US MA: LTE: Marijuana Is Dangerous

US MA: LTE: Marijuana Is Dangerous
Posted by FoM on March 09, 2000 at 21:12:15 PT
Richard Lake, MAPNews Sr. Editor
Source: MapInc.
In Mr. Miron's reply to "Marijuana, the Deceptive Drug," (February issue) it is clear that he "protests too much." Having been involved for over fifteen years in fighting those whose goal is legalization, in my opinion, this article had no new rhetoric; the same old claims with the same lack of substantiation. 
In faulting Mr. Biernson's cited studies, why then, does Mr. Miron fail to cite any studies to validate many of his statements? Contrary to the Grinspoon/Bakalar quote: "...the only deleterious physical effect of marijuana is harm to the pulmonary system," is a recent report (December, 1999) by Dr. Zuo-Feng Zhang of the Jonsson Cancer Center at the University of California, Los Angeles, which adds to evidence that smoking marijuana can cause cancer. "Many people may think marijuana is harmless, but it's not." Mr. Miron's reference to the conclusions by Zimmer/Morgan which claim "there is little evidence of any harm even from regular use," is a gross misrepresentation of truth! In testimony submitted by Drug Czar General Barry McCaffrey for the Record to the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, October 1, 1997: "...misconceptions about marijuana continue to abound. Confused by conflicting messages, it is no wonder that many Americans, especially our youth, do not understand what current scientific research is teaching us about the damaging effects of smoked marijuana. Current research points to serious risks to society. Marijuana contains cancer-causing compounds, reduces workplace productivity, and is increasingly prevalent in automobile accidents and youth fatalities. Treatment figures for 1995 show that 141,000 Americans were admitted to drug treatment programs for marijuana addiction. Over half (55%) of all youths ages 15-17 admitted to drug treatment were seeking treatment for marijuana." Miron's statement regarding text from Goodman and Gilman's reference that "relatively few patients ever seek treatment for marijuana addiction," is again refuted in a Washington Post article (01/12/2000, by Sally Squires) "Biggest Short-Term Risks. Marijuana users are as uncoordinated as drunks on standard driving tests, and more than 120,000 people seek treatment each year for marijuana addiction, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse." As Robert Gilkeson, M.D. stated: "The toxic properties of chemical molecules and their cellular damage are not matters of opinion or debate. They are not determined by adolescent servicemen, or by scientifically uneducated lawyers, legislators, judges, or 'doctors' without the facts. "We cannot vote for or against the 'toxicity of a drug.' How much a drug impairs cell structure or chemical function is neither subject to nor governed by congressional committee, public referendum, or the federal Constitution. "We cannot govern the electromagnetic behavior of chemical molecules by popular vote, judicial proclamation, personal opinion or individual desire. "Everyone is entitled to his own 'opinion.' He is not entitled to his own 'facts.' Chemically, marijuana is a far more dangerous drug than most of the scientifically ignorant media and American consumers have been duped into believing." The harms and dangerous effects of marijuana are all that Mr. Biernson stated ... and more! Lea Palleria Cox, M.A.T. President, Concerned Citizens for Drug Prevention, Inc. Massachusetts Delegate, Drug Watch International MAP Posted-by: Richard Lake Way To Go Richard!URL: Tip from: Pubdate: Mar, 2000 Source: Massachusetts News (MA) Copyright: 2000 Massachusetts News, Inc. Contact: editor Address: One Cameron St., Wellesley, MA 02482 Website: Author: Lea Palleria Cox Also: The other items in the discussion in this newspaper are at: CannabisNews Related Articles:Rebuttal to Marijuana Article by Jeffrey A. Miron MA: Prof. Miron Is Wrong About Marijuana MA: Marijuana, The Deceptive Drug MA: Reply To Marijuana, the Deceptive Drug MapInc Archives New & Growing!
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help

Comment #7 posted by Tim Stone on March 10, 2000 at 20:01:21 PT
Drug Watch International
They really are a gaggle of fascinating loons, aren't they? They're so whacko that even mainstream drug warriors seem to regard them as a bit goofy. Very heavy into conspiracy theory, as we see from Biernson's original article, wherein he implies that since 1979 the NIDA has become a hotbed of dope legalizers. And shades of the old Comintern conspiracy of earlier times, DWI has the drug cartels as the primary financial patrons of the "well-funded legalizers, " (fellow travelers, useful idiots?) trying to seduce entire nations into a life of slavish addiction. However many fancy academic initials some of these DWI loons have after their names, Econ 101 appears never to have been part of their educational curriculum. Indeed, very possibly there's a posthumous Pulitzer waiting for any journalist bold enough to try to trace whether well-laundered drug lord money is actually going to "legalizers" or hard-core elected drug warriors. BTW, the Swedish evangelical group Hassela (sp?) is right up there with Drug Watch International for incoherently uninformed loonery. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by kaptinemo on March 10, 2000 at 18:01:56 PT:
An old song in a new album cover
Exactly my point, Freedom. These organizations scratch each other's back so much they all should have the same address; it would save them major ducats on postage. They attempt to give an impression of autonomy and independance of thought, but they are all singers in the same band... and their performance hasn't improved in 20 years. In fact, they haven't come up with any new material in as long; just the same old sour notes.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by Freedom on March 10, 2000 at 13:45:51 PT
Oh my, again!
I have been doing my homework... here, we have a letter from a DWI member. I suggest all visit You'll get an idea how fraudulent these people are.This is my favorite article at the site:, I just found out the editorial I rebutted last night,from Janet Lapey... Dr. Lapey is another DWI goon.As shown here: bastards. This paper did not even mention this part of her background.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by kaptinemo on March 10, 2000 at 07:21:43 PT:
Time to rally the troops
Folks, do you notice anything about the *timing* of all this negative 'reportage' going on at the same time? Hawaii just voted for MMJ. Other States will follow suit. The Feds are *losing*. And then, all of a sudden, here's a supposed 'scientific study' warning us, saying that cannabis causes neck cancer. And now, they are trotting out the old 'cannabis makes you a zombie via THC osmosis from fat cells', and other inane trash. *Old* trash. What's going on here? I think I have an idea about what's happening. We are seeing the opening rounds being fired in a counter-attack by the antis. And it may well be their last gasp... unless we allow these phony studies to be used against us, again. If we let this stuff go unchallenged, then we may well be the ones who're sunk. And that's exactly what the antis are up to.The pre-1980 NIDA studies were used as part of the Reefer Madness 2 that swept through the US courtesy of the latest phase of the DrugWar. Instead of the 'MJ makes you a ravening axe-murderer!' line, they tried a pseudo-medical tack: remember the 'precancerous lesions in the lungs' (all lesions in the lungs look precancerous), the bit about THC being in the fat cells a long time and leaching out slowly, the bit about men growing breasts, etc.? All part of the scare tactics. All those 'studies' had been peer-reviewed and found to be flawed. But because there has never been any comprehensive and objective studies done in the US since 1980 (because researchers were denied access to the only legal cannabis available and were threatened with jail if they tried to research it on their own) the government had the *only* official ones... flawed as they are. So now the ONDCP is using its' catspaws in the civilian support groups (PFDFA, CCDP, DWI, etc.) to inject this tired old drivel into the debate once again. If those researchers on our side can counter this dreck with the facts, then the antis will have run out of ammo.They are on the ropes. Time to deliver the knockout. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by Freedom on March 09, 2000 at 23:39:51 PT
I just spent two hours writing a rebuttal to Janet D. Lapey, M.D.. This really sucks, what a way to spend my night. I have done my part with this insanity. What an infuriating group of articles.GOOD FUCKING GRIEF!You take care too FoM, I need to go to sleep. I can only tolerate so much corruption before my soul feels poisoned. I will send off my e-mail, and that is that.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by FoM on March 09, 2000 at 22:47:33 PT
I'll read it tomorrow!
Hi Freedom, I haven't even read the articles in full yet. I don't read most articles until they are posted. It takes all my concentration to figure out how to do that and there isn't much time for reading. I let you all decide about the articles and I just find news and post the articles and comment when I have a little free time.Take Care,FoM!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by Freedom on March 09, 2000 at 21:51:19 PT
Uh , FoM....
Now, FoM, are you teasing us? Mr. Miron's rebuttal is right next to the article below at MAPINC. You are possessed by odd demons at times to treat us to such reefer madness. :)Just kidding... sort-of. I understand the desire to present both sides. How about the rebuttal this LTE refers to:> which adds to evidence that smoking marijuana can cause cancer.In that study which she obviously has not read, the group who smoked marijuana were actually less likely to get a squamous neck cancer than the non-smoking control group:[snip]A valid conclusion that may be drawn from the data in the study is that cigarette smoking promotes squamous cell neck cancer and that the chance of getting the disease increases if marijuana is also smoked.  However, if anything, marijuana smoking alone seems to reduce the odds of getting it. [snip]> more than 120,000 people seek treatment eachyear for marijuana addiction,The vast majority are adolescents and adults coerced into treatment, and/or those who have multiple addictions, and happen to mention marijuana as one of them. These people will tell any lie. I cannot take the time to rebut the entire non-sense, those who read here are not in need of persuasion. Why not collect up some of the 20 million regular users of cannabis, and demostrate the mortality of casual use? Oh, I suppose she missed the three major studies done on marijuana effects on using societies.Let's see, the British Indian Hemp study, the La Guardia Study from the late 40s, and what was that one from Jamaica... I swear these people tell more and more elaborate lies to spin us in circles and keep us busy with b.s..Mr. Miron told her specifically that he did not want to waste valuable space, and instead quoted conclusions drawn from those who had evaluated all the science, not just those bits done by the likes of Nahas.^$^&%$&*^% *&%*^%!
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment

Name: Optional Password: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: