Marijuana: Why research disregards benefits of pot and other drugs, focuses on harm
Is America’s scientific research biased to focus on the harmful effects of drugs?
That was one of the questions at the heart of a congressional hearing this summer seeking to understand more comprehensively the scientific evidence related to marijuana. And it was how Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, found herself being grilled by Rep. Gerald Connolly, D-Va.
“Dr. Volkow, your testimony seems to completely disregard lots of other data,” he accused.
Volkow and I were the witnesses, along with a representative from the Food and Drug Administration. Connolly was particularly interested in learning why NIDA and the FDA - both part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services - supported so little research into the potential medical uses of marijuana. He appeared exasperated by the focus on drugs’ harmful effects, which “impeded the ability to have legitimate research that could benefit human health.”
I have spent nearly 20 years studying the neurophysiological, psychological and behavioral effects of recreational drugs, including marijuana. And over the past decade I, too, have grown tired of hearing scientists detail drug-related negative effects, always warning of the possible neurological and psychiatric dangers users face, while virtually ignoring recreational drugs’ potential medicinal or beneficial effects.
Some are quick to caution that marijuana, for example, is a gateway drug to harder substances but never mention the more than 700,000 people arrested each year mainly for simple possession of the drug, let alone the shameful racial disparities in marijuana arrests. At the federal level, Latinos represent two-thirds of the individuals arrested for marijuana violations. This is despite the fact that blacks, Latinos and whites all use the drug at similar rates.
Few scientists admit publicly what we all know and the data has shown for decades: The overwhelming majority of people who use drugs do so without any problems. For example, different studies show that between 75 and 90 percent will never become addicted.
In fact, the last three occupants of the White House - Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama - all smoked marijuana when they were younger. Obama also admitted to having used cocaine. The point is not to tarnish the reputations of these men - they all served their country. My point is that their drug use did not result in an inevitable downward spiral leading to debauchery and addiction. And the experience of these men is the rule, not the exception. The overwhelming majority of drug users are not derelict addicts.
I often wondered why many scientists continued to emphasize such a limited perspective on the effects produced by recreational drugs, especially in the face of considerable evidence showing their beneficial effects and therapeutic potential.
For example, physicians in multiple countries, including Germany and Switzerland, prescribe heroin as a part of an effective treatment regimen for heroin addiction. Here in the U.S., my colleagues and I have shown that methamphetamine enhances mood and improves cognitive functioning in some domains. Our research also demonstrates that marijuana stimulates appetite in HIV-positive patients, which could be lifesaving for someone suffering from AIDS wasting syndrome.
Mind you, I recognize that some drug advocates overreach when extolling the virtues of, say, marijuana, claiming that the drug is a cure for everything from heartache to cancer. Clearly, many of these claims are exaggerations.
This does not, however, mean we should dismiss all claims of a recreational drug’s potential utility. Any informed scientist must know that all drugs - including heroin, cocaine and over-the-counter and prescription medications - can produce both positive and negative effects.
They must know that their safe use can be enhanced or diminished depending upon several contextual factors, including the dose taken, the user’s level of tolerance and the setting in which drug use occurs.
In my congressional testimony, I aimed to contextualize marijuana’s effects. Regarding the gateway theory, I agreed that the majority of cocaine and heroin users started out using marijuana first. But I also added a more important detail that is often omitted: The vast majority of pot smokers never go on to use harder drugs. To call marijuana a gateway drug is illogical.
I also added context to marijuana’s addictive potential. During the hearing, it was correctly noted that about 9 percent of pot smokers would become addicted at some point in their life. However, the fact that about 15 percent of alcohol drinkers and a third of tobacco smokers would become addicted over their lifetime was not mentioned until my testimony.
UPDATED: Please read and follow our commenting policy: