Show Me the Facts

(Update): I’ve had some feedback regarding how I format my updates. Usually I place them on top of the article, but I can see how this would be confusing. For now on I will post updates at the end of an article with a short notice at the top to let you know they are there, like so:

Updates as of 4/28/09 added to bottom of article.

————————————————–

As many of you know, I love keeping a TwitterFall window open to keep track of hashtags that interest me. Usually this helps me find new friends or efficiently retweet information to my followers, etc.

Sometimes, like tonight, however, I see a post/link that leads me to write an article. Here is that post:

Twitter message from @ParentingWithD

The formatting made it a bit difficult to understand what exactly I was about to click, but I decided to go for it and followed through to the article, How does marijuana use affect physical health? (article has been removed)

I wish I could say this was an appreciative post thanking both Denise Witmer and About.com for a wonderful exhibition of journalistic integrity, research, and factual information. Instead, the article is not only highly questionable, it made it pretty hard to find where she got her information since no sources were posted (other than a tip of the hat to the NIDA at the end). It honestly appears as if the author re-packaged NIDA-talking-points in the form of an article.

I will be responding to her article on a point-for-point basis. Ms. Witmer, I invite you to e-mail me with your responses, as I–and my readers–would love to hear them.

Marijuana use has been shown to increase users’ difficulty in trying to quit smoking tobacco. This was recently reported in a study comparing smoking cessation in adults who smoked both marijuana and tobacco with those who smoked only tobacco. The relationship between marijuana use and continued smoking was particularly strong in those who smoked marijuana daily at the time of the initial interview, 13 years prior to the followup interview.

It took a bit of googling, but it appears that the study in question was done by our friends at the NIDA (the creator of much of the misleading propaganda I enjoy debunking here on the site).

Is there a correlation between concurrent marijuana and tobacco and a person being less likely to quit smoking tobacco? It would appear so… but it also appears to be a game of numbers. Let’s take a look at those numbers (from the NIDA study):

Daniel Ford and colleagues interviewed 431 adults who had reported being current tobacco smokers in a study conducted 13 years earlier. In the baseline interview, more than 40 percent of the participants reported having smoked marijuana, with more than 25 percent reporting using it within the previous 30 days (recent use) and nine percent reported daily use for two weeks or more. At the 13-year follow-up, 79 percent of participants who had reported smoking tobacco at baseline were still smoking it.

So let’s take break down these numbers:

• The study’s total sample size = 431
• At the time of the first study, 40% of the 431 people (172.4) reported to have smoked marijuana.
• Of the 172.4 people who smoke marijuana and tobacco, 25% (43.1 people) smoked marijuana “within the previous 30 days” and 9% (15.5 people) reported daily use for two weeks or more.
• After 13 years, the study found that 79% (340.49 people) of the “baseline” (I’m assuming this means the original 431 people) reported to still be smoking tobacco.

There are a lot of numbers being thrown aroud in here, and I’m not completely sure where they all come from or how they correlate with one another from only the information given (and I can’t seem to find the raw numbers online). So let’s look at this at face-value… it was a study that showed how out of 431 people who smoked tobacco (including 172.4 of them who used marijuana in one way or another), 340.49 remained tobacco smokers after 13 years.

What this study doesn’t seem to answer (among many things) is:

• Were these people trying to quit using tobacco? I mean… that seems like a fair question, doesn’t it?
• Similar to the question above, does this study prove that it was directly marijuana’s fault that people continued to keep smoking? Or does it have anything to do with the fact that nicotine is one of the most addictive substances on Earth, which, consequently, makes it really hard to quit?

Well, as it turns out, according to the American Heart Association, even with the use of “good smoking cessation programs”, only about 20 to 40 percent of participcants end up qutting (for at least one year). That means that even when a person has dedicated themselves consciously to a smoking cessation program, they still have a 60 to 80 percent chance of failing to quit smoking at all (and, again, only a 20-40% chance at quitting for at least a single year).

So let’s see here… NIDA’s study showed that 79% of 431 smokers (who we aren’t even sure if they wanted to quit or if they were enrolled in a quit-smoking program) continued to smoke 13 years after their study. And, According to the AHA, 60-80% failure is normal amongst people who use “good” stop-smoking programs. I am no scientist, but based on this it would appear that the only thing NIDA has found was that their group was about average at worst.

Back to the article…

A study of 450 individuals found that people who smoke marijuana frequently but do not smoke tobacco have more health problems and miss more days of work than nonsmokers do. Many of the extra sick days used by the marijuana smokers in the study were for respiratory illnesses.

First off, let’s remember that marijuana is a plant and it does not grow pre-made joints (no matter how many enthusiasts may throw wishful pennies into fountains). There are indeed some adverse health affects that are associated with inhaling combusted material (such as marijuana), but that is due to combustion and not the plant itself. Even inhaling smoke from burning chicken on the grill should be shied away from.

I’m not going to attempt to verify the numbers in this case because I don’t feel it needs to be argued. Personally, I do believe that a person who does not inhale combusted organic matter would tend to be–on average–less likely to get a respiratory infection and miss work when compared with someone who does.

However, this is why you upgrade your method of consumption to something healthier like a vaporizer, which creates a near toxin-less vapor from plant matter.

I’m not saying that NIDA is correct either, however, as all this study seems to prove is that people shouldn’t smoke in general; beyond that it proves nothing specifically against marijuana.

Even infrequent marijuana use can cause burning and stinging of the mouth and throat, often accompanied by a heavy cough. Someone who smokes marijuana regularly may have many of the same respiratory problems that tobacco smokers do, such as daily cough and phlegm production, more frequent acute chest illnesses, a heightened risk of lung infections, and a greater tendency toward obstructed airways.

As much as I google, the only support I can find for this claim is the NIDA (which provides no actual science to back up these individual claims). It would appear these symptoms are greatly attributed to smoking, not uniquely to marijuana smoking. All I can say, again, is if you experience these symptoms… consider vaporization rather than combustion.

Cancer of the respiratory tract and lungs may also be promoted by marijuana smoke. A study comparing 173 cancer patients and 176 healthy individuals produced strong evidence that smoking marijuana increases the likelihood of developing cancer of the head or neck, and that the more marijuana smoked, the greater the increase. A statistical analysis of the data suggested that marijuana smoking doubled or tripled the risk of these cancers.

Marijuana has the potential to promote cancer of the lungs and other parts of the respiratory tract because it contains irritants and carcinogens. In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50 percent to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke. It also produces high levels of an enzyme that converts certain hydrocarbons into their carcinogenic form, levels that may accelerate the changes that ultimately produce malignant cells. Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which increases the lungs’ exposure to carcinogenic smoke. These facts suggest that, puff for puff, smoking marijuana may increase the risk of cancer more than smoking tobacco does.

Really, Ms. Witmer? These days it is hard to claim inability to fact-check when I am willing to wager there is a built-in search option in the same browser you used to load the NIDA’s website as you copied and pasted parts of your research.

A simple search of “marijuana cancer“, for me, pulled up numerous headlines which include an article about a study that shows marijuana potentially cutting cancer tumor growth in half, as well as a link to a very well publicized article about the largest study of its kind finding no link between marijuana use and cancer.

As it turns out, cannabinoids appear to have a lot of potential use in fighting cancer, which may help explain why the study found you are no more likely to get lung cancer from smoking marijuana than you would from smoking nothing at all.

So what is your excuse, Ms. Witmer? Does About.com approve of this type of writing?

Some adverse health effects caused by marijuana may occur because THC impairs the immune system’s ability to fight off infectious diseases and cancer. In laboratory experiments that exposed animal and human cells to THC or other marijuana ingredients, the normal disease-preventing reactions of many of the key types of immune cells were inhibited. In other studies, mice exposed to THC or related substances were more likely than unexposed mice to develop bacterial infections and tumors.

While marijuana does indeed act to suppress the immune system, there are no studies that I am familiar with which show a significant correlation between marijuana use and increased susceptibility to infection/disease.

In fact, immune system suppression is one of the reasons that marijuana appears to be such a viable treatment for people with autoimmune diseases, like multiple sclerosis.

As usual, the only support I can find for the claims above is from the NIDA and sites which have basically just copied and pasted NIDA’s claims.

Keep in mind–as I pointed out above–that marijuana actually has been shown to aid in hindering tumor growth. On top of that, marijuana has many anti-bacterial properties, including the ability to fight super-bugs like MRSA. With that said, I would love to see a study which shows a siginificant correlation to the alternative.

One study has indicated that a person’s risk of heart attack during the first hour after smoking marijuana is four times his or her usual risk. The researchers suggest that a heart attack might occur, in part, because marijuana raises blood pressure and heart rate and reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of blood.

The really curious thing about this section of Ms. Witmer’s article is the fact that the study mentioned above was a caution towards middle-aged and elderly people from the baby-boom who would be more likely to have heart disease and, thus, may be more likely to have a heart attack triggered by marijuana use.

So what does this have to do with raising a teenager? Oh, that’s right… nothing. But I suppose it makes for great filler, doesn’t it?

For what it’s worth, let’s take a look at some more details of this study:

The Boston group studied 3,882 patients who had survived heart attacks and found that 124 reported using marijuana regularly. Of those, 37 said they had used it within 24 hours of their heart attacks and 9 within the hour of their attacks. The relative risk of heart attack increased 4.8 times within the first hour but dropped to 1.7 times higher in the second hour, suggesting a rapid decline in the acute cardiac effects, the researchers said.

The study only found a correlation between marijuana use and heart attacks. Out of 3,882 heart attack survivors, 124 (3.2%) reported to use marijuana regularly. Out of that 124, 37 patients (.95% of the sample) claimed to use marijuana within 24 hours of their heart attacks and 9 patients (.23% of the sample) claimed to have used marijuana within an hour of their attack. If I may interject, I am willing to bet that more than 3.2% of them had a diet/lifestyle which may have also contributed to their conditions.

I would love more research into these various concerns to really see if there is a legitimate reason for concern. Marijuana may indeed increase one’s risk for heart attack if the individual in question has heart disease/a weakened heart, however, there are studies that show marijuana actually helps the heart. For example, one study shows marijuana may be a viable treatment for hardened arteries, another shows that cannabinoids may offer cardioprotection. Medical Marijuana and the heart is an upcoming section on this site as well.

In conclusion…

Personally, I used to enjoy reading articles on About.com. Not only did they usually answer my question, but due to the popularity of the site, they showed up first/near the top on the search engines.

When it comes to marijuana, however, this is not the first time I have been absolutely disgusted with the lack of factual information provided. While this is my first response to an About.com article, it will surely not be my last until About.com puts in the initiative to check their submitters’ work prior to making it go live.

So, Ms. Witmer, I welcome you to consider these facts and reconsider your article. Do you know what is more harmful to children than marijuana? Being lied to/misinformed by their parents. Ignorance is more destructive than any strain of marijuana, yet you seem to have no problem dealing it in your article. Please, reconsider.

For those of you interested in contacting Denise Witmer, you can e-mail her at parentingteens.guide@about.com or contact her on twitter @ParentingWithD.

I also suggest you contact About.com and let them know how you feel about the content they promote on their website.

——————————-

Update (4/28/09):

As of the time of this post, the article has been taken down and now forwards to the main “parenting teens” page.

While I would have preferred some sort of changed/updated article with facts… I guess deleting it is still a win.

Thanks About.com and anyone who helped spread this along.

———————————

Update (4/27/09 4:00pm EST):

Maureen Ryan, an editor at About.com, left this message in the comments:

Thank you for your post. As the editor for About.com’s Parenting Channel (which includes the Parenting Teens site) I wanted to let you know that we take readers’ feedback seriously.

This article is part of a series we are currently updating. Any need to update sources and information will be addressed.

-Maureen Ryan
Editor About.com

Thank you for the comment, Maureen! It is very good to know that you guys have an active and functioning system to contest an article’s validity. I am very appreciative for your time.

As of this edit, the article in question still remains active on About.com’s website, but it looks like they are looking into it. I will let you guys know when/if the article is changed or taken down.

Related Posts:

• I’m pretty proud about how my …
• Study rebuffs mental illness l…
• California #Marijuana Supporte…
• Carbon Negative #Hemp Walls ar…
• If you care about children, gi…
• In case you missed it: My Trip…
• Why People Use Cannabis http:/…
• My First “Debate”… Didn’t Go As Well As It Could.
• WARNING: Consider this Before Calling 973-409-3274
• Stephen Baldwin: The Desperate Talking Head of Prohibition