|
Great
Links:
|
MARIJUANA
STATISTICS AND REPORTS
Marijuana
Statistics and Reports
In 2002, 45.3 percent of the 1,538,813 total arrests for drug abuse
violations were for marijuana -- a total of 697,082. Of those, 613,986
people were arrested for marijuana possession alone. This is a slight
decrease from 2000, when a total of 734,497 Americans were arrested for
marijuana offences, of which 646,042 were for possession alone.
According to the UN's estimate, 141 million people around the world use
marijuana. This represents about 2.5 percent of the world population.
Source: United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention,
Global Illicit Drug Trends 1999 (New York, NY: UNODCCP, 1999), p.
91.
Marijuana was first federally prohibited in 1937. Today, more than 83
million Americans admit to having tried it.
Sources: Marihuana Tax Act of 1937; Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration, Summary of Findings from the 2001 National
Household Survey on Drug Abuse (Rockville, MD: Department of Health and
Human Services, 2002), Table H.1, from the web at http:://www.samhsa.gov/oas/NHSDA/2k1NHSDA/vol2/appendixh_1.htm,
last accessed Sept. 16, 2002.
"Tetrahydrocannabinol is a very safe drug. Laboratory animals
(rats, mice, dogs, monkeys) can tolerate doses of up to 1,000 mg/kg
(milligrams per kilogram). This would be equivalent to a 70 kg person
swallowing 70 grams of the drug -- about 5,000 times more than is
required to produce a high. Despite the widespread illicit use of
cannabis there are very few if any instances of people dying from an
overdose. In Britain, official government statistics listed five deaths
from cannabis in the period 1993-1995 but on closer examination these
proved to have been deaths due to inhalation of vomit that could not be
directly attributed to cannabis (House of Lords Report, 1998). By
comparison with other commonly used recreational drugs these statistics
are impressive."
Source: Iversen, Leslie L., PhD, FRS, "The Science of
Marijuana" (London, England: Oxford University Press, 2000), p.
178, citing House of Lords, Select Committee on Science and Technology,
"Cannabis -- The Scientific and Medical Evidence" (London,
England: The Stationery Office, Parliament, 1998).
"The results of our meta-analytic study failed to reveal a
substantial, systematic effect of long-term, regular cannabis
consumption on the neurocognitive functioning of users who were not
acutely intoxicated. For six of the eight neurocognitive ability areas
that were surveyed. the confidence intervals for the average effect
sizes across studies overlapped zero in each instance, indicating that
the effect size could not be distinguished from zero. The two exceptions
were in the domains of learning and forgetting."
Source: Grant, Igor, et al., "Non-Acute (Residual) Neurocognitive
Effects Of Cannabis Use: A Meta-Analytic Study," Journal of the
International Neuropsychological Society (Cambridge University Press:
July 2003), 9, p. 685.
"These results can be interpreted in several ways. A statistically
reliable negative effect was observed in the domain of learning and
forgetting, suggesting that chronic long-term cannabis use results in a
selective memory defect. While the results are compatible with this
conclusion, the effect size for both domains was of a very small
magnitude. The "real life" impact of such a small and
selective effect is questionable. In addition, it is important to note
that most users across studies had histories of heavy longterm cannabis
consumption. Therefore, these findings are not likely to generalize to
more limited administration of cannabis compounds, as would be seen in a
medical setting."
Source: Grant, Igor, et al., "Non-Acute (Residual) Neurocognitive
Effects Of Cannabis Use: A Meta-Analytic Study," Journal of the
International Neuropsychological Society (Cambridge University Press:
July 2003), 9, p. 686.
"In conclusion, our meta-analysis of studies that have attempted to
address the question of longer term neurocognitive disturbance in
moderate and heavy cannabis users has failed to demonstrate a
substantial, systematic, and detrimental effect of cannabis use on
neuropsychological performance. It was surprising to find such few and
small effects given that most of the potential biases inherent in our
analyses actually increased the likelihood of finding a cannabis
effect."
Source: Grant, Igor, et al., "Non-Acute (Residual) Neurocognitive
Effects Of Cannabis Use: A Meta-Analytic Study," Journal of the
International Neuropsychological Society (Cambridge University Press:
July 2003), 9, p. 687.
"Nevertheless, when considering all 15 studies (i.e., those that
met both strict and more relaxed criteria) we only noted that regular
cannabis users performed worse on memory tests, but that the magnitude
of the effect was very small. The small magnitude of effect sizes from
observations of chronic users of cannabis suggests that cannabis
compounds, if found to have therapeutic value, should have a good margin
of safety from a neurocognitive standpoint under the more limited
conditions of exposure that would likely obtain in a medical
setting."
Source: Grant, Igor, et al., "Non-Acute (Residual) Neurocognitive
Effects Of Cannabis Use: A Meta-Analytic Study," Journal of the
International Neuropsychological Society (Cambridge University Press:
July 2003), 9, pp. 687-8.
A Johns Hopkins study published in May 1999, examined marijuana's
effects on cognition on 1,318 participants over a 15 year period.
Researchers reported "no significant differences in cognitive
decline between heavy users, light users, and nonusers of
cannabis." They also found "no male-female differences in
cognitive decline in relation to cannabis use." "These results
... seem to provide strong evidence of the absence of a long-term
residual effect of cannabis use on cognition," they concluded.
Source: Constantine G. Lyketsos, Elizabeth Garrett, Kung-Yee Liang, and
James C. Anthony. (1999). "Cannabis Use and Cognitive Decline in
Persons under 65 Years of Age," American Journal of Epidemiology,
Vol. 149, No. 9.
"Current marijuana use had a negative effect on global IQ score
only in subjects who smoked 5 or more joints per week. A negative effect
was not observed among subjects who had previously been heavy users but
were no longer using the substance. We conclude that marijuana does not
have a long-term negative impact on global intelligence. Whether the
absence of a residual marijuana effect would also be evident in more
specific cognitive domains such as memory and attention remains to be
ascertained."
Source: Fried, Peter, Barbara Watkinson, Deborah James, and Robert Gray,
"Current and former marijuana use: preliminary findings of a
longitudinal study of effects on IQ in young adults," Canadian
Medical Association Journal, April 2, 2002, 166(7), p. 887.
"Although the heavy current users experienced a decrease in IQ
score, their scores were still above average at the young adult
assessment (mean 105.1). If we had not assessed preteen IQ, these
subjects would have appeared to be functioning normally. Only with
knowledge of the change in IQ score does the negative impact of current
heavy use become apparent."
Source: Fried, Peter, Barbara Watkinson, Deborah James, and Robert Gray,
"Current and former marijuana use: preliminary findings of a
longitudinal study of effects on IQ in young adults," Canadian
Medical Association Journal, April 2, 2002, 166(7), p. 890.
In March 1999, the Institute of Medicine issued a report on various
aspects of marijuana, including the so-called Gateway Theory (the theory
that using marijuana leads people to use harder drugs like cocaine and
heroin). The IOM stated, "There is no conclusive evidence that the
drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of
other illicit drugs."
Source: Janet E. Joy, Stanley J. Watson, Jr., and John A Benson, Jr.,
"Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base," Division
of Neuroscience and Behavioral Research, Institute of Medicine
(Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999).
The Institute of Medicine's 1999 report on marijuana explained that
marijuana has been mistaken for a gateway drug in the past because
"Patterns in progression of drug use from adolescence to adulthood
are strikingly regular. Because it is the most widely used illicit drug,
marijuana is predictably the first illicit drug most people encounter.
Not surprisingly, most users of other illicit drugs have used marijuana
first. In fact, most drug users begin with alcohol and nicotine before
marijuana, usually before they are of legal age."
Source: Janet E. Joy, Stanley J. Watson, Jr., and John A Benson, Jr.,
"Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base," Division
of Neuroscience and Behavioral Research, Institute of Medicine
(Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999).
A 1999 federal report conducted by the Institute of Medicine found that,
"For most people, the primary adverse effect of acute marijuana use
is diminished psychomotor performance. It is, therefore, inadvisable to
operate any vehicle or potentially dangerous equipment while under the
influence of marijuana, THC, or any cannabinoid drug with comparable
effects."
Source: Janet E. Joy, Stanley J. Watson, Jr., and John A Benson, Jr.,
"Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base," Division
of Neuroscience and Behavioral Research, Institute of Medicine
(Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999).
The DEA's Administrative Law Judge, Francis Young concluded: "In
strict medical terms marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly
consume. For example, eating 10 raw potatoes can result in a toxic
response. By comparison, it is physically impossible to eat enough
marijuana to induce death. Marijuana in its natural form is one of the
safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of
rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within the supervised
routine of medical care.:
Source: US Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Agency, "In the
Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition," [Docket #86-22],
(September 6, 1988), p. 57.
Commissioned by President Nixon in 1972, the National Commission on
Marihuana and Drug Abuse concluded that "Marihuana's relative
potential for harm to the vast majority of individual users and its
actual impact on society does not justify a social policy designed to
seek out and firmly punish those who use it. This judgment is based on
prevalent use patterns, on behavior exhibited by the vast majority of
users and on our interpretations of existing medical and scientific
data. This position also is consistent with the estimate by law
enforcement personnel that the elimination of use is unattainable."
Source: Shafer, Raymond P., et al, Marihuana: A Signal of
Misunderstanding, Ch. V, (Washington DC: National Commission on
Marihuana and Drug Abuse, 1972).
When examining the relationship between marijuana use and violent crime,
the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse concluded,
"Rather than inducing violent or aggressive behavior through its
purported effects of lowering inhibitions, weakening impulse control and
heightening aggressive tendencies, marihuana was usually found to
inhibit the expression of aggressive impulses by pacifying the user,
interfering with muscular coordination, reducing psychomotor activities
and generally producing states of drowsiness lethargy, timidity and
passivity."
Source: Shafer, Raymond P., et al, Marihuana: A Signal of
Misunderstanding, Ch. III, (Washington DC: National Commission on
Marihuana and Drug Abuse, 1972).
When examining the medical affects of marijuana use, the National
Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse concluded, "A careful search
of the literature and testimony of the nation's health officials has not
revealed a single human fatality in the United States proven to have
resulted solely from ingestion of marihuana. Experiments with the drug
in monkeys demonstrated that the dose required for overdose death was
enormous and for all practical purposes unachievable by humans smoking
marihuana. This is in marked contrast to other substances in common use,
most notably alcohol and barbiturate sleeping pills. The WHO reached the
same conclusion in 1995.
Source: Shafer, Raymond P., et al, Marihuana: A Signal of
Misunderstanding, Ch. III, (Washington DC: National Commission on
Marihuana and Drug Abuse, 1972); Hall, W., Room, R. & Bondy, S., WHO
Project on Health Implications of Cannabis Use: A Comparative Appraisal
of the Health and Psychological Consequences of Alcohol, Cannabis,
Nicotine and Opiate Use, August 28, 1995, (Geneva, Switzerland: World
Health Organization, March 1998).
The World Health Organization released a study in March 1998 that
states: "there are good reasons for saying that [the risks from
cannabis] would be unlikely to seriously [compare to] the public health
risks of alcohol and tobacco even if as many people used cannabis as now
drink alcohol or smoke tobacco."
Source: Hall, W., Room, R. & Bondy, S., WHO Project on Health
Implications of Cannabis Use: A Comparative Appraisal of the Health and
Psychological Consequences of Alcohol, Cannabis, Nicotine and Opiate
Use, August 28, 1995, (contained in original version, but deleted from
official version) (Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, March
1998).
The authors of a 1998 World Health Organization report comparing
marijuana, alcohol, nicotine and opiates quote the Institute of
Medicine's 1982 report stating that there is no evidence that smoking
marijuana "exerts a permanently deleterious effect on the normal
cardiovascular system."
Source: Hall, W., Room, R. & Bondy, S., WHO Project on Health
Implications of Cannabis Use: A Comparative Appraisal of the Health and
Psychological Consequences of Alcohol, Cannabis, Nicotine and Opiate
Use, August 28, 1995 (Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization,
March 1998).
Some claim that cannabis use leads to "adult amotivation." The
World Health Organization report addresses the issue and states,
"it is doubtful that cannabis use produces a well defined
amotivational syndrome." The report also notes that the value of
studies which support the "adult amotivation" theory are
"limited by their small sample sizes" and lack of
representative social/cultural groups.
Source: Hall, W., Room, R. & Bondy, S., WHO Project on Health
Implications of Cannabis Use: A Comparative Appraisal of the Health and
Psychological Consequences of Alcohol, Cannabis, Nicotine and Opiate
Use, August 28, 1995 (Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization,
March 1998).
Australian researchers found that regions giving on-the-spot fines to
marijuana users rather than harsher criminal penalties did not cause
marijuana use to increase.
Source: Ali, Robert, et al., The Social Impacts of the Cannabis
Expiation Notice Scheme in South Australia: Summary Report (Canberra,
Australia: Department of Health and Aged Care, 1999), p. 44.
Since 1969, government-appointed commissions in the United States,
Canada, England, Australia, and the Netherlands concluded, after
reviewing the scientific evidence, that marijuana's dangers had
previously been greatly exaggerated, and urged lawmakers to drastically
reduce or eliminate penalties for marijuana possession.
Source: Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence, Cannabis (London,
England: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1969); Canadian Government
Commission of Inquiry, The Non-Medical Use of Drugs (Ottawa, Canada:
Information Canada, 1970); The National Commission on Marihuana and Drug
Abuse, Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding, (Nixon-Shafer Report)
(Washington, DC: USGPO, 1972); Werkgroep Verdovende Middelen, Background
and Risks of Drug Use (The Hague, The Netherlands: Staatsuigeverij,
1972); Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare, Drug Problems in
Australia-An Intoxicated Society (Canberra, Australia: Australian
Government Publishing Service, 1977); Advisory Council on the Misuse of
Drugs, "The classification of cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs
Act 1971" (London, England, UK: Home Office, March 2002), available
on the web from http://www.drugs.gov.uk/ReportsandPublications/Communities/HO_drugsadvice.pdf
; House of Commons Home Affairs Committee Third Report, "The
Government's Drugs Policy: Is It Working?" (London, England, UK:
Parliament, May 9, 2002), from the web at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmhaff/318/31802.htm
and "Cannabis: Our Position for a Canadian Public Policy,"
report of the Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs
(Ottawa, Canada: Senate of Canada, September 2002).
The Canadian Senate's Special Committee on Illegal Drugs recommended in
its 2002 final report on cannabis policy that "the Government of
Canada amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to create a
criminal exemption scheme. This legislation should stipulate the
conditions for obtaining licenses as well as for producing and selling
cannabis; criminal penalties for illegal trafficking and export; and the
preservation of criminal penalties for all activities falling outside
the scope of the exemption scheme."
Source: "Cannabis: Our Position for a Canadian Public Policy,"
report of the Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs
(Ottawa, Canada: Senate of Canada, September 2002), p. 46.
UK Home Secretary David Blunkett announced in July 2002 that "We
must concentrate our efforts on the drugs that cause the most harm,
while sending a credible message to young people. I will therefore ask
Parliament to reclassify cannabis from Class B to Class C. I have
considered the recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee, and the
advice given me by the ACMD medical experts that the current
classification of cannabis is disproportionate in relation to the harm
that it causes."
Source: "'All Controlled Drugs Harmful, All Will Remain Illegal' -
Home Secretary," News Release, Office of the Home Secretary,
Government of the United Kingdom, July 10, 2002, from the web at
http://213.219.10.30/n_story.asp?item_id=143 last accessed July 31,
2002.
In May of 1998, the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, National Working
Group on Addictions Policy released policy a discussion document which
recommended, "The severity of punishment for a cannabis possession
charge should be reduced. Specifically, cannabis possession should be
converted to a civil violation under the Contraventions Act." The
paper further noted that, "The available evidence indicates that
removal of jail as a sentencing option would lead to considerable cost
savings without leading to increases in rates of cannabis use."
Source: Single, Eric, Cannabis Control in Canada: Options Regarding
Possession (Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, May
1998).
"Our conclusion is that the present law on cannabis produces more
harm than it prevents. It is very expensive of the time and resources of
the criminal justice system and especially of the police. It inevitably
bears more heavily on young people in the streets of inner cities, who
are also more likely to be from minority ethnic communities, and as such
is inimical to police-community relations. It criminalizes large numbers
of otherwise law-abiding, mainly young, people to the detriment of their
futures. It has become a proxy for the control of public order; and it
inhibits accurate education about the relative risks of different drugs
including the risks of cannabis itself."
Source: Police Foundation of the United Kingdom, "Drugs and the
Law: Report of the Independent Inquiry into the Misuse of Drugs Act of
1971", April 4, 2000. The Police Foundation, based in London,
England, is a nonprofit organization presided over by Charles, Crown
Prince of Wales, which promotes research, debate and publication to
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of policing in the UK.
According to the federal Potency Monitoring Project, the average potency
of marijuana has increased very little since the 1980s. The Project
reports that in 1985, the average THC content of commercial-grade
marijuana was 2.84%, and the average for high-grade sinsemilla in 1985
was 7.17%. In 1995, the potency of commercial-grade marijuana averaged
3.73%, while the potency of sinsemilla in 1995 averaged 7.51%. In 2001,
commercial-grade marijuana averaged 4.72% THC, and the potency of
sinsemilla in 2001 averaged 9.03%.
Source: Quarterly Report #76, Nov. 9, 2001-Feb. 8, 2002, Table 3, p. 8,
University of Mississippi Potency Monitoring Project (Oxford, MS:
National Center for the Development of Natural Products, Research
Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2002), Mahmoud A. ElSohly, PhD,
Director, NIDA Marijuana Project (NIDA Contract #N01DA-0-7707).
Vapouriser.com - Home and
portable vapourisers that reduce the harmful effects of smoking |
|