Once again, Dr. Harris Faigel has written to the Justice about the
dangers of marijuana, presumably because he opposes the HEMP club's
efforts to legalize the cannabis plant.  And once again he uses flawed
arguments and incorrect facts to support his points.
  Faigel refers to "the scientific and medical literature," but fails
to give any specific citations.  In the highly politicized area of
cannabis related research, such citations are necessary for any
meaningful debate.  There exists a large body of studies supposedly
showing the dangers of marijuana, which are either seriously flawed or
nonexistent, but are nevertheless often quoted or used in fact sheets,
ads, and propoganda.
  For example, the claim that marijuana kills brain cells began with a
study in which monkeys were forced to inhale marijuana smoke so
quickly that there was little room for oxygen, and they suffered from
asphyxiation and carbon monoxide poisoning (Heath/Tulane study, 1974).
In the social "sciences", research is even more questionable.  A few
good examples are summarized in a 1990 article in the Hartford
Courant, "Untruths, unreliable data create obstacles in war on drugs."
Among them, a study which claimed that drug use lowers worker
productivity in fact was simply a comparison of the average incomes of
people who use and do not use drugs, and found, predictably, that drug
use was higher in the lower income groups.  The writers of the article
were unable to locate the source of another study which claimed that
marijuana causes long term impairment, a result which is widely quoted
in the literature.
  One of the most common slams is that marijuana smoking is more
likely to cause cancer than tobacco smoking.  Cannabis is often
condemned for the high "tar" content of its leaves, when in fact most
users smoke the flower buds, which are low in "tar".  Also left out of
most literature is that marijuana smoke contains no radioactivity,
which tobacco smoke does.  In 1990, US Surgeon General Ed Koop said
that radioactivity is probably responsible for most tobacco related
cancer.  (For pointers to research on radioactivity in tobacco, see
Winters, Franza, "Radioactivity in Cigarette Smoke", New England
Journal of Medicine, 1982, 306(6): p364-365; also Reader's Digest,
March 1986, p123-127.)
  According to my search, no case of cancer has ever been conclusively
shown to have been caused by marijuana smoking, nor has any study been
done showing higher rates of cancer among marijuana smokers.  The only
research I am aware of which attempted to track large numbers of
marijuana smokers, "Ganja in Jamaica" (Vera Rubin and Lambros Comitas,
1968-1974, published 1975) reported no unusual incidence of cancer,
although the subjects smoked much more marijuana than most American
users.  Lung specialist Dr. Eugene Tashkin of UCLA has studied the
effects of both tobacco and marijuana smoke on the lungs, and has not
linked marijuana smoking to lung cancer.
  Despite such counterexamples, advocates of marijuana prohibition
continue to base their claims on circumstantial evidence.  Including,
ironically, a part of a 1976 report by Dr. Tashkin which found that
marijuana causes more lesions in the large air passageway of the lung
than does tobacco.  The facts that the large air passageway is not
affected much by tobacco smoke, that marijuana has a neutral or
positive effect in other areas of the lung, and that NONE of the
marijuana subjects Tashkin studied went on to get cancer, is ignored.
Instead, Tashkin received new federal funding for marijuana studies
involving only the large air passageway.  Science, or politics?
(See The Emperor Wears no Clothes, Jack Herer, 1991, p80; also Dr.
Tashkin's studies at UCLA, 1969 - 1990).
  Although it is possible that marijuana smoking increases a person's
cancer risk, there is no scientific evidence that verifies this claim,
and there is sufficient data to show that it is not as harmful as
tobacco smoke.  If there is a risk, it could be reduced or eliminated
by using filters, water pipes, or taking marijuana orally, all of
which are made much more difficult by prohibition.  If Dr. Faigel is
worried about the effects of marijuana smoke, logically he should
support legalization so that safer means are more widely available.


  In fact, contrary to Dr. Faigel's unfounded claims, cannabis does
have known medical uses.  For most of history, it was one of the most
commonly used medicines in most parts of the world.  Medical use of
marijuana was prevalent in the US until it was made illegal in the
1930s, and a synthetic form of THC, marijuana's active ingredient, is
approved by the FDA for use today, although it is not as effective.
  When marijuana was first outlawed on a federal level, the American
Medical Association sent a representative to express their objection
to the bill (transcript of House Ways & Means Committee hearings on
Marijuana Tax Act, April 1937).  In a 1990 survey of 10% of America's
oncologists, more than half said they would prescribe smokable
marijuana to some of their patients if they could.  44% said they had
in fact recommended marijuana use to patients, despite the legal risk.
(See Marijuana as Antiemetic Medicine: a survey of oncologists'
experiences and attitudes, Doblin & Kleiman, Journal of Clinical
Oncology, July 1991)
  The DEA, which classifies marijuana as having "no known medical
use", in 1987/88 held hearings on the subject.  DEA administrative law
judge Francis Young heard 15 days of testimony from all sides of the
issue, received depositions, and after a year of deliberation
recommended that the DEA reclassify marijuana to allow medical use.
He wrote, "The evidence in this record clearly shows that marijuana
has been accepted as capable of relieving the distress of great
numbers of very ill people, and doing so with safety under medical
supervision... In strict medical terms, marijuana is far safer than
many foods we commonly consume... marijuana in its natural form is one
of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man."
Predictable, though, politics once again won out over the facts.
Young's recommendation was denied by a DEA administrator.
  Marijuana is known to be useful for treating nausea associated with
chemotherapy (See Vinciguerra, Moore and Brennan, "Inhalation
Marijuana as an Anti-emetic for Cancer Chemotherapy", NY State
J. Med. 88, Oct 1988), glaucoma (See Hepler and Frank, "Marihuana
Smoking and Intraocular Pressure", Journal of the American Medical
Association 217, 1971 p1392), multiple sclerosis (See Ellenberger,
"Treatment of human spasticity with delta 9-THC", Journal of Clinical
Pharmacology, Aug-Sep 1981; Ungerleider, Andyrsiak, Fairbanks,
Ellison, Myers, "Delta-9-THC in the treatment of spasticity associated
with multiple sclerosis", U.C.L.A. School of Medicine 1987), loss of
appetite in AIDS patients (the so called "munchies"), as an analgesic
(See Noyes, Brunk, Avery, and Canter, "The Analgesic Properties of
Delta-9-THC and Codeine", Clin.  Pharm. and Therapeutics 18, 1975),
and several others.
  In fact, marijuana was probably the most commonly prescribed pain
reliever in the US until it was replaced by Aspirin around the turn of
the century.  While no drug is completely safe for everyone who takes
it, or completely free of side effects, marijuana is one of the
safest.  An evaluation of a variety of studies about the dangers and
benefits of marijuana can be found in an article from the National
Academy of Sciences, "Marijuana and Health", edited by Dr. Arnold
Relman (National Academy Press, 1982).  Regarding claims that today's
marijuana is more potent or dangerous than what was used in the past,
see Mikuriya, Tod H. and Aldrich, Micheal R., "Cannabis 1988 Old Drug,
New Dangers, The Potency Debate", Journal of Psychoactive Drugs,
Jan-Mar 1988.


  If Dr. Faigel is unaware of these facts, that is not surprising.
Politically motivated censorship has caused a lot of information about
marijuana to remain hidden or unpublished, and finding the facts often
requires a lot of work.  For example, the monkey study described in
the beginning of this article was originally publicized without the
details of its methodology; The National Organization for the Reform
of Marijuana Laws had to wait six years for their FOIA request for
this information to be granted.
  Copies of a film distributed by the US government during WWII to
encourage farmers to grow cannabis hemp, "Hemp for Victory," were
removed from the Library of Congress, and erased from the catalogue.
Legalization advocate Jack Herer found a reference to the film in a
decades old paper copy of the catalog, and replaced the film itself in
the library with a copy from an old farmer who had received it from
the government during the war (See The Emperor Wears no Clothes, Jack
Herer, 1991).  Other cases of this politicization, such as the
misinterpretation of Dr. Tashkin's studies referenced above, have
succeeded in fooling many otherwise competent and informed people.

  Dr. Faigel's letter goes beyond being merely misinformed, however.
As in his last letter, he repeats his claims that marijuana is
dangerous because it is often sold laced with more dangerous drugs
such as PCP.  Did he not see HEMP's response the previous week?  If
marijuana were legalized, it could be properly labeled, like every
other legal drug.  If "people who sell marijuana too often are liars,"
as Faigel claims, then why not allow users to grow their own?
  Faigel claims that "the HEMP club is displeased with the news that
there may be medical problems with the use of marijuana."  I do not
recall seeing such a statement from them.  While there may be medical
problems with marijuana, there are much more serious medical problems
associated with many legal and commonly used medicines.  Aspirin
overdose is an often used form of suicide, for example, while
marijuana overdose is impossible (there is not a single recorded case
of death from marijuana overdose).  Does the danger of Aspirin
overdose, or the addictiveness of valium, "disturb" Dr. Faigel?
Perhaps so, but this is hardly relevant to the issue of legalization.
  Faigel refers to the dangers of driving while under the influence of
marijuana, ignoring the fact that practically all advocates of
legalization agree that DUI laws that apply to alcohol should apply to
marijuana as well.  Those who want marijuana to be legal are not
promoting its use while driving.
  Faigel claims that marijuana causes poor academic performance, a
delay in social and emotional development, and lack of motivation.
These claims have never been scientifically validated, and stem from
studies with poor methodologies, such claims that correlation implies
causation.  Other studies, such as "Ganja in Jamaica" (referenced
above) actually show increased motivation and performance in school
among marijuana users.  The only thing that is clear is that these
effects of marijuana are more likely related to society's treatment of
it than they are to marijuana's phamacological properties.


  Perhaps the most telling comments come at the end of Faigel's
letter, where he talks about the dangers of ignorance.  Just as
ignorance of marijuana's dangers doesn't make it safer, he says,
people who do not realize the dangers of a high fat diet aren't any
safer from heart disease.  In the context of Faigel's support of
marijuana prohibition, are we to presume that he would also lend his
support to a law banning high fat, high cholesterol diets?  Should
McDonald's patrons be jailed for their vice?
  Faigel accuses the HEMP club of being disingenuous and of not having
done their homework.  I don't know about HEMP, or about Dr. Faigel,
but I for one have been doing my homework on this subject for over six
years.  What is truly disingenuous is the way Dr. Faigel deliberately
ignored HEMP's arguments, countered with an illogical and poorly
researched letter, and made this accusation against HEMP.




  -- Ofer Inbar, GRAD-COSI