Adverse Health Effects of Recreational Cannabis Use

Soft Secrets
27 Oct 2014

An Australian pot study discloses problems with dependence and increased accident risk, plus physiological and mental health issues in later life.


An Australian pot study discloses problems with dependence and increased accident risk, plus physiological and mental health issues in later life.

The study only covers the dangers of smoking Cannabis, failing to include alternative methods of ingestion, such as vaporization or eating 'medibles'

In early October of this year, a major Cannabis study from 2013 was finally published online and began to make its rounds through both pro- and anti-Cannabis circles, albeit with differing interpretations. What has research over the past two decades revealed about the adverse health effects of recreational Cannabis use? was intended as an attempt to survey notable pot research from 1993, comparing it against the modern scientific catalog and endeavoring to place conclusions within the appropriate context of mixed marijuana legality in America. The determinations reached included negative impacts on the physical and mental health of heavy users, in addition to an increase in social issues. Perhaps the main talking point is the apparent, proven existence of Cannabis dependence, which not every heavy user has experienced and yet many anti-weed activists have declared is one of the major reasons that pot prohibition should stand.

Wade Hall's study, the goal of which was "to examine changes in the evidence on the adverse health effects of Cannabis since 1993," was presented as a research paper at Through the Maze: Cannabis and Health International Drug Policy Symposium in Auckland, New Zealand in November of 2013 and first published online by Addiction on October 7, 2014.

It is extremely important to note that this study, which was funded by the NHMRC Australia Fellowship, does not highlight the negative consequences of general recreational Cannabis use, but rather the impact of smoking recreational pot.

The study's results are as follows:

"Research in the past twenty years has shown that driving while Cannabis-impaired approximately doubles car crash risk and that around one in ten regular Cannabis users develop dependence. Regular Cannabis use in adolescence approximately doubles the risks of early school-leaving and of cognitive impairment and psychoses in adulthood. Regular Cannabis use in adolescence is also associated strongly with the use of other illicit drugs. These associations persist after controlling for plausible confounding variables in longitudinal studies. This suggests that Cannabis use is a contributory cause of these outcomes but some researchers still argue that these relationships are explained by shared causes or risk factors. Cannabis smoking probably increases cardiovascular disease risk in middle-aged adults but its effects on respiratory function and respiratory cancer remain unclear, because most Cannabis smokers have smoked or still smoke tobacco."

This meta-analysis of published Cannabis research has been embraced by those who wish to see pot prohibition continue across the country, as some of the anti-Cannabis brigade have been clinging to the more negative or worrying findings of the text. The troubling tone of the research bolsters the prohibitionists' straw man argument that, were Cannabis to truly offer such a tremendous amount of relief to those suffering from a myriad of illnesses, there would be copious amounts of medical literature to support each claim by those wishing to legalize.

Many members of the pro-pot movement also believe, and rightly so, that much more Cannabis research should be conducted in order to provide empirical evidence of the efficacy of medical Cannabis, in addition to publicizing the relative safety of smoking, vaporizing or eating weed in comparison with other recreational activities, such as drinking alcohol or smoking tobacco. However, due to the current classification of Cannabis and its related products as a Schedule I drug, only a miniscule amount of researchers have been granted permission and clearance to grow and study the plant. Hall's work represents an attempt to consolidate and update scientific studies that may have reached relatively reliable conclusions, in spite of potentially flawed sample sizes, failing to take environmental and other factors into consideration, confusion over causal relationships and other inconsistencies.

The United States is now being confronted by a forcible push to legalize both medical and recreational Cannabis across the country, so some consider the timing perfect for the arrival of this report. Hall's study surfaced just after scientists have observed a sharp increase in the recreational use of marijuana over recent years, either due to legalization efforts or societal trends. The report even remarks that Cannabis use levels are, for the first time, edging near to the numbers of tobacco users. However, the text also states that, "Since its use was first reported more than forty years ago in the United States, recreational Cannabis use has spread globally to other developed countries and, more recently, low- and middle-income countries." This wording presents just one of many issues that arise upon close inspection of the study.

It seems odd to suggest that Americans have only been using pot recreationally for several decades, when it is widely-known that Cannabis has flourished on many or most parts of the planet for millennia. Pharmaceutical records of Cannabis-based medicine in the United States in the nineteenth-century appear to belie the claim that Americans have only been using recreational pot for around forty years; it is well known that prescription drugs also impart a far more worrying potential for abuse and recreational usage. In more modern times, most weed varieties that were enjoyed in the 1960s and 1970s had in fact been smuggled into America from other parts of the world.

Later in the text, the author appears to re-assign responsibility for the global spread of recreational Cannabis use to the Netherlands, where modest pot sales and consumption became tolerated about forty years ago. This prevarication denotes a potential lack of accuracy in the structure of the study, or possibly within the findings themselves.

Cigarette smokers as a percentage of the population for the Netherlands, compared with the United States, Norway, Japan and Finland

Another anomaly is the vague definition of 'heavy' or 'regular' Cannabis use as daily or near-daily. Hall determines that "regular users may smoke up to three to five joints of potent Cannabis a day." One issue with such labeling is that some smokers will find it nearly impossible to quantify their usage; similarly troubling is the fact that one 'regular' user might smoke a joint or two per day, while others may consume as much as ten or fifteen grams per day, likely contained in twenty to thirty 'pure' joints (rolled weed-only, without tobacco) - although those who mix tobacco and weed 'spliffs' could multiply those numbers by up to a factor of four (meaning that 0.25 grams of Cannabis would be mixed with an unknown amount of tobacco). Assuming that Hall's definition is accurate, we would then be inclined to ask for some clarification, such as whether those three-to-five joints are pure or mixed, or if each of the three joints contained a gram or more of weed.

Thus, stating that one person smokes, say, ten joints per day is misleading: how big was each joint - did they use small cigarette papers or long joint papers? Was the Cannabis mixed with tobacco? Is the weed organically grown and free of mold and mildew or chemical nutrients and pesticides? How many joints per gram is this smoker achieving? Further variations in negative health consequences will likely result from focusing upon and differentiating between such study variables as raw or natural rolling papers versus bleached or flavored papers and filter tips, whether the tobacco is a commercial, chemical brand or one of several natural, additive-free brands, how long the inhalation is maintained, etc., in addition to the factors listed previously.

Noticeably and completely absent, though, is a reference to the currently high and ever-increasing number of marijuana devotees utilizing vaporizers or vape pens as their chosen method of consumption. Edible Cannabis products are also not mentioned in the study. Humans are simply not stupid; as the empirical evidence mounts against the safety of smoking marijuana, rather than vaporizing or eating it, more and more adults are seeking a safer alternative with regards to consumption methods, effectively decreasing the number of those who smoke Cannabis and would therefore experience the negative consequences detailed in this study.

Semi-protective action from cannabinoids within the lungs and upper airways is mentioned only briefly, while damage from smoking is highlighted

If the majority of the damage associated with Cannabis use is directly related to the smoking of the substance, rather than its intrinsic danger (e.g., from cannabinoids, specifically) or lack thereof, then it is safe to assume that most of the negative health impact from smoking pot can be avoided by simply choosing not to smoke it. This does not mean that everyone should immediately stop vaporizing or eating weed as well, nor does it exclude the idea that there may be some undesirable side-effects of consuming Cannabis in any manner, such as those relating to dependence, physiological changes and social impact.

Citing the desire to experience "euphoria and increased sociability" as the driving factor behind recreational weed use, the authors highlight the eponymous Δ-9 THC (tetrahydrocannabinol, one of the main active cannabinoids in Cannabis plants) as the major draw, while relegating information about cannabidiol (CBD), an equally important, effective and desirable cannabinoid, to one mere sentence relating to its modulating action regarding THC. In actuality, indica-dominant strains, typically containing higher CBD than THC levels, are rapidly increasing in popularity and availability due to their relaxing, sedating effects. Folks smoking to treat anxiety, or those with muscle-related or seizure disorders, for example, should actually avoid the uplifting THC in favor of the anti-spasmodic CBD.

Those who wish to get 'high' generally smoke sativas or hazes, while smokers preferring a 'stoned' effect choose indicas. The study makes no distinction between the two, suggesting that they had not considered the higher chlorophyll content often seen in indicas, which tend to appear to be a much darker green than sativas or hazes and often have larger, wider leaves - increase the level of vegetable tar consumed with such strains. Conversely, concentrates by definition do not impart the health impacts associated with Cannabis plant matter. Surely, such information could skew scientific study results and should have been considered.

Additionally, while the cultural and regional differences between certain users, such as the proclivity for mixing weed with tobacco, are mentioned, such a revelation does nothing to further the research or form a clear, all-encompassing conclusion. Those who vaporize or eat medibles are left with little or no feedback, as the majority of the damaging health impact cited is related to smoking, rather than to the exact physiological effect of cannabinoids upon the human anatomy, collateral damage accumulated through unsafe cultivation methods, etc.

The conclusion of the research states that, "The epidemiological literature in the past twenty years shows that Cannabis use increases the risk of accidents and can produce dependence, and that there are consistent associations between regular Cannabis use and poor psychosocial outcomes and mental health in adulthood."

In reality, not much of the information revealed by the study is new, nor is it surprising. In addition, it seems that many regular Cannabis users have not or will not experience the negative impact of this recreational habit, although no one can deny that smoking is harmful to one's health. Unsurprisingly, if you plan on becoming intoxicated by Cannabis, refrain from driving. Lastly, due to the risk of developing a dependence to weed, it is recommended that frequent users take regular breaks from consuming marijuana in order to decrease any damaging health impact and to prevent dependence from occurring.

SOURCE:
Hall, W. (2014), "What has research over the past two decades revealed about the adverse health effects of recreational Cannabis use?" Addiction. doi: 10.1111/add.12703 [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.12703/abstract;jsessionid=656E9DCAAE10C98EFEC2317A4EC9068B.f01t03]

 

S
Soft Secrets