched some numbers, and as mentioned, age skews likelihood of use immensely. If you are currently an Australian citizen under 40, there is an almost 70% chance you have used cannabis at some point, and are a criminal.

[sativaindicaruderalis]

It's quite simple whats going on in parliament and all government and controlling regimes, they do whatever they want with little or no consequence.

[sew850i]

 

what do you guys think??

[Herbman]

Yeah its amazing comparing Alchahol and Tobacco with marijuana and realizing which is the worse and which is legal, There would be little cases of DUI with marijuana whereas DUI of alchahol is the killer of numerous persons. I am kind of in confusion as to where the current government stands on this issue and whats being done to legalize.