Science Should Guide Marijuana Policy

[neversickanymore]

Science Should Guide Marijuana Policy
Dr. Nora Volkow
Aug 18th, 2014

In a series of recent articles, The New York Times’ editors presented a case for repealing the federal ban on marijuana, including the disproportionate impact of current marijuana laws on minorities. While there is no question that we should rectify any injustices associated with such policies, we also need to consider and prepare for the escalation in social and health costs that could result from creating a third legal drug in this country. We should be thoughtfully examining all policy and regulatory options available to minimize harms to society and promote Americans’ safety, well-being, and competitiveness.

We do not yet know how marijuana will affect vulnerable populations like older people or those with physical or mental health problems. We do know that marijuana increases the risk of car accidents (about 2-fold on its own, even more in combination with alcohol). And the science of marijuana’s long-term effects is increasingly clear. Besides being addictive, marijuana is cognitively impairing even beyond the phase of acute intoxication and regular use during adolescence may cause a significant, possibly permanent IQ loss. Brain scans in users who started when they were young show impaired neural development, probably because cannabis interferes with normal brain maturation.

There is no reason to think laws limiting marijuana to adults will be any more successful than comparable laws for cigarettes or alcohol. Legalization will likely increase the already substantial proportion of teens that use marijuana regularly and thus put themselves at a competitive disadvantage in school and life. As a nation already faltering in educational achievement, we should not hamstring our competitiveness in this area further.

As states consider modifying their marijuana laws, it is crucial they use science to guide their decision making, learn from past mistakes, and act to prevent the establishment of a “big marijuana” industry that will benefit from creating and sustaining a new generation of young people addicted to their product.

continued here http://www.drugabuse.gov/about-nida/noras-blog/2014/08/science-should-guide-marijuana-policy

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

I applaud that the NIODA abuse allows comments that question their opinions. check out the comment section.

 

[slimvictor]

But the ways in which cannabis can harm health are not really relevant, I would say.
The individual freedom to take whatever substances we choose is the key issue.
If nature grows a plant, how can the government say that we cannot use it?
It doesn't make any sense.
The government is supposed to support and protect the people, not to limit their rights.
Whether cannabis is "addictive" (lol) or not, whether it affects driving or not - these are important facets to research, but should not come to bear on the discussion of its possible legalization.
Alcohol is addictive and affects driving. So are pain killers, etc.
Drugs have many potential benefits as well as drawbacks. Research and education are key. But these are difficult or impossible without legalization.
And this is not even the issue, which is an issue of human freedom.

 

[neversickanymore]

it is crucial they use science to guide their decision making, learn from past mistakes, and act to prevent the establishment of a “big marijuana” industry

I could not agree more with this. though my reasons are not in alignment with the good DR's. The greedy corporations have their greedy paws in everything. I think this industry should remain in the hands of the people.

 

[pmoseman]

The decision is not in your hands.

I disagree about use among teenagers. That should not increase.