Marijuana has potential for misuse
BMJ 2000; 321 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.321.7267.979/a (Published 21 October 2000) Cite this as: BMJ 2000;321:979
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Is it not about time the scientific and medical establishment ensured
that the General Public received a Correct Interpretation of Correct
science
If I can see that Dr Steven Goldberg and his team make a mockery of
Science then it must be Blazingly Clear to any Scientist or Medical
Doctor. More importantly it is becoming apparent to an ever increasing
swathe of Lay people
The only usable result of this study seems to be, as Dave Beams
points out, that THC eases cocaine withdrawel. I know for a fact that it
is effective in the treatment of another Chronic Relapsing Condition.
One would I assume learn more by looking at the source of funding for
this particular Charade, than by any perusal of it's tainted conclusions.
Anyone got the details ?
Competing interests: No competing interests
Another fine example of how far one can go to eventually find results
to one's suit. Of course, proving that cocaine is addictive makes no
headlines and, more important, does not bring in public money.
So why would we need a study design when the cause is right? I can agree
completely with Mr. Beams and might add that an already proven "potential
for misuse" in a lot of other substances had very few beneficial effects
for the misusers so far. But then to make headlines therewith is not
easy...
Competing interests: No competing interests
One must be careful about the negative application of information
from an animal research study, as evidenced by the findings of the present
experiment, suggesting the potential for the misuse of a particular drug--
in this case marijuana-- based upon a proclivity of a species to
demonstrate a desire to obtain it.
With particular regard to the use of marijuana, any application of
these research findings for the control of it's use, or those individuals
who would choose to consume this ever more ubiquotous product, may do more
harm than good. Furthermore, the findings may do no more than reflect
the apparent and common knowledge of the average social observer.
Lawyers, doctors, writers, school teachers,researchers, and even
parlamentarians are known to be afficionados of marijuana. That they
might pay a small portion of their paycheck in return for the relative
rewards of a friendly toke may not be any different than the individual
who would regularly purchase a box of expensive chocolates to obtain a
somewhat different neurochemical state. At the very least, surely most
enlightened individuals would find this a more acceptable grouping of
alleged vices or well-worked-for commodities, than the placement with
either of these substances on the same plate as cocain or heroin.
The unsubtle implication of a mindless application of experimental
findings from this form of research is a tendency to play into the hands
of the more conservative and less experimental individuals within society,
who would prefer greater control over the supply of substances related to
the functions of relaxation and pleaure.
Whatever dubious benefits result from criminalizing the behavior of
an increasing majority of content and productive marijuana users from all
strata within society, will no doubt be looked upon in historical terms as
the hysterisism and fanatisism of a poorly applied understanding of the
real potential of this particular drug for harm when compared to the
effects of many other societally approved substances and contemporary
drugs which have far less benign consequences.
Drugs that are well-known to cause far more harm and are nonetheless
societally legislated as free from criminal penalization include nicotine,
perhaps caffein, and certainly alcohol, not to mention many over-the-
counter and prescription medications. The latent potential for fear-
mongering over the large scale misuse of marijuana has the not entirely
unintended consequence of supporting vocal but less enlightened members of
society, some of whom are cloaked in academic research gowns of
credibility.
It is indeed possible that the present research findings will be put
into the service of an agenda based upon a narrowly defined perspective of
societal control preferencing a somewhat mindless, conservative position
about the real effects of this drug. This tendency could be tempered by
applying a critical perspective to the current findings which would
include a comparison of the overall positive and negative effects of
marijuana to other contemporary drugs of choice that have maintained
greater societal and legislative acceptance.
One might also want to consider the extent to which we would want to
generalize the research from this particular experiment employing our
closest animal relatives while "under glass" to the actual behavior of
real world humans in the wild. Would it not at least be reasonable to
want to develop an understanding about the desire to use this or any other
substance of relaxation and pleasure from a more complex perspective,
reflecting the actual manner in which various sub-groups real humans under
various conditions of comfort or stress, and differing developmental
periods, may use a particular drug such as marijuana?
At the very least would one would not likely be curious at the outset
about any research which would blythly suggest a comparison of highly
addictive substances such as heroin or cocain to the effects of drugs
which would have seemingly less harmful potential in general use? The
application of research based on purely psycho-pharmacological models of
the effects of a drug on certain brain receptors, or of the tendency to
desire the use of a particular pleasurable substance "under glass" so to
speak--should be appreciated as not necessarily more useful than the
observations of an immunologist looking at the effect of an experimental
HIV drug to virus in a petrie dish. It may provide us with information
but the information will not necessarily be useful to the real issue at
hand.
The concerns suggested by this research are related to the problems
the Canadian Government is presently grappling with in attempting to
comply to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision mandating that Parliament
develop a sane policy of providing medical marijuana to patients within
the next several months.
It is interesting that the ministry in charge of handling this
contentious issue has even considered growing marijuana at 'Tewney's
Pasture' surrounding the Ministry of Health's own corporate Ottawa
headquarters. This, in spite of the fact that most individuals must
realize that some of the best marijuana in the world today is produced
home grown in British Columbia. However, in it's due wisdom, the branch
of our civil service who we taxpayers deem as capable of getting their
minds around these problems, is most concerned with quality control of
product. Indeed, the experiment that is alluded to here in my comments
about the "pressor" effects of marijuana in comparison to more dangerous
drugs of choice, might better be pressed into the service of sniffing out
product which meets the high standard that our nearest ancestors would die
for.
Competing interests: No competing interests
The monkeys in this test were first conditioned to press the lever to
receive cocain, a physically addictive substance, before THC was subtitued
for the for the cocain. The monkeys may have developed a physical
addiction to cocain. If this is true, an alternative hypothisis is that
THC is effective in reducing the discomfort of cocain withdrawl.
Irregardless, why was there not a control group of monkeys that were not
given cocain first? Seems like very poor techinque at best.
Competing interests: No competing interests
We need more objective studies examing THC. The common misconception
today is that marijuana is benign. I would suggest going to an adolescent
drug addiction center in the suburbs. Many of these spoiled children have
ruined their lives getting high on THC. Like the monkeys they are hard put
to stop pulling the lever.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Your headline "Marijuana has potential for misuse" is both a truism
and yet misses the point.
To define misuse by "whether animals will work to obtain it" is
somewhat narrow. After all, animals work to obtain food and unless you
define obesity as "misuse", then clearly food also has "potential for
misuse".
In any case, to say that it has a potential for misuse is meaningless
unless it is clear what the damaging effects of the misuse are. To state
that it is as liable to misuse as cocaine and heroin incriminates by
association, and furthermore implies that it is as dangerous as these.
This is unhelpful - it is well established that a large part of the risks
of certain drug taking activity is due to the mode of delivery, the
quality of the drug supply and the lifestyle risks that go along with it.
Do we imply that food has the same "potential for misuse" as cocaine
and heroin?
I hope not.
Competing interests: No competing interests
THC equals cocaine equals heroin?
In a 21 October news report in the Journal highlighting a paper by
Tanda et al. [1], Berger [2] emphasized that "Goldberg's team concludes
from its observations that THC ‘has as much potential for abuse as other
drugs of abuse, such as cocaine and heroin’." A few remarks.
1. Most would agree that 1-trans-delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol is the
major psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. However, it is not the only
active ingredient, just like nicotine or benzo[a]pyrene is not the only
"active" ingredient in tobacco smoke. Thus, the title of their paper would
have been perhaps more accurate by using "THC" rather than "the
psychoactive ingredient of marijuana".
2. Importantly, smoking marijuana and giving or taking THC by
injection results in different metabolic pathways and induces different
biological responses. And clearly these routes of exposure are not the
same, and "no one" takes marihuana by injection.
3. Tanda et al. [1] are the first, where others have failed, to show
any THC self-administration behavior by laboratory animals, in this case
squirrel monkeys; notably, the animals had to be trained to do this by
"taking cocaine".
4. Others cited in that same news report, and those giving rapid
responses to the Journal, appear considerably less enthusiastic to endorse
THC as rivaling the abusive behaviors seen in humans under the influence
of cocaine and heroin. One wonders about other CNS-active prescription
medications, diazepam for example.
5. We [3,4] and others [5,6] have shown that THC exhibits anti-cancer
effects. Yet, at present, we do not know if smoking marijuana would also
mimic this experimentally observed activity.
6. Some have suggested that marijuana smoke is carcinogenic, but the
data are not at all convincing. Many simply believe that because tobacco
smoking is carcinogenic, so too will marijuana smoking. Let us not forget
that no one smokes as many marijuana "joints" as they do tobacco
cigarettes; not by any stretch of the imagination.
Thus these interesting results on monkeys being taught THC self
administration should not lead one to correlate these observations with
humans, or interpolate these experimental THC observations as being
predictive of the same behavior as is seen with cocaine and heroin abuse
in humans.
1. Tanda G, Munzar P, Goldberg SR. Self-administration behavior is
maintained by the psychoactive ingredient of marijuana in squirrel
monkeys. Nat Neurosci. 2000 Nov;3(11):1073-1074.
2. Berger A. Marijuana has potential for misuse. BMJ 2000;321:979 ( 21
October )
3. Chan PC, Sills RC, Braun AG, Haseman JK, Bucher JR. Toxicity and
carcinogenicity of delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol in Fischer rats and B6C3F1
mice. Fundam Appl Toxicol 30(1):109-117 (1996).
4. Huff J, Chan P. Antitumor effects of THC. Environ Health Perspect
108[10]:A442-3
5. Galve-Roperh I, Sanchez C, Cortes ML, del Pulgar TG, Izquierdo M,
Guzman M. Anti-tumoral action of cannabinoids: involvement of sustained
ceramide accumulation and extracellular signal-regulated kinase
activation. Nat Med 6(3):313-319 (2000).
6. Piomelli D. Pot of gold for glioma therapy. Nat Med 6(3):255-256
(2000).
Competing interests: No competing interests