Important: The Pros and Cons of smoking ciggys and smoking weed

[inglioti]

i think needing to justify your position about weed is missing the point of why a lot of people do it - no one really does it for any concrete benefits but just because it feels good. surely you don't think it's made of sunshine and maple syrup - and surely you know that breathing in smoke causes cancer and makes you dopey if you smoke for too long.

the same with cigarettes - people smoke them to feel good or relaxed, and they know that justifying their position is useless.

give up, the only way you could change your friend's position is by trying to convince her that occasional use is hardly harmful, if at all.

 

[MNRA]

Oh jeez, where to begin....

Cigarettes:
I'm glad that someone picked up on the Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). It's true that not all smokers get COPD, but of the people who have the condition, some 90% are smokers. So the cause-effect is more than evident. Personally, when I see a person in the mall who has to drag around a breathing device that feeds him oxygen since normal air isn't enough anymore for his slowly clogging lungs, all I can think is "Damn, what a waste. You look 60 years old, you could've had another 20 years if you'd just not smoked". To me COPD is such a tragic, incurable disease that I'd ban cigarettes simply on that note, before even considering the carcinogenic effects. And on that note:

Read studies my friend. All statistical evidence that states cigarettes cause cancer use a correlation scale.
Let me educate you. A correlation scale works like this:
You study ten people who smoke, and ten people who don't smoke. At the end of the study, you'll find that seven out to the ten people who smoke were diagnosed with cancer. But to your surprise, three out of the ten who didn't smoke also were diagnosed. This is because cancer can be genetic, or can be a cause of living conditions or health risks.
So the only thing anti-smoking companies (like Truth) can say is that Smoking 'increases' the risk of you developing cancer.

But isn't that the point? If you're inhaling a substance that increases cell proliferation, at the same time containing substances that damage DNA, the risk of creating dysfunctional tumor cells increase, and to this we add what Vitor Gonclaves said a few posts up. So you MAY not get cancer from smoking. But your risks increase, just as you MAY not bleed to death from being bludgeoned in the head, but it's still not a smart thing to do.

Now on to the big fish, cannabis:

There is a lot of things being said about cannabis, about dangers the posibility of it being completely harmless. Before we go into that debate however I really MUST point this out first:

The chances of marijuana causing cancer are as likely as overdosing of vitamin C, it is very uncommon. The damage to the lungs from smoking marijuana is very minimal, with little to no effect of their normal function. Marijuana does not need to be filtered, it is all natural plant, unlike all the poisons jam packed in cigarettes, whose filter is useless as it does little to actually protect you from said poisons.

Now first of all, you can't inhale vitamin C, please look at the route of administration and, bioavailability before making such claims. Second of all. Just because something is "natural" does NOT mean it's harmless. I see a lot of this stuff nowadays about "organic" foods and shampoos, lotions and whatnots claiming to be "all natural" as if that was a guarantee of it being safe. The black widows poison is all natural. Let me say that again. The black widows poison is all natural. Yet I would not recomend it to any of you as something healthy for you. Most every substance that affects our physiology beyond a nutritional way is most probably produced by the plant as a defensive measure to keep things from eating it. Such is the way of the poison dart frog for instance. The toxin was produced as a coutnermeasure to predators. And cannabis is no different, except for the fact that it has yet to reach the lethal effect in humans that would be desirable by the plant. Saying something is better because its "Natural" is plain stupid, since the things produced in labs have (more often than not) been tested rigurously and approval of a substance hinges on many factors being making a single test on some hapless subjects.

Anyway. On with the show:

Cannabis (again):

I think your problem here is "bull shit Drug warnings". They're not bullshit... Yes weed can kill (probably will) kill brain cells. It's safer than cigarettes when it comes to the smoking aspect (lungs), but weed does shit to your brain. The most common mental side effect is ending up with something similar to shell shock (post-traumatic stress disorder).

But current medical tests used to show brain damage show no brain damage from long term marijuana usage. The thought that it could kill brain cells, i.e. brain damage was mere speculation from an earlier report dating over a quarter of a century ago that has never been supported by any scientific study..

The chances of marijuana causing cancer are as likely as overdosing of vitamin C, it is very uncommon. The damage to the lungs from smoking marijuana is very minimal, with little to no effect of their normal function. Marijuana does not need to be filtered, it is all natural plant, unlike all the poisons jam packed in cigarettes, whose filter is useless as it does little to actually protect you from said poisons.

As the most modern medical tests for brain damage say, marijuana does no damage to the brain, and does not cause mental illnesses, nor psychological problems. However, temporary psychological problems such as panic, anxiety, etc., etc. have been reported in some users, but only last 2 to 3 hours. From what I understand, this is from ingesting the plant, instead of smoking it.

I have honestly have not seen any medical or scientific evidence to suggest marijuana is bad, or has any real impact on a person's health. The only thing bad I have seen in my reading is that it has a limited impact on short term memory while smoking it, meaning learning and recalling new information was diminished, but this only lasts during intoxication. It does not have an effect on long term memory or other cognitive functions even when intoxicated.

See my above argument about "natural" substances. Also, please do not sprout anything that resembles evidence without giving us sources. They don't have to be perfect, they don't have answer every single question and be foolproof, but if you don't give us a single example or study that shows, hints at, or proves what you are saying, all you have is propaganda. I took ten minutes to look at a single scientific database, and I've here selected three articles that show a connection between cannabis use and damage to your, health, brain and mental health. Please note that these were all made after 2005 and as such are not "old data".

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18238947

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18482435

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17662880

 

[Snow Fire]

Cigarettes - Cancer
Weed - Harmless

No really.

Are you being serious about marijuana, that one herb that is completely harmless, because if you are, I now like you a lot.

 

[Liberaliter]

Cigarettes - Cancer
Weed - Harmless

No really.

Are you being serious about marijuana, that one herb that is completely harmless, because if you are, I now like you a lot.

Yep I am serious. There have been many studies by UK scientists and the drug advisory board into marijuana, and they never find anything bad. Alcohol and tobacco is far worse. Plus a man on the drug advisory board got dismissed because of their findings into weed, guess the Govt didn't like him speaking the truth on how it is harmless.

 

[Nikajo]

The only pro I get from smoking a cig is a nice break from revision. Gonna quite after I finish my exams, fed up of having cravings all the time!

Edit: Yes you can get addicted to weed as I have been addicted myself in the past. Not anymore, thankfully. The difference with weed and tobacco is that tobacco is physically addictive and weed is mentally addictive.

 

[ace_of_something]

"In laboratory studies, subjects given high doses of marijuana for several days or even several weeks exhibit no decrease in work motivation or productivity. Among working adults, marijuana users tend to earn higher wages than non-users."

I call bullshit. There is no way that is true. Unless they're factoring in all the movie stars and professional athletes that smoke pot or something. Having collared countless potheads I can say most of them if they have a job are.
1) Working Fast food or something like that
2) Working a low level construction job
C) A college student who doesn't technically have a job.

That is not to say suburbanite cube dwellers aren't doing it too. Though they're few and far between.

 

[Snow Fire]

Oh jeez, where to begin....

Cigarettes:
I'm glad that someone picked up on the Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). It's true that not all smokers get COPD, but of the people who have the condition, some 90% are smokers. So the cause-effect is more than evident. Personally, when I see a person in the mall who has to drag around a breathing device that feeds him oxygen since normal air isn't enough anymore for his slowly clogging lungs, all I can think is "Damn, what a waste. You look 60 years old, you could've had another 20 years if you'd just not smoked". To me COPD is such a tragic, incurable disease that I'd ban cigarettes simply on that note, before even considering the carcinogenic effects. And on that note:

Read studies my friend. All statistical evidence that states cigarettes cause cancer use a correlation scale.
Let me educate you. A correlation scale works like this:
You study ten people who smoke, and ten people who don't smoke. At the end of the study, you'll find that seven out to the ten people who smoke were diagnosed with cancer. But to your surprise, three out of the ten who didn't smoke also were diagnosed. This is because cancer can be genetic, or can be a cause of living conditions or health risks.
So the only thing anti-smoking companies (like Truth) can say is that Smoking 'increases' the risk of you developing cancer.

But isn't that the point? If you're inhaling a substance that increases cell proliferation, at the same time containing substances that damage DNA, the risk of creating dysfunctional tumor cells increase, and to this we add what Vitor Gonclaves said two posts up. So you MAY not get cancer from smoking. But your risks increase, just as you MAY not bleed to death from being bludgeoned in the head, but it's still not a smart thing to do.

Now on to the big fish, cannabis:

There is a lot of things being said about cannabis, about dangers the posibility of it being completely harmless. Before we go into that debate however I really MUST point this out first:

-snip-

Now first of all, you can't inhale vitamin C, please look at the route of administration and, bioavailability before making such claims. Second of all. Just because something is "natural" does NOT mean it's harmless. I see a lot of this stuff nowadays about "organic" foods and shampoos, lotions and whatnots claiming to be "all natural" as if that was a guarantee of it being safe. The black widows poison is all natural. Let me say that again. The black widows poison is all natural. Yet I would not recomend it to any of you as something healthy for you. Most every substance that affects our physiology beyond a nutritional way is most probably produced by the plant as a defensive measure to keep things from eating it. Such is the way of the poison dart frog for instance. The toxin was produced as a coutnermeasure to predators. And cannabis is no different, except for the fact that it has yet to reach the lethal effect in humans that would be desirable by the plant. Saying something is better because its "Natural" is plain stupid, since the things produced in labs have (more often than not) been tested rigurously and approval of a substance hinges on many factors being making a single test on some hapless subjects.

Anyway. On with the show:

Cannabis (again):

-snip-

-snip-

-snip-

See my above argument about "natural" substances. Also, please do not sprout anything that resmbles evidence without giving us sources. They don't have to be perfect, they don't have answer every single question and be foolproof, but if you don't give us a single example or study that shows proves what you are saying it's all propaganda. I took ten minutes to look at a single scientific database, and I've here selected three articles that show a connection between canabis use and damage to your, health, brain and mental health. Please note that these were all made after 2005 and as such are not "old data".

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18238947

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18482435

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17662880

I stated Marijuana as harmless due to it being natural is because it is a herb with quite a few medicinal properties. While smoking is probably not the best delivery choice for a herbal medicine, it does have the advantage of fast delivery at the risk of very minimal lung damage.

Onto the sources issue, yeah, I have always been one to not properly source myself. Hopefully this will suffice. I consider it be a good point of reference.
http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/

 

[RedShift]

You don't want the shit they put in cigs in your body. At least weed is natural. Sure you can get a little bit of cancer from smoking weed, just like you can get a wee bit o' cancer from freaking everything (Which is why you shouldn't care).

Also. You don't have to smoke weed. Make some brownies and save your lungs, heart, gums, teeth, veins, and throat from all the shit that's in cigs. Yes, some people have the genetics to handle the cancer portion of it... But not the rest.

Smoking does make you look a little more intimidating, so yah... If you need that and want to deal with the effects, go for it.

Oh and if you want to die young, I guess you might as well smoke. Can't hurt.

 

[MNRA]

*Big snip....*

Onto the sources issue, yeah, I have always been one to not properly source myself. Hopefully this will suffice. I consider it be a good point of reference.
http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/

I appreciate that you would post a link to a site that has further links to material. But I'm not overly pleased by the fact that this is a organization with a clearly drug-liberal agenda. Such an organization may (or may not) post links and evidence that only supports its views and as such using it as a source is not a good idea since the reliability cannot be ascertained. I urge you to use scientific databases, even if you don't have access to the full articles, the abstracts can be quite enlightening.

Now I have not checked the sources provided on the DPA page, but for arguments sake I will assume they are well made and documented studies, and as such are correct. But even considering that this would be true, the DPA network calls the brain damage a "myth" when it could equally well be saying: "Studies have both proven and disproved that use of cannabis damages the brain. As such the best course of action would be a very limited consumption"-or similar statement, which would go in line with their pro-drug-use agenda while still maintaining credibility. But they don't.
They could also count the number of studies made that show that cannabis has dangerous side effects and then count the number that disagree to find some sort of middle ground. But they don't.

I really don't want to be a prick about this, but as a scientist I have to work with the data presented, and as much as I can believe what has been stated on the site, I can't ignore the excessive amount of evidence that states the opposite, that cannabis is dangerous. So I would advise you to NOT use such a site as your only source of information. Since we can only (hopefully) be sure that any studies made in the matter are done without bias.

Therefore I encourage you to NOT say that cannabis is completely harmless. And I urge you to NOT say that cannabis does not cause addiction etc. without also adding that "studies form both sides have shown". If you persist you are a shame to scientific debate. The best we can hope for is to find three different review articles that are less than three years old, that have all come to the same conclusion and have been published in respectable journals. Then we might be able to make a fair judgment.


EDIT:
And yes before anyone notices this I'm not passing judgment in this thread. Personally I'd never recommend anyone to try cannabis, at least not until after 25 when their brain is fully developed, and even after that I'd still not recommend it until more studies have been made. But I would also never use scare tactics to get people from not using the drug. If I can inform everyone of the dangers (and believe me, there is a LOT more material than the three links I've posted) and then the pros (such as a nice non-violent high etc.), it's up to individual judgment on how to proceed. Just be aware that society is paying your medical bill when you get hospitalized for any reason (well, here in Sweden it does) so be a chap and think about your fellow man before you start killing your liver, brain or lungs.

 

[thenumberthirteen]

Pros? What pros?

The only thing you get from smoking cigarettes is a nice case of cancer.

Read studies my friend. All statistical evidence that states cigarettes cause cancer use a correlation scale.
Let me educate you. A correlation scale works like this:
You study ten people who smoke, and ten people who don't smoke. At the end of the study, you'll find that seven out to the ten people who smoke were diagnosed with cancer. But to your surprise, three out of the ten who didn't smoke also were diagnosed. This is because cancer can be genetic, or can be a cause of living conditions or health risks.
So the only thing anti-smoking companies (like Truth) can say is that Smoking 'increases' the risk of you developing cancer.

??? I don't follow. It seems to me that you're diminishing the argument by saying other things cause cancer too, and nor do I follow your reasoning for downplaying the role of correlation in scientific analysis. True correlation =/= causation by default, but a well designed study can eliminate the other factors.

Say you study 20 people who drive. 10 of those always drive sober, the others drive drunk. 7 drunk drivers crash, but 3 sober drivers crash also. This is strong evidence that drunk driving can cause car crashes. Like the study you describe is evidence that cigarette smoking can causes cancer.

 

[SmartIdiot]

Cigarettes
Pros: Apart from satiating your nicotine craving... er, not much. Though it can be a soothing break in times of stress.

Cons: Cancer, the smell clings to hair and clothes, no one will want to kiss you(unless they smoke aswell), smokers cough, you have to do it outside now so if you're really addicted all your social gatherings will be interrupted every half hour or so by you having to go for a smoke where it's also possibly raining/hailing/snowing/volcano.

Weed
Pros: It's a nice treat at the end of your working day, it's relaxing, can make anything entertaining/funny, helps you sleep, increases your appetite (even if it's just cravings for sugary foods) and makes it impossible to get into a fight with anyone.

Cons: Can ruin motivation, can trigger mental illness in those predisposed to it, can make you think awful music sounds good, cancer, again the smell clings to hair and clothing, it has a very distinguished smell so it's harder to hide (though most people don't give a fuck anyway, let's face it, just about every other person smokes weed).

 

[Snow Fire]

*Big snip....*

Onto the sources issue, yeah, I have always been one to not properly source myself. Hopefully this will suffice. I consider it be a good point of reference.
http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/

I appreciate that you would post a link to a site that has further links to material. But I'm not overly pleased by the fact that this is a organization with a clearly drug-liberal agenda. Such an organization may (or may not) post links and evidence that only supports its views and as such using it as a source is not a good idea since the reliability cannot be ascertained. I urge you to use scientific databases, even if you don't have access to the full articles, the abstracts can be quite enlightening.

Now I have not checked the sources provided on the DPA page, but for arguments sake I will assume they are well made and documented studies, and as such are correct. But even considering that this would be true, the DPA network calls the brain damage a "myth" when it could equally well be saying: "Studies have both proven and disproved that use of cannabis damages the brain. As such the best course of action would be a very limited consumption"-or similar statement, which would go in line with their pro-drug-use agenda while still maintaining credibility. But they don't.
They could also count the number of studies made that show that cannabis has dangerous side effects and then count the number that disagree to find some sort of middle ground. But they don't.

I really don't want to be a prick about this, but as a scientist I have to work with the data presented, and as much as I can believe what has been stated on the site, I can't ignore the excessive amount of evidence that states the opposite, that cannabis is dangerous. So I would advise you to NOT use such a site as your only source of information. Since we can only (hopefully) be sure that any studies made in the matter are done without bias.

Therefore I encourage you to NOT say that cannabis is completely harmless. And I urge you to NOT say that cannabis does not cause addiction etc. without also adding that "studies form both sides have shown". If you persist you are a shame to scientific debate. The best we can hope for is to find three different review articles that are less than three years old, that come to the same conclusion and have been published in respectable journals. THEN we MIGHT be able to make a fair judgment.

I didn't call it completely harmless, even if I did say that, more on the line of nearly harmless, the brain being undamaged from what current medical tests can see if what is being say is assumed correct, but the brain being as complex as it is, some damage might not be visible, but the lungs suffer some minimal damage from the smoke. As for the addiction, I do recall call a very low addiction rate, of somewhere between 0-1%. Which makes sense for a herb, some bodies just get addicted to the most trivial of things. In my opinion, while the source isn't the best, it did have quite a lot of listed sources, and I am confidence that marijuana is very useful as a medical herb that can be used for various conditions, and that its benefits far outweigh any possible harm found. I am only looking at this from a medical stand point. In my opinion, I would like to say that it is possibly much safer than man-made drugs, probably true, but you probably won't let me slide without a good source on that.

 

[MetalMonkey74]

We all hear that weed kills brain cells, and that weed is bad for you, and that its illegal for that reason.

If you get a chance

Please try watch: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1039647/

Its good to hear the other side of the story!

 

[d4rkxy13x]

I think they did a test and found Weed a healthier choice then Cigs... I'm sure a quick google search will show you what I'm reffering to.


But OK i'll bite.

Cigs= more addictive, more damage done , legal
Weed= Less Addictive, Less damage done, illegal in some areas.

If I had to choose between the two, I'd choose weed as I'd only smoke it maybe once a month, where as smokers probably would have a cigg once a day at the very least.

http://www.lunguk.org/research_and_...orldwide_research_news/cannabis_and_the_lungs

Read the end : 3 or 4 cannabis cigarettes in a day, compared to 20 tobacco cigarettes. Lots of people smoke a pack a day, whereas most (I presume) cannabis smokers smoke around 1 to 5 a month.I

 

[Quiet Stranger]

Pros? What pros?

The only thing you get from smoking cigarettes is a nice case of cancer.

Exactly, I don't think you can get cancer from plain old weed (unless its laced with something)

Can you get addicted to weed? (if you smoke it moderately, like once a month)

do you use mobile electronic devices or eat potatoes both are shown to cause cancer in certain individuals

Potatoes cause cancer (in some people) are you sure? that sounds like nonsense

 

[MNRA]

Even more snip

I didn't call it completely harmless, even if I did say that, more on the line of nearly harmless, the brain being undamaged from what current medical tests can see if what is being say is assumed correct, but the brain being as complex as it is, some damage might not be visible, but the lungs suffer some minimal damage from the smoke. As for the addiction, I do recall call a very low addiction rate, of somewhere between 0-1%. Which makes sense for a herb, some bodies just get addicted to the most trivial of things. In my opinion, while the source isn't the best, it did have quite a lot of listed sources, and I am confidence that marijuana is very useful as a medical herb that can be used for various conditions, and that its benefits far outweigh any possible harm found. I am only looking at this from a medical stand point. In my opinion, I would like to say that it is possibly much safer than man-made drugs, probably true, but you probably won't let me slide without a good source on that.

It is true that marijuana is used as an effective treatment for pain. But so is morphine, given in tablets to severe cases of cancer-pains or similar where paracetamol and similar substances are inadequate. This does NOT mean that it should be legalized to use as a recreational drug. I doubt that the point of legalizing the drug for medicinal use was to sue it against "minor" ailments where other efficient treatment was available.

To cite more on the "negative" side of cannabis use, here are a few more articles to consider. Like before, just reading the abstract gives you a general idea (i.e. read the "RESULTS"-part) and reading the full article can show if the study was made in a correct and scientifically sound way.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19630315

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20384422

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20217055

I also have to say again, that I don't doubt the information presented on the page you linked to. But that the way it was presented deviates from what would be sound scientific advice, that the site seems to be wanting to give. They falsely say that brain damage is a myth, even though there is evidence thereof. Not mentioning the other side of the argument is trying to ignore the headlights of the truck heading towards you. Which is why I distrust your site, not the information presented, but the bias that lays within said information.

On the note of "safer than many man-made drugs". Oh defiantly, there you are right. We've made some damn toxic things in the past, that are still in use today (care in point warfarin, or digoxin). But we have enough painkillers to NOT have to put Marijuana into circulation as well. Warfarin and digoxin remain because we do not have widespread use of anything better (one is for avoiding blood clots and one for arrhythmia), but I'm pretty sure they will be replaced as time goes on. If some states have medicinal marijuana, so be it. But saying that it should be legalized for minor ailments, or recreational use, since it's so "natural" or "not dangerous", is ignoring a huge body of scientific literature that shows it is bad for your health.

So as much as the articles linked to on your site may be true, using them as the one and only truth is absurd.

 

[Floppertje]

Don't know if this is helpful, since you stated you don't know much about harmfulness and addiction, but here's the results from the people who test this stuff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_%28mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence%29.svg

Has anyone else noticed alcohol is both more addictive AND physically harmfull than canabis, yet it is legal, whereas cannabis is not?
see, government is stupid ^^

Yes, people have known this for many years. In fact, Bill Hicks had a bit about it. I'm assuming from your post that you've never heard of the late genius and suggest you do something about that. The man was not only hilarious, but made some damn fine points.

never heard of him and no time to check at the mo. kind of like george carlin? time's up, gotta run. *goes away to take a shower*

 

[Davrel]

Pros? Transient, passing high.
Cons? Cancer.

Both have mild, mild benefits - both can have severe consequences.

-snip-

-snip-

-snip-

Lmao I wonder what your point of view on it is. What were you raped by law enforcement and then they said they were just searching for weed? And what are you babbling on about airports for. You're not going to have to take a drug test to get on a plane. Even if they knew you were stoned out of your mind and about to get on a a plane. They cannot charge you with anything unless you are in possession of the actual substance.

Haha, thankfully, it wasn't me who got finger raped, but a friend of mine. We're both standing there in Venice airport and a great bit Alsatian comes along, leans on him, and refuses to go away - pretty soon he's being taken away by armed guards. Turns out that the dog smelled the residue of Weed that had been in his rucksack a month earlier. Only reason they allowed him to leave the airport was because they thoroughly checked his person.

So, my "babbling", comes from first-hand experience. Furthermore, airline companies can, if they want deny you access to the aircraft for being intoxicated; they do it if you're drunk, they do it if you're high. Admittedly they don't test for it, but by the time its a problem, its so obvious anyway.

 

[mugetsu37]

snip

I really want to know where you got your info about it being better for you than alcohol and tobacco. My roomate is a constant weed smoker and is only 23 and has the worst cough I have ever heard on anyone. I have a feeling he will have lung cancer by 30 and die by 35. And I really want to know where you got your info about black musicians because that sounds very conspiracy-ish.

[hr]High anxieties

What the WHO doesn't want you to know about cannabis

Health officials in Geneva have suppressed the publication of a politically sensitive analysis that confirms what ageing hippies have known for decades: cannabis is safer than alcohol or tobacco.

According to a document leaked to New Scientist, the analysis concludes not only that the amount of dope smoked worldwide does less harm to public health than drink and cigarettes, but that the same is likely to hold true even if people consumed dope on the same scale as these legal substances.

The comparison was due to appear in a report on the harmful effects of cannabis published last December by the WHO. But it was ditched at the last minute following a long and intense dispute between WHO officials, the cannabis experts who drafted the report and a group of external advisers.

As the WHO's first report on cannabis for 15 years, the document had been eagerly awaited by doctors and specialists in drug abuse. The official explanation for excluding the comparison of dope with legal substances is that "the reliability and public health significance of such comparisons are doubtful". However, insiders say the comparison was scientifically sound and that the WHO caved in to political pressure. It is understood that advisers from the US National Institute on Drug Abuse and the UN International Drug Control Programme warned the WHO that it would play into the hands of groups campaigning to legalise marijuana.

One member of the expert panel which drafted the report, says: "In the eyes of some, any such comparison is tantamount to an argument for marijuana legalisation." Another member, Billy Martin of the Medical College of Virginia in Richmond, says that some WHO officials "went nuts" when they saw the draft report.

The leaked version of the excluded section states that the reason for making the comparisons was "not to promote one drug over another but rather to minimise the double standards that have operated in appraising the health effects of cannabis". Nevertheless, in most of the comparisons it makes between cannabis and alcohol, the illegal drug comes out better--or at least on a par--with the legal one.

The report concludes, for example, that "in developed societies cannabis appears to play little role in injuries caused by violence, as does alcohol". It also says that while the evidence for fetal alcohol syndrome is "good", the evidence that cannabis can harm fetal development is "far from conclusive".

Cannabis also fared better in five out of seven comparisons of long-term damage to health. For example, the report says that while heavy consumption of either drug can lead to dependence, only alcohol produces a "well defined withdrawal syndrome". And while heavy drinking leads to cirrhosis, severe brain injury and a much increased risk of accidents and suicide, the report concludes that there is only "suggestive evidence that chronic cannabis use may produce subtle defects in cognitive functioning".

Two comparisons were more equivocal. The report says that both heavy drinking and marijuana smoking can produce symptoms of psychosis in susceptible people. And, it says, there is evidence that chronic cannabis smoking "may be a contributory cause of cancers of the aerodigestive tract".

From New Scientist, 21 February 1998[hr]

There you go. Unfortunately, the WHO report was never published. If you can find it, that would be amazing, but I doubt anyone can. As far as racism, that answer is a bit longer:

http://www.chieftain.com/news/local/article_ba21ef7e-3563-11df-9d83-001cc4c002e0.html