-
sponsorship
When taxes on cigarettes were first proposed, the revenue was supposed to be used to help smokers quit and to prevent others from starting. But it didn't take politicians long to siphon the money away for other purposes. Now state governments count on cigarette revenue to help fund their budgets. We've all become nicotine-dependent.
Like the tobacco-tax movement, the soda-tax movement began with a rationale of preventing and curing addiction. And like the tobacco-tax movement, it's evolving into a revenue addiction.
More here.
-
sponsorship
Let's be blunt about what's going on here. We tolerated smoking until science proved it was harmful to nonsmokers. As momentum grew, the war on smoking became cultural, with disapproval and ostracism of anyone who lit up. Electronic cigarettes have removed the war's scientific basis, but our cultural revulsion persists. Therefore, so does our prohibition and condemnation.
More here.
-
sponsorship
Lots of readers responded to yesterday's piece on the transformation of marijuana. I had focused on the drug's evolution from an herb to a powder, a capsule, and finally a spray. But Bruce Mirken of the Marijuana Policy Project says the spray has already been eclipsed by a better way to filter and deliver the drug's therapeutic benefits: vaporization.
Mirken points to several recent studies exploring the vapor method. First, a 2006 article from the Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences:
What is currently needed for optimal use of medicinal cannabinoids is a feasible, nonsmoked, rapid-onset delivery system. Cannabis "vaporization" is a technique aimed at suppressing irritating respiratory toxins by heating cannabis to a temperature where active cannabinoid vapors form, but below the point of combustion where smoke and associated toxins are produced.
Second, a 2007 report in Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
on the absorption of THC from marijuana inhaled via the Volcanos vaporizer system compared to smoking marijuana cigarettes. We found that THC levels were generally similar over 6 h for the two types of delivery. The vaporizer was associated with higher plasma THC concentrations at 30 min and 1 h compared to smoking at each THC strength, suggesting that absorption was faster with the vaporizer.
Absorption rate is important because it helps you control the drug's effects. The more quickly you feel the effects of an initial dose, the more quickly and accurately you can figure out whether you need more to get the requisite pain relief and, if so, how much. Otherwise, you might overdose before you realize it (although, even in that event, a THC overdose isn't that bad).
The 2007 paper continues:
Whereas smoking marijuana increased CO [carbon monoxide] levels as expected for inhalation of a combustion product, there was little if any increase in CO after inhalation of THC from the vaporizer. This indicates little or no exposure to gaseous combustion toxins. Combustion products are harmful to health and reflect a major concern about the use of marijuana cigarettes for medical therapy as expressed by the Institute of Medicine. Although we did not measure other combustion products such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and oxidant gases, the observation of little or no CO exposure suggests little or no exposure to these other compounds. The vaporizer was well tolerated, with no reported adverse effects. Most subjects preferred the vaporizer compared to marijuana smoking, supporting its potential for medical therapy.
Finally, Mirken cites a 2007 study in the Harm Reduction Journal, showing
that respiratory symptoms like cough, phlegm, and tightness in the chest increase with cigarette use and cannabis use, but are less severe among users of a vaporizer. ... The odds ratio suggests that vaporizer users are only 40% as likely to report respiratory symptoms as users who do not vaporize, even when age, sex, cigarette use, and amount of cannabis consumed are controlled. The use of cigarettes in conjunction with cannabis exacerbated symptoms, as found in previous work.
So that's the case for vaporization. As to GW Pharmaceuticals' claim that its spray formulation helps patients "obtain symptom relief without experiencing a 'high,'" Mirken cites the spray's package insert, which says:
SATIVEX has two principal active components: THC and CBD. ...THC is a psychotropic agent which may produce physical and psychological dependence and has the potential to be abused. ... THC has complex effects on the central nervous system (CNS). These can result in changes of mood, decrease in cognitive performances and memory, decrease in ability to control drives and impulses, and alteration of the perception of reality, particularly altered time sense.
The company's argument is that Sativex
is composed primarily of a 1:1 ratio of two cannabinoids—CBD ... and THC. ... The CBD:THC formulation is believed to enhance the pain relief of THC while modulating the unwanted psychotropic and other THC-related side effects, such as tachycardia. The spray delivery system keeps THC from entering the blood too rapidly and also minimizes the development of unwanted psychotropic effects.
I don't see a claim here that the 1:1 ratio in Sativex has any direct effect on whether you get high. The effect seems to be through ad hoc dosage control by the patient, known as self-titration. And if that's the case, then preventing "THC from entering the blood too rapidly" is problematic, since, as we discussed above, it makes it more difficult to monitor and adjust your dosage.
I'll let science sort this one out. Thanks for the studies comparing marijuana vaporization to smoking. Vapor wins. Now let's see studies comparing vapor with spray.
-
sponsorship
GW Pharmaceuticals, a British company, has just requested European approval of Sativex, a "cannabinoid pharmaceutical product." ... Drugs can be, and are being, reengineered every day. Nicotine and caffeine appear in new forms. Cannabis is an herb, then a powder, then a capsule, and now a spray, with significant chemical adjustments along the way. How do you fight an enemy that keeps changing? How do you recognize when it's no longer your enemy?
More here.
-
sponsorship
The latest on marijuana, courtesy of the Associated Press:
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger says California should study other nations' experiences in legalizing and taxing marijuana, although he is not supporting the idea. He says it's time to debate proposals such as a bill introduced in the Legislature earlier this year that would treat marijuana like alcohol. Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, a San Francisco Democrat, says taxing marijuana at $50 per ounce would bring more than $1 billion a year to the state. Schwarzenegger said during a Tuesday news conference that "it's time for debate" on the idea. But he warned against making harmful decisions just for the sake of raising money. He said some other nations have had negative experiences.
This is the logical next step toward legalization. As the Washington Post noted last month, pot is already "available as a medical treatment in California to almost anyone who tells a willing physician he would feel better if he smoked," and it's being "retailed over the counter in hundreds of storefronts" in Los Angeles alone. Furthermore, the state already "collects $18 million in sales taxes from marijuana dispensaries." But $1 billion? (Actually, state officials who support legalization estimate the take at around $1.3 billion.) Now you're talking.
You know how it is: Teenagers have trouble saying no to drugs; politicians have trouble saying no to money. But this is just another rationalization we're reaching for as we gradually concede pot's legality. By the time the "studies" invited by various governors are in, the revenue question will be less pressing, and the public will have become that much more used to the idea.
-
sponsorship
Six signs that pot is being legalized de facto, courtesy of articles published this month by the Washington Post and New York Times:
1) 13 states have legalized medical marijuana. ...
2) [M]arijuana is now available as a medical treatment in California to almost anyone who tells a willing physician he would feel better if he smoked. Pot is now retailed over the counter in hundreds of storefronts across Los Angeles. ...
3) U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced that the Drug Enforcement Administration will no longer raid such stores.
4) [G]overnment surveys show that 100 million Americans have smoked pot or its resin, hashish, in their lifetimes, and 25 million have done so in the past year.
5) [A]dmission of marijuana use by the Olympic gold medalist Michael Phelps was largely forgiven with a shrug.
6) [W]ith the recession prompting bulging budget deficits, some legislators in California and Massachusetts have gone further, suggesting that the drug could be legalized and taxed ...
[I]n California, pot is such a booming growth industry that lawmakers are being asked to consider its potential as a salve to the state's financial woes. Betty Yee, chairman of the California State Board of Equalization, endorsed a bill in February to regulate the estimated $14 billion marijuana market, citing the state's budget problems. California currently collects $18 million in sales taxes from marijuana dispensaries, and Yee said a regulated pot trade would bring in $1.3 billion.
Together, these developments convey the steady demise of the pot taboo. We don't really think marijuana use deserves prosecution. We're looking for ways to rationalize its legalization. One rationale is medical, and we don't seem to care much that this is largely a fraud. Another is financial: We know pot smoking is ubiquitous, so we might as well get some public revenue from it.
My guess is that criminal laws against marijuana use have become culturally untenable. At this point, if you want to maintain criminal laws against more dangerous drugs, you're better off conceding the legality of marijuana, lest the public lose respect for drug laws in general.
-
sponsorship
Is pot worse than booze?
This AP story about the Michael Phelps brouhaha caught my eye yesterday. The Marijuana Policy Project is organizing a boycott of Kellogg's for dumping Phelps over his pot use. I'm tempted to join it.
Last summer, just after Phelps won eight gold medals in Beijing, Kellogg's announced, "HE'S GR-R-R-EIGHT! U.S. OLYMPIAN MICHAEL PHELPS TO BE FEATURED ON PACKAGES OF KELLOGG'S FROSTED FLAKES AND KELLOGG'S CORN FLAKES CEREAL." The company's vice president for global promotions gushed, "Michael embodies the values behind our Frosted Flakes Earn Your Stripes program. He knows that winning is not just about the glory that comes with gold medals, but about good sportsmanship, working hard and being your best."
Then, two weeks ago, Phelps got caught smoking marijuana at a party. Kellogg's promptly dumped him. "Michael's most recent behavior is not consistent with the image of Kellogg," the company declared.
Not consistent? The real inconsistency, MPP's Bruce Mirken argued in an AlterNet commentary, was in the company's treatment of marijuana and alcohol. "In 2004, Phelps pleaded guilty to drunken driving," Mirken pointed out. "But apparently that offense—just as illegal, and which actually could have resulted in someone being hurt or killed—was not an issue for Kellogg's." Mirken continued:
[M]arijuana is far safer than alcohol. Alcohol is more addictive. According to the Institute of Medicine, 15 percent of those who ever drink become dependent on alcohol. The figure for marijuana is just 9 percent. ... Alcohol is massively more toxic. Every year, people die from alcohol overdoses. ... And the chronic effects of heavy alcohol use—e.g. liver damage—kill thousands upon thousands more. There has never been a medically documented marijuana overdose. ... And unlike marijuana, alcohol tends to make users reckless, aggressive and violent. A review in the journal Addictive Behaviors explained, "Alcohol is clearly the drug with the most evidence to support a direct intoxication-violence relationship."
The man has a point, doesn't he? Isn't tobacco worse than pot? And isn't alcohol in some ways as bad as tobacco?
Here's the sign-up page for the Kellogg's boycott. Personally, I plan to salute the company's morals by sitting down with a bowl of Special K, floating in Jim Beam.
-
sponsorship
I just got back from a talk by David Friedman at the Cato Institute. Fascinating guy, thinks a mile a minute. He must have spat out 100 provocative ideas in his half an hour or so. I can draw you a mental picture of him pretty quickly: bubbly, balding, not much over five feet tall, wears a backpack over his tweed jacket (did I mention the "recreational medievalism"?) and asked the audience whether anybody could give him a ride to Charlottesville tonight. There's still time--if you're going from D.C. to Charlottesville, try him at DDFr@DavidDFriedman.com.
Friedman touched on a range of topics covered in his new book, Future Imperfect. I haven't read the book yet, but he gave a pretty good sense of it. Here's the Cato summary (the podcast will be up later):
[Friedman] looks at a variety of technological revolutions that might happen over the next few decades, their implications, and how to deal with them. Topics range from encryption and surveillance through biotechnology and nanotechnology to life extension, mind drugs, virtual reality, and artificial intelligence. One theme of the book is that the future is radically uncertain. Technological changes already begun could lead to more or less privacy than we have ever known, freedom or slavery, effective immortality or the elimination of our species, and radical changes in life, marriage, law, medicine, work, and play. "If it can be done, it will be done," David Friedman has said. "So the interesting thing to me is not what should you stop but how do you adapt." We do not know which future will arrive, but it is unlikely to be much like the past.
In short, the book covers nearly everything Human Nature covers but with a libertarian bent. Which is sort of my bent, too, except that I'm less theoretically confident than Friedman is--or, to put it the other way, I'm more daunted by practical developments. Three years ago, for example, I wrote a series based on the idea that scientists would try to grow embryos beyond the conventional two-week limit, raising icky possibilities. The scenario made sense to me at the time, but in the three years since, it hasn't happened. A theorist would say, well, it'll happen eventually. I'm not so sure. My reaction is: Maybe I was just wrong.
So this is what I asked Friedman: Is there a contradiction between his technological optimism and his premise of radical uncertainty? When I say optimism, I don't mean a belief that technology will be good; I mean a belief that it will work. His talk was full of bold scenarios: conquering aging, developing artificial intelligence 100 times smarter than us in the next 30 years, and administering mind-control drugs that induce credulity. I agree that these scenarios are fascinating, and when I first came into this field, I took them very seriously. But everywhere I look, the news is telling me another story. The story is that in many fields, and in biology in particular, causality is turning out to be way more complex than we anticipated. The immediate manifestation of that complexity is that even our most conventional attempts to manipulate biology are producing unexpected and often decisive ill side effects.
Take the most obvious case: drugs. Friedman talked about three classes of mind drugs: those for pleasure, those for performance, and those for controlling other people. I've been to visionary or bioethics conferences where theorists have talked up these drugs and how cool or scary they'll become in the near future. But look at the news: Drugs are being restricted or pulled off the market because they're inducing ugly side effects. Not just drugs for the body, like Vioxx, but drugs for the mind, like Chantix. Steroids are boosting athletic performance but causing violence and circulatory trouble. Marijuana is being linked to heart attacks, brain shrinkage, and psychosis. I had high hopes for Bremelanotide, a new sexual-dysfunction drug, aka aphrodisiac. But last year its developer, Palatin Technologies, had to abandon that project due to "blood pressure increases" in some study participants. The company now touts the drug for "organ protection." It's turning out to be very hard to tinker with one function of the mind or body without affecting others.
Friedman's reply to all this was that we do better off "on net" by encouraging biotechnology than by limiting it, and that proposals to restrict it should be subject to the same skepticism that we might apply to the technology itself. That makes sense to me. Still, it's just a political answer. It doesn't address the underlying question of how soon--or even whether--biotechnology will achieve its promises.
I agree with Friedman that the future is radically uncertain. Too uncertain, in fact, to count on its arrival in the form that he envisions--or I do--anytime soon.