Showing posts with label smoke. Show all posts
Showing posts with label smoke. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 5, 2015

An open letter to the makers of The Other Side Of Cannabis: Negative Effects of Marijuana on Our Youth a Documentary

Foreward note: One thing I did not include in this letter, that will be included in later research, is the impact of marijuana on the dentae gyrus. This is the part of the brain responsible for memory. I did not realize that research had been done on this before, and the doctor from Paris provided excellent evidence. While he was attempting to show that heavy marijuana use decreases brain cell production in this area by 25%, he was not taking into consideration earlier research also done in Paris which shows more than 10-15 mg of nicotine daily reduces brain cell genesis in this part of the brain by 50%; under 5 mg of nicotine will produce no significant change and may be beneficial though with the exception of pipe tobacco smokers, this level of nicotine intake is virtually unheard of. French marijuana users almost exclusively use a mixture of 80% tobacco and 20% marijuana, making them this sort of heavy smokers (a mainstream American cigarette will give as much as 2.6 mg of nicotine, while the lowest nicotine cigarettes give .2-.4 mg, some nations such as Germany limit nicotine to .8 mg per cigarette).

Hello,
     I highly suspect we are on different sides of the debate on marijuana legalization. However, there are certain things which cannot be ignored as potential external costs of this industry. I have watched your film carefully and taken notes. My opinion is that you are discouraging people who are better off using marijuana from using it, and encouraging those who are at a vulnerable point in their life (usually childhood) to try it. I will support this in detail.
     Firstly some background. Marijuana is good for the brain and body when used in a responsible manner (5-10 grams per week). It increases functional connectivity as well as IQ, as proven in cohort studies as well as fMRI and SPECT scan imaging. It also helps bone health (which is connected to hair health and spine health) in adults. Psychosis is caused by child abuse and this has been proven conclusively.
     However, when consumed by children, especially in larger amounts, THC reduces bone density in a similar fashion to alcohol, and may negatively impact cognition, though research to my knowledge is not conclusive in this manner. Therefore, setting the use age at the same level as alcohol and enforcing it in this matter is of paramount importance.
     So how does an anti-marijuana film make kids like my little brother, sister or others use the drug? Well the research is badly done. The first doctor cited in this film, Dr. Eden Evins was recently cited in an expose by Vice in which she was shown to work for pharmaceutical companies that opposed marijuana, including projects with competing products in a major breach of scientific ethics. Her evidence in the documentary is unsubstantiated by causal data or evidence: in fact the euphoric dopamine releases of marijuana (THC) have been proven to be less than that of a good run or a good meal. There are no proven known withdrawal symptoms other than afterglow.
     The first testimony from a parent relies on accusations that marijuana is bad for mental health. This was true in a correlative manner decades ago, when homosexuality was part of the counterculture like marijuana and a diagnosable disease. Now, we have brain scans and hormonal proof which shows that the mental disorders ascribed to marijuana actually had their origins in other toxins or abusive relationships as children or adults. Social engineering will not fly with children.
     The argument that is proposed by a student after this is among the strongest reasons to use marijuana as an adult: smoking tobacco or drinking alcohol will kill you before the average life expectancy of 78 years, and the most aggressive anti-tobacco movement will claim as much as 10 years are lost due to smoking and lung cancer (though controlling for exercise drops this to two years). Users of marijuana enjoy a protective effect against alcohol induced brain damage and tobacco's damage to the lungs. For a kid to see and hear any of these arguments is unacceptable.
     If proven, highlighting the potential damage of marijuana to the brain in children which does not occur in adults, is important. I applaud this particular section of the film, though I believe the biggest change in high school or younger users is in cognitive function. Again, psychosis is caused by child abuse.
     Marijuana does make a user calmer, and this is reproducible evidence. Abused children suffer a permanent increase in cortisol release, a stress hormone. While a small increase is incurred by smoking marijuana in the short term (it is less than a beer, so if the victim can drink a beer without a panic attack, it is clear they faking if the claim this reaction from marijuana), long term use lowers baseline cortisol release levels, it is the only substance on earth which gives these abused children the chance to feel normal eventually as adults.
     Returning to addiction, which the dopamine release studies should cover fully, daily vs. weekly is a weak way of evaluating marijuana use. This should be done in amounts (in grams and %THC, as the IQ cohort studies from Canada which showed a causal increase in IQ from marijuana use did) and length of time used. Saying that marijuana is as dangerous as other drugs is an international crime.  Distribution of chemical weapons is illegal, and the makers of this film can be prosecuted for this, as hard drugs by definition qualify as chemical weapons (drug laws actually protect users and distributers of these substances in the USA, unfortunately, offering jail time instead of the death penalty or life sentences international law dictates). Remember that Goebbels would have swung at the Nuremberg trials, not to make light of a serious situation, but with 250,000 mortalities annually from hard or prescription drug overdose in the USA alone, this is quite serious.
     Furthermore, the gateway theory does not have any legitimate application. Such behaviour can be proven with any boycott or banned activity or good, in quite similar ratios. This is reproducible: the damage done when society not only ensures unsafe materials are not available but also makes safe substances available. For people who have medical necessity, this can be devastating.
      Unqualified claims that marijuana operates as an incremental repeating damage speaks in the face of known science and chemistry. Even with 10X moderate use levels, there have not been negative effects associated with THC one month after the last use, as shown by research conducted at Harvard University. The Federal Government released a report which shows that marijuana users have the same accident rate as sober individuals, twenty six times less than drinkers. Misinformation, especially in such a blatant manner and on such large subjects so well publicized will have a negative effect on the ability of this film to achieve any ethical or real success.
      The price of marijuana is too high. It should be the same price as tobacco, it is a plant, and less addictive with less external costs. Yet this industry is currently paying the external costs of abusive parents and bully school-mates, and paying it in jail time. It is now time to clear the air. Is it really true that non-marijuana users use more medication than marijuana users, or is this another claim which might drive young children (I assume this is the audience for this film) to use when they find out this is false? Perhaps the argument would be better phrased that marijuana users avoid medications, at least this would be true, if not honest (not to add fodder to this fire). The majority of Americans have used some sort of mood altering medication regularly, from alcohol (yes it was once considered only legal for medical purposes too) to more severe substances.
      The emergency room argument is among the best reasons for people propagating marijuana use as well. When people are in the hospital for other drugs or alcohol, it is a heart attack, it is an OD, it is a homicide case (half of handgun deaths are alcohol related, almost 40% involve hard drugs). Marijuana users who end up in the hospital are seeking to work through endemic problems in their childhood or life.
      Laced marijuana is poisoning, and this falls under federal poisoning acts. While marijuana is measured in a similar fashion to bad parking, requiring a single clean drug test and fine under the Controlled Substances' Act diversion program, poisoning marijuana behaviour is analogous to taking a baseball bat to someone's car parked in the wrong spot. It is improper procedure to even call the police in such a situation, and may be prosecuted for solicitation of a police officer (though the chances are about as unlikely as ending up in the federal diversion program).
      Brain scans on marijuana have a murky past, but the evidence is clear and compelling now. Marijuana users enjoy a causal increase in functional connectivity while suffering no significant changes to other parts of the brain. There were doctors and organizations fingered who accepted money from competing interests in a breach of scientific ethics, a slippery slope, as mentioned before. Their results were not reproducible (this also holds with much psychosis or schizophrenic research). Retrospective research has made the reality perfectly clear, and has been completed at 6 major universities, as well as by numerous individuals as the cost of brain scans has decreased significantly.
Furthermore, neurogenesis has been shown to increase in marijuana users, as well as blunted damage to the dentae gyrus, responsible for memories, suffered from nicotine intake (in European studies on the subject, where 80% or more tobacco is used in conjunction with marijuana cigarettes). Nicotine in low amounts may have a positive effect on the brain, but over 10 or 15 mg per day can decrease new brain cell birth by around 50%.
     While SPECT scan imaging has been rejected by the DEA due to inconsistencies in diagnostic procedure, along with breaches in multiple levels of scientific ethics (involuntary administration of radiation for example, the doctors who argue these patients are mentally unable to make decisions are also subjecting them to this procedure), it holds enormous promise. The image of a marijuana smoker's brain provided is neither the effect of long term heavy marijuana use nor even a social drinker, but most likely a moderate to heavy drinker in the early stages or a light to moderate drinker later in life. It may be accurate to those who consume marijuana as children, but this should be emphasized, especially as the topic of the film is the youth!
      While the information on anandamide is interesting and new, it is not conclusive. The stress hormone cortisol is the standard for measuring stress, and this is higher in people before they smoke marijuana than after long term use. This seems to contradict the hypothesis posed about anandamide, though it is important to remember that chemically very small changes in a molecule can yield very big changes in behaviour inside the body. Most people do not have or need to have the research on hand to disprove this nonsense, but luckily I have seen evidence to the effect that the dopamine release from eating a good meal is about 10% greater than that from a good marijuana high. Sexual activities are about double, though I would leave this out of a documentary aimed at children. Unfortunately America does not have the resources to allow adequate sexual activity, exercise and gourmet food as humans have had access to for millennia. We do have the resources to use marijuana and practice monogamy (currently the law) with occasional gourmet meals. This is reproducible research and publicly available making this section an instance of either a very serious breach in scientific ethics or very surprising ignorance on the behalf of a trained professional.
      Suicide rates are down in Colorado. It would be best to limit personal stories to stereotypes or claims which can be backed by science. That being said, there is a big difference between the breach in ethics (which may not even be intentional) and the intentionalism of many trained professionals who have clearly not thoroughly researched the topic at hand sufficiently to make these statements. Advertisement of a program which does not wish it can be dangerous, and the use of the twelve-step program, which specifically addresses this topic could create difficulty and hardship for those who are trying to recover by the book, in the way originally conceived (although at the time this seems to have indicated a substitution procedure with LSD, coffee, tobacco, adultery, which is advocated as an adequate punishment for relapse, or marijuana, at least according to biographies of the founder, Bill). This sort of solicitation can also break anonymity or lead to conversations which break anonymity for early or long-time users in recovery.
      Finally, CBD is interesting, but this research must be done thoroughly. Currently, it has been used on national television to encourage the administration of marijuana to children. This is unacceptable, THC at the least will induce damage to a child's bone structure, and it is possible that CBD may do the same, though admittedly there is not adequate research in this field.

Thursday, March 12, 2015

Fine Particulate Matter in Tobacco and Air Pollution, a Prospective Review of Mortality Rates

    Review of mortality rates among tobacco smokers and non-smokers has been inconclusive. While tobacco use is associated with between 1 and 3 years decline in life expectancy in humans (Ferrucci, et al.) after controlling for exercise (associated with a 10 year change in life expectancy), this does not associate positively with rat studies seen in earlier reviews in which rats smoking over 20 cigarettes a day outlived non-smokers by 5% and human smoking patterns which mostly match this group. Studies have also shown poverty to have a similar detrimental effect on life expectancy, but will not be counted in this study, as the assumption must be made (lacking proper surveys) that exercise and income are positively correlated.
     There are two ways of approaching this quantitatively, and both will be pursued in this review to check for logical fallacy. Firstly, the assumption can be made that due to an unsupported difference in the pulmonary systems of rats and humans, that tobacco smoke has a detrimental effect on the lifespan of humans and investigation of how this occurs must happen. Secondly, it can be assumed that there are other confounding factors such as air pollution and radioactive exposure which account for greater levels of mortality in certain geographical areas, making tobacco data coincidental (which would be supported by female trends in the UK where lung cancer increased significantly as smoking declined by 50%, as shown in a previous article).

Fine Particulate Matter in Tobacco: enough to cause cancer, early mortality, neither or both?
     The average cigarette delivers 1525 (+-193) (μg/m3) of fine particulate matter (or "tar" on some cigarette warnings) over a period of around 300 seconds (Gerber, et al.), and each puff contains 60 ml  or .00006 m3, and there are around 10-20 puffs on a cigarette (sizes vary from 60 mm to 100 mm in commercially sold products, the 60 mm will be used, as the most commonly used). This means that in a cigarette there is .0006-.0012 m3 of smoke exposure, multiplied by the average 1525 (μg/m3) parts fine particulate matter yielding .72 μg of exposure. This multiplied by an average of 18 (+-8, depending on the state/smoker) cigarettes per day, delivering into the lung between 7 and 25 μg fine particulate matter exposure over the course of a day. This is the equivalent of standing in a closed garage with ten cars running for 30 minutes (Invernizzi et al.) to put it in perspective.
      Is this enough to significantly change the risk for lung cancer or mortality, according to modern studies on air pollution, and assuming all other factors constant? Every 10 μg elevation in atmospheric fine particulate matter is associated with a decrease in life expectancy of .6 years which does fall within the realm of possibility of the decline of one to three years associated with tobacco use after adjustment for exercise mentioned earlier, but fails to explain why rats smoking similar amounts of tobacco lived 5% longer. To understand this, further investigation will be necessary into a couple confounding factors which may explain why tobacco smoke has a greater deleterious effect on humans than rats, when physically the pulmonary systems should react in step with each other.




Ferrucci, Luigi, et al. "Smoking, physical activity, and active life expectancy." American Journal of Epidemiology 149.7 (1999): 645-653.

Gerber, Alexander, et al. "Tobacco smoke particles and indoor air quality (ToPIQ-II)–a modified study protocol and first results." Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology 1 (2015): 5.
Invernizzi, Giovanni, et al. "Particulate matter from tobacco versus diesel car exhaust: an educational perspective." Tobacco control 13.3 (2004): 219-221.
Pope III, C. Arden, Majid Ezzati, and Douglas W. Dockery. "Fine-particulate air pollution and life expectancy in the United States." New England Journal of Medicine 360.4 (2009): 376-386.
Zacny, James P., et al. "Human cigarette smoking: effects of puff and inhalation parameters on smoke exposure." Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics 240.2 (1987): 554-564.





Tuesday, September 23, 2014

Societal impact of currently under-regulated legal substances: Alcohol and Marijuana in comparison to lead

As seen in the Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography scan imaging, the cognitive damage from alcohol is legitimate; there is damage being done to the brain in significant and substantial amounts over any amount of use. In a heavy marijuana user, one region of the brain increased in function and activity, while the rest remained strong. It would appear that humans have become used to a level of alcohol (a naturally fermenting fruit rotting on the tree at late harvest will not have alcohol over .5%). For adults, while the damage is not permanent, it is significant, and by removing the toxins the brain has the capability of returning to normal. See the video below, posted before, to see an example of this.



What is the impact of this? It was in low and moderate marijuana users found to be nearly 5 points on average an increase in IQ (Fried et al.), there have been studies that suggest marijuana has a detrimental effect though this can be attributed to increased levels of toxoplasma gondii as marijuana is grown in greater amounts in home operations and has exposure to cat feces and has only been observed in states with illegal or decriminalized marijuana laws and recent exposure of leading anti-marijuana academics as corrupt and accepting corporate bribes without disclosing their anti-marijuana bias (Fang). Of low and moderate alcohol users: a "number of studies have noted a measurable diminution in neuropsychologic parameters in habitual consumers of moderate amounts of ethanol" (Eckardt). Taken into context, the estimated damage of lead poisoning (affecting the majority of Americans before the 90's or so, but today only affecting a minority) is 5-10 points  (Bellinger). Translated, as seen on the graph below, this means that the first toxin a population is exposed to will reduce the number of gifted (IQ of 125+) by 80% while when multiple of these are introduced, the bell curve flattens and the damage from 15 points for example will well within 85% (How Pollutants Affect Brain Development). Due to this nature of the bell curve and the improving environmental standards in the United States, there is now the capability to definitely recommend the regulation of alcoholic drinks and foods to under .5 percent.






It should be noted, however, that this graph is not perfectly accurate, and there is a skew on the graph towards a lower IQ where the population is more gradual, as seen demonstrated in actual IQ data below. This means that the effect that is being observed on the high end of the scale is "mirrored" on those with functional or mental retardation and with some substance there is no noticeable effect, and at some point there is an amount at which the number dramatically increase (closer to 20 or 30 points, perhaps associated with illegal narcotic or prescription drug use). An example of this can be seen by looking at the Chinese economy following the legalization of hard drugs in the 1800's which was associated with a loss of approximately 95% of the economy (Major Economies' Share of Global GDP, 0-2005) in just a few generations.
The economic impact of the loss of the gifted group is real, as IQ is directly correlated with achievement, productivity, and income. While the income difference between 90 and 110 IQ points is in the thousands or tens of thousands of dollars, from 110 to 125 or 130 can be over 500,000 dollars annually (seen below, extrapolating decile into percentile using an exponential scale). So it may only be two percent of the population that is substantially impacted by lead poisoning or unregulated alcohol and marijuana, but the impact to the economy is exponentially greater. This can be seen in the change in the workplace today, populations with clean environments, high-tech industry and low substance use rates have averages of 10 or 20, sometimes just 5 or 6 employees for each manager. Low tech industry in the 1960's involved hundreds of employees per manager or executive in companies and poorly qualified supervision. In countries and parts of the US with low environmental standards or high use rates this can continue to be seen, both legally and in illegal sweatshops.

Source: NLSY79, Bureau of Labor Statistics
By regulating the use of these substances to fall within safe levels, the cultural and societal benefits can be retained, while creating an artificial "Flynn" effect, where environmental factors such as health care, nutrition, or mating and marriage regulation and rules gives a boost to the population as seen below.


Addendum: Due to information on infection from toxoplasma gondii and resulting psychosis and schizophrenia that has only been compiled in a meta-analysis in 2014, the impact of marijuana on the IQ may be incorrect in places with legalized marijuana industries. It would appear that the most severe perceived negative effects of marijuana are in actuality the effect of a small parasite that is present in many cats, the fece of which will infect soil and crops in a home-grow operation for up to a year. The information provided here on the impact of illegal or decriminalized marijuana holds, however, as these laws encourage home grown operations meaning many users will contract the parasite as they will buy from a cat owner at some point. In addition the research was confounded using economic variables, and funding was sourced illegitimately to corporations in an investigation.


Bibliography:

Bellinger, David C., Karen M. Stiles, and Herbert L. Needleman. "Low-level lead exposure, intelligence and academic achievement: a long-term follow-up study." Pediatrics 90.6 (1992): 855-861.

Eckardt, Michael J., et al. "Effects of Moderate Alcohol Consumption on the Central Nervous System*." Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research22.5 (1998): 998-1040.


Fried, Peter, et al. "Current and former marijuana use: preliminary findings of a longitudinal study of effects on IQ in young adults." Canadian Medical Association Journal 166.7 (2002): 887-891.

Fang, Lee. "Leading Anti-Marijuana Academics Are Paid By Painkiller Drug Companies | VICE News." VICE News RSS. VICE News, 7 Sept. 2014. Web. 20 Dec. 2014.