In the second part of this finger wag at junk science journalism, we take a closer look at the reports one has to look for. It's the Lancet meta-analysis on cannabis use and the onset of psychosis whatdunnit, and responses to moral panic vary. Transforms press release,Cannabis health risks should not lead to knee jerk policy making, is a measured and sensible statement. The futile reclassification of cannabis so beloved by drug free warriors, advised against by scientists and utterly ignored by pot smokers is seen for the rhetoric it is.

Articles include two similar abuses of data on pulmonary function. It really wasn't all that hard to find. Steve Rolles of Transform had one last bullet in the chamber post Lancet assassination, and kindly popped things into context. His focus was an article in Thorax. But it's a tough call. It's even harder to not sound pro anarchy on your way to sew death and pestilence when the topic is inhaled combustible materials.

Consider: we now know second hand tobacco smoke is not a class A carcinogen. It's complicated, but in simple terms this claim resulted from models predicting SHS was, well, as it is not. The EPA finding was overturned, then due to jurisdictional technicalities, underturned to its original throne. Here's a piece on the initial "moral intimidation" from last century. It includes;

A federal court has taken a look at the Environmental Protection Agency's science on secondhand smoke and called it junk. Indeed, a view that is, in EPA Administrator Carol Browner's words, "widely accepted" is not the same as scientific proof. However one feels about the personal hazards of smoking, this ruling is a victory for science and against what Judge Robert Bork has called "authoritarian regulation propelled by moral intimidation."

Here's the Washington Post news story, followed by a link to a Washington Times commentary piece by science author Michael Fumento....

Still, I can live with that. I may even quietly gaze intently at coffee shop menus, partaking of the delectable aroma of brewed coffee, the caress of warm carbon producing air and rejoicing at the nicotine junkies shivering on the footpath. I suppose for men, the cold helps reboot the vitality of sperm the nicotine kills. For women well, they just go old and wrinkly at breakneck speed. And that would drive anyone to smoke I guess.

But seriously. My point is, right, wrong or ahead of its time, banning smoking has an extensive list of positives. From not smelling like an ashtray to making an addiction hard work there are reasons not to overturn the underturn. Besides, no amount of junk science can change what we do know about passive smoking and increased risk of cancer. Perhaps much of the impetus driving moral panic over cannabis induced psychosis is akin to smoking cigarettes in public or private. And if there's one thing we absorbed like good little citizens, it's to fear the gasping wheeze of inhaled smoke. Accepting cannabis smoking may reduce lung cancer risk is counterintuitive. Forgetting the role tobacco plays when mixed with cannabis has made a mess of topics from addiction, to cancer to respiratory function.

There's a few paragraphs spelling things out at Transform:

It seems the source of this incorrect extrapolation is here. Another more strongly worded piece on another study, from that colourful time is headed, Outrageous anti-pot lies: media uses disgraceful cancer scare tactics. The author is Paul Armentano. I respect Pauls right to be angry. For one, he's translated very difficult findings on cannabinoid behaviour across multiple disciplines, many times. Secondly the fact this junk went to press before the study was published renders the human rights and public health aim something of a joke. Reuters, Fox and even - oh, my! - Australias ABC got it very wrong.

On the cannabis induced psychosis factoid ABCs Health Reporter, Norman Swan notes it may not be as safe as the sixties generation made out. Even Norman chose to be politically correct claiming "any use" is related to increased risk, quoting both 40% and "a quadrupling" of risk. What he left out is how useless such a huge variation is or what the most likely risk actually is. In fact, although I give Norman the final say as promised, his insouciant tripe about some imaginary "60s generation" is beyond frustrating, and indicative of the ABCs right wing leaning.

Alcohol increases this risk by 800% for men, 300% for women according to one study. A plethora of others also support alcohols far more durable link to psychosis than cannabis. Despite Australian drinking levels and our teen binge drinking saturating daily discourse, Norman breathes not a word. Indeed, what would he say? Blame the 10's, 20's, 30's, 40's.... 2000's generation/s?

A handy piece of useful data would be alcohol doesn't discriminate - it's shrinks the brain. Cannabis does discriminate, with positive correlation to a smaller hippocampus and amygdala, raising major concern as to the integrity of memory, short term memory, memory of emotional conduct. The amygdala also connects to areas responsible for the regulation of dopamine and one is far more tempted to respect these documented realities than gross generalisations.

Dr. Swan ignored Marjorie Wallace of SANE UK, who wins moral panic medals by the bucket load, but has the decency to remind readers that only 10% of human beings are at any risk of psychological injury. He omitted entirely the reality that 800 cases out of 6.2 million smokers is 0.00125%. He failed to explain why psychosis levels have dropped to around 2% and schizophrenia to 1%. There is absolutely no correlation with cannabis use globally or in any single country: in short, where's the epidemic? He omitted that 40% is a piddling change anyway, with 300-400% considered worthy of publishing a paper.

Sadly, the medicinal potential that's well known and under assault from the morally pure, also missed being referenced. Don't underestimate the illogical voodoo of the drug free proponents, dear reader. It makes sense, particularly when other modalities have failed and deserves respect. Illicit drug abuse is emotional, especially if you've had a personal experience. But insisting medicinal cannabis "sends the wrong message" if someone living with severe cerebral palsy uses it to control bladder/bowel when asleep, is brutally deceptive. Or, as Drug Free proponents now insist, it's "legalisation by stealth". Dr. Swan ignored Australias national stance on managing cannabis related harm and our focus on human rights.

Finally, unless one is falling into opinion, it helps to quote scientists - not select tabloid junk. Ergo, thank-you Leslie Iverson:

Then I realised many people wrongly - or too easily - accept that the mysterious "pro-cannabis lobby" insist on their right to push cannabis and claim it's a "natural herb". What is being missed is that prohibitionists sprouting junk science should really fear the pro-evidence mindset which traditionally responds to "natural this-n-that" arguments by throwing them off natural cliffs, or dropping them into natural oceans. Sure, some of these wankers exist. They also reject vaccinating their children because it's not natural, starve someone elses growing body of protein and iron in the quest for vague vegan virtues and spend thousands on "natural" rubbish like homeopathy, MMS, placebo acupuncture, natural medicine and detoxification scams.

Unfortunately the vote grabbing waste of time, money, print, airtime, interviews and ultimately lives surrounding the reclassification of cannabis in the UK went ahead. If there's any positive side to this it's that only panic merchants who stand to gain politically are now revealed. Despite the ACMD scientists warning against it, the decision went ahead. This launched "drug free" devotees like Jo Baxter of Drug Free Australia [who dismisses education department guidelines] and Chair Craig Thompson to demand the same, whilst lying like champions about cannabis. Suffice it to say, support for right wing rhetoric is well met with fact based objection.

1. Scientists attack plan to upgrade cannabis.
2. Lords must stop plan to reclassify cannabis.
3. Cannabis laws being toughened to appease public.
4. Experts dismiss case for cannabis reclassification.
5. No smoke without fear - cannabis and psychosis.

It takes only a short time to discover the UK government failed its public, and did so amidst calls for legalisation, all round easing of penalties and the steadily growing cries for mature policy changes. There simply is no 'pro-drug' lobby. In the ideology struggle it's war mongering, scare tactics and punitive responses, versus respect for science, human rights and harm reduction.

The question one might ask Australias ABC is when do we hear of all facts pertaining to a failed war on drugs, regularly and fairly? Who shall expose the true cost of successive governments failing to accept reality, lest power be lost. 

Articles of relevance here.

Gags,
23 MB, 58 min,58