There is no definitive laboratory research that proves smoking marijuana makes people flat out stupid. But there is ample evidence that you don't have to smoke weed to get that way.
Last week, in a classic Friday news dump, the US Drug Enforcement Agency and other federal agencies published in the Federal Register a response to a petition, nearly nine years old, to remove cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. The petition was based on three basic claims: that the substance has been prescribed for accepted treatment regimes, that it is safe when used under medical supervision and that it poses far fewer dangers for abuse or dependence than other Schedule I and Schedule II drugs.
The Feds' response was deeply flawed and acts to continue a fiction which costs the nation dearly in treasure and security.
The DEA (blaming its arguments on the Department of Health and Human Services advice) claimed cannabis to be "addictive" and "dangerous," with "a high potential for abuse. . . no accepted medical use in the United States" and no "acceptable level of safety for use even under medical supervision," therefore it must remain on Schedule I.
Schedule I drugs are serious loads. Heroin, morphine-N-Oxide, codeine-N-Oxide, methaqualone, BZP--whole families of up, down and sideways machines that doctors can't even prescribe because of all the trouble they can cause. And there, sharing the pharmacological Group W bench with these badasses, sits poor, wimpy cannabis.
Wimpy? Yup. A substance for which there is no known overdose level. Meaning that while you could conceiveably asphixiate if you immersed yourself in enough of its smoke, no chemical in that smoke can kill you. In any amount. It's possible you could choke to death eating it, but that's true of donuts.
"Addictive?" It is to laugh. The highest percentage of heavy users any researcher claims will develop a "dependence" is 10%. Compared to other criminalized substances like cocaine (17%) and heroin (23%) and purely legal loads like alchohol (15%) and tobacco (32%), cannabis is demonstrably safer. As for the difference between "dependency" and "addiction," I'll let the editors of DSM-IV sort that one out. And, when you read the criteria for defining "dependence, again, keep donuts in mind.
Cannabis is indeed "dangerous," however. Last week, forty people lost their lives to drug cartel violence in Mexico in one day. While most Americans believe the cartels' money derives from transshipment of cocaine, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy estimates income from marijuana comprise nearly two-thirds of the cartels' income.
That's right, two-thirds of the money these thugs fight over, terrorizing innocent people and destabilizing a country next-door, thereby threatening our nation's security, comes from ye olde weede.
Cannabis is also extremely "dangerous" to the 800,000 people who get arrested for it every year. "Dangerous" indeed for the rest of us, as our police, prosecutors, courts and jailers try to process this flood of marijuana offenders, leaving scant resources to deal with truly dangerous criminals.
There have been ample studies demonstrating the efficacy and safety of cannabis in the treatment of a wide variety of disorders. The DEA's claim (abetted by HHS) that cannabis has "no accepted medical use" is simply untrue, and that untruth is the chief basis of the Agency's refusal to reclassify.
The federal government's continuing obsession with defining cannabis as a "useless," "addictive" and "dangerous" substance is itself a symptom of a deep sickness, rooted in other maladies long festering in the nation's body politic.
Left untreated, this sickness will only worsen, further dimming hopes of a healthy, safe and long life.
Liberal doses of reason, objectivity, science and compassion are prescribed.