2014 July

Following reports that New Jersey’s medical marijuana program is suffering from low enrollment, Gov. Chris Christie called the program and similar programs across the U.S. “a front for legalization.”

New Jersey passed its medical marijuana law in 2009, and former Gov. Jon Corzine, a Democrat, signed it just before Christie, a Republican, took office. The first dispensary opened in December 2012, with predictions that the drug could help tens of thousands of patients in the state with severe or painful illnesses. But The Star-Ledger reported on Sunday that only 2,342 patients have signed up for the program.  And last week, the president and chief executive of Compassionate Care Foundation, Inc. of Egg Harbor Township — one of the state’s three medical marijuana dispensaries — announced he had quit because he couldn’t keep working for no pay in a struggling industry.   Christie said it’s clear there is not a demand for medical pot.

“What there’s a huge demand for is marijuana. Not medical marijuana,” he said Monday night on his monthly radio show on 101.5-FM. “Because when we run a medically based program, you don’t see the demand.”

Some lawmakers, dispensary operators, and patients blame the low enrollment on the program’s strict rules, high costs, the small amount of doctors willing to recommend patients, and Christie’s lack of involvement in enhancing participation.  “There is so much reticence on the administration’s part, I don’t know how you break that logjam,” state Assemblyman Reed Gusciora (D-Mercer), one of the lead sponsors of the law. “All they have to do is open their eyes.”

But Christie said the program itself is suspect, suggesting that some people are using it not just to help sick patients but as path for all marijuana use to become legalized.

“What did these folks say?” the governor said Monday. “They weren’t making enough money. You know, if this was a medical program, what’s everybody worried about making money for?  “This is a fallacy,” he added. “This program and all these other programs, in my mind, are a front for legalization. Unless you have a strong governor and a strong administration that says, ‘Oh, medical marijuana? Absolutely. We are going to make it a medically based program.’ No demand there — or very little.”

Christie has repeatedly said that while he will administer the medical marijuana program by law, he will never support the legalization of recreational pot use in New Jersey while he is governor. He has said that would send the wrong message to children.

“We are following the law,” the governor said Monday. “And we are following a medically based program. But I am not going to allow de-facto legalization of marijuana in this

state or regular legalization of marijuana in this state by statute. It’s not going to happen on my watch.”

Source: http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/06/17

The state Board of Medical Examiners has issued an advisory opinion to licensed doctors who get into the medical marijuana business that says they enter “at their own legal peril.”

No prohibition from entering the business from the board, but plenty of trap doors outlined in the opinion: Violations of federal law, and possible discipline for failing to disclose salient information to patients.

“Board licensees act at their own legal peril as a shareholder, officer or managing member of any medical marijuana cultivation facility, dispensary or other establishment or entity authorized under NRS Chapter 453A,” the opinion says. “Accordingly, all licensees of the Board are encouraged to consult with their own legal counsel to explore all possible legal and/or criminal implications of such actions and/or relationships.”

www.ralstonreports.com/blog/state-med-board-docs-we-wont-stop-you-getting-med-pot-business-enter-your-own-risk#.U6DuKIu9LCQ

Source: http://cdn.ralstonreports.com/sites/default/files/No.%2014-1%20Adv.%20Op..pdf June 2014

Libertarians and social conservatives both resist an intrusive central government, but they differ over exactly what constitutes “intrusive” policy, especially when it comes to private behavior.

Nowhere is this divide more obvious than in the war on drugs. Social conservatives are troubled by drug abuse, especially among the young, and believe that government regulation of certain substances is necessary to curb behavior seen not only as self-destructive but also incompatible with a strong and free community. Libertarians, on the other hand, argue that the heavy-handedness of the nanny state, and the law-enforcement abuses likely to accompany it, present a greater threat to freedom than the prohibited behavior itself. As Milton Friedman put it, “the present system of drug prohibition … does so much more harm than good.”

The libertarian commitment to freedom should absolutely be acknowledged and, in a time of growing state control, defended. But, when it comes to drugs, libertarians have yet to grasp just how much drug abuse undermines individual freedom and erodes the very core of the libertarian ideal.

Many libertarians argue that the state should have no power over adult citizens and their decision to ingest addictive substances—so long as they do no harm to anyone but themselves. Hence, there should be no laws against using drugs, and over time this self-destructive behavior will limit itself.

But this harmless world is not the real world of drug use. There is ample experience that a drug user harms not only himself, but also many others. The association between drug use and social and economic failure, domestic violence, pernicious parenting and criminal acts while under the influence is grounds for prohibition even if we accept no responsibility for what the drug user does to himself. The drug user’s freedom to consume costs his community not only their safety, but also their liberty.

READ MORE

And I’m not just talking about heroin. Over the past decade, as marijuana use has grown, the number of car accident victims testing positive for the drug has tripled, according to a recent study.

Just as troubling as the potential harm done to others are the questions: What is to replace prohibition? And who holds the reins? Here things get sketchy. Everybody wants the cartels out; but who’s in? Whatever entity controls the supply controls the population of addicts.

Management of production and distribution, some envision, could be commercial. What could go wrong? Think Afghan warlord with a lobbying arm and a marketing department. Is drug use a disability? Who pays for the escalating doses? Big Pharma on, well, drugs, with direct-to-consumer advertising?

Others see a regulated, licensed dispensary model, perhaps with medical supervision. But misuse of opiate pharmaceuticals already represents the second-largest illicit drug threat in America. Would there be political corruption in the quest for those dispensary licenses? Perhaps, as with marijuana in Colorado, the state itself will run the show. What are the political implications of a state-regulated market for drugs? I have witnessed one such scheme, in Amsterdam, with the state-controlled distribution of heroin. The physician in charge presided over a clean, well-lit facility, clinical and efficient, where every morning that day’s clients entered her facility for their supervised heroin injections. The Dutch called their scheme “daycare.”

Come evening, the clients were discharged back into the streets. What if these drug users decided to continue their career of crime and seek illicit heroin to supplement their state-supported allotment? “Oh, that doesn’t happen,” the doctor assured me with a chilling smile. “If so, we simply withhold their heroin.”

This state has a nanny, indeed, and I fear that her clients are no longer free. They are wards of the state, and they are kept on a tight leash.

Controlled addiction happens elsewhere in the world, too. There is evidence that, in some places, suicide bombers, youth warriors, child sex slaves and even manual laborers are given drugs to keep them captive. Criminal drug dealers have long used such leverage to “own” their clientele.

For the addicted, the price exacted to maintain their dose may be bottomless, and can entail betrayals of self and others. The “clients” of Amsterdam are no longer active citizens, nor are they even willing actors, for they have contracted a disease that threatens their self-governance and gives whoever controls their drug of choice undue power over them. Do we want to hand the government that leash?

To be sure, some libertarians would stop at legalizing marijuana. But it’s hard to see how that will last. Marijuana is addictive (responsible for three-fifths of illicit drug abuse according to a 2012 National Survey on Drug Use and Health), and is a gateway to other drugs. Already, in parts of Europe and even Canada, cocaine, meth and opiates are legally used, with heroin distribution state-sponsored. This is not a conjectural debate.

And the political risks are already evident. All these marijuana users that are reliable supporters of pro-legalization candidates in their state campaigns—that donate their money and pledge their votes—how would we feel if they were all heroin users, compelled by their disease to support a particular political candidate? The fact that the United States is currently experiencing a surge in heroin makes this a question worth asking.

Even President Obama, whose administration has facilitated marijuana legalization, himself asked the logical follow-up question: “[What if] we’ve got a finely calibrated dose of meth, it isn’t going to kill you or rot your teeth, are we OK with that?”

Are we?

How does a libertarian abide the threat that today’s congressman might become tomorrow’s party functionary in charge of dispensing or withholding the desperately needed dose? If an essential predicate of libertarian society is the willing, rational actor, capable of weighing and understanding consequences, what’s left when this condition is absent?

Such a state is not the attainment of liberty, but rather its end.

John P. Walters, director of drug control policy for President George W. Bush, is chief operating officer of the Hudson Institute

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/why-libertarians-are-wrong-about-drugs-107896_Page2.html#ixzz34zZA9eKU   16th June 2014

The misinformation continues regarding how Denver’s crime rate has changed following Colorado’s legalization of recreational marijuana sales in January.

Vox.com claims that “5 months into legal pot sales, crime is down in Denver.”  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  Actually, after five months of legal pot sales, crime is way up in Denver.

Denver’s crime statistics for the first five months of 2013 and 2014 are available here.  The total number of reported offenses has increased by more than 10 percent, from 17,450 in 2013 up to 19,234 in 2014.

German Lopez at Vox states that “both violent and property crimes are down 1.9 percent and 11.5 percent, respectively, from January through May 2014 compared to the same time period last year.”  Nope.  “Crimes Against Property” (aka property crimes) are only down 7.5 percent compared to the same period last year, but this has been more than offset by a 24-percent increase in “Crimes Against Persons,” another 24-percent increase in “Crimes Against Society,” and a 155-percent increase in “All Other Offenses” since 2013. Of course, Denver is not the only city in Colorado.  Over in Aurora, violent crime is up 10 percent so far this year after pot legalization, with sex assaults up 30 percent and aggravated assaults up 24 percent.  In Englewood, robberies have increased 11 percent since 2013, and burglaries are up more than 68 percent.

Whether or not you support marijuana legalization, the facts are the facts. Total crime is up in Denver this year.

Source:   AMERICAN THINKER  18th June 2014

U.S. officials have neglected the rise of drug trafficking and transnational criminal groups in Latin America for so long that the problem has now reached America’s southern border, creating a humanitarian crisis and raising the costs of any U.S. response, a leading U.S lawmaker and experts said on Tuesday.

Rep. Matt Salmon (R., Ariz.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, said in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) that the United States “has been AWOL in the hemisphere all together, not just in the war on drugs.” The most recent indication is the surge in young immigrant children crossing the U.S. border, where between 60,000 and 80,000 children are expected to seek safe haven this year.  Parents who entered the country illegally are now encouraging their children to join them and flee an epidemic of gang and drug violence in Central American countries such as El Salvador and Honduras, according to reports.

“We have to do everything we possibly can to stabilize these countries through trade, security, fighting against narcotraffickers,” Salmon said.  “They love their countries,” he added. “They’re leaving because they’re frightened or they can’t put food on the table, or both.”

Salmon said he recently visited a detention center in Nogales, Ariz., at the center of what he called an “epic humanitarian crisis” and a “total makeshift situation.” About 140 border patrol agents have volunteered to leave their posts and tend to undocumented children at the center. They are separated by sex and age and kept in chain-link cages under razor wire.  “Coyote” smugglers arrange their passage across the border for $5,000 to $8,000 per person. Some do not make it and die from dehydration, some are sold into sex slavery, and some are murdered.

“I Iay this at [President Barack Obama’s] doorstep,” Salmon said, pointing to administration policies such as deferred action that offer deportation relief for some undocumented immigrants who arrive as children. “It is because of his failed policies that this is happening.” Salmon and Rep. Eliot Engel (D., N.Y.) have introduced legislation that would create an independent commission to evaluate U.S. drug programs and make future recommendations for counter-narcotics policy.

Roger Noriega, an AEI fellow and former assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs during the George W. Bush administration, noted that the White House has now asked Congress for $2.3 billion in total to house, feed, and transport the children to shelters or reunite them with relatives already in America. That total would be significantly more than the $60 million the State Department requested next year for helping to combat drug and gang violence through the Central America Regional Security Initiative (CARSI).  “We can either pay $2 billion to house these people for six to eight months, or think of the good we can do with the right kind of coordination of policies that get back to economic growth” and security, Noriega said.

He added that U.S. demand for illicit narcotics continues to fuel violence south of the border, contributing to sharp increases in drug-induced deaths among Americans and more than $80 billion in annual global cocaine sales.  “This is our fault, folks,” Noriega said. “We’re talking about a U.S. drug war that Mexicans and Central Americans are fighting.”

Transnational criminal groups have now begun to infiltrate corrupt governments and police forces in Central America and partner with gangs to traffic drugs, such as Barrio 18 and Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) in El Salvador. Honduras and El Salvador have some of the world’s highest murder rates—largely due to organized crime and gang-related violence. However, U.S. military resources in the region have declined in recent years due to budget cuts known as sequestration. Marine Gen. John Kelly, head of U.S. Southern Command, told lawmakers at committee hearings earlier this year that he lacks the assets to interdict about three-fourths of “suspected maritime drug smuggling” into America.

“This shows us the lack of priority and focus that our government has given the scourge of drug trafficking right here in our own hemisphere,” Salmon said. “Violence near our shores poses a direct threat to our national security and destabilizes our region.” The Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah has also made inroads into the region in recent years, revealing the transnational nature of the threat. Ayman Joumaa, a Lebanese drug kingpin, was indicted in 2011 and remains at large for trafficking Colombian cocaine into America and laundering hundreds of millions in profits back to Lebanon through front companies.  Noriega pointed to the recent elections in El Salvador as another example of U.S. neglect toward the region.

The State Department remained neutral during the election won by Salvador Sanchez Ceren of the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN), a former rebel guerilla group during El Salvador’s bloody civil war in the 1980s. Reports linked Sanchez Ceren and the FMLN to drug trafficking deals involving the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the Venezuelan government.   Recent reports from the country have also been troubling. Several high-level military officials are under investigation for allegedly providing hundreds of assault rifles to MS-13, which additionally operates in more than 40 U.S. states.

“There’s going to be a time when MS-13 fires an RPG into an Alexandria [Va.] police car, and [Americans] are going to say what the hell happened?” Noriega said.Vice President Joe Biden will meet with Sanchez Ceren this week as part of his trip to Latin America. Biden’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

Source:  Washington free beacon June 17, 2014

Spinning a drugs legalisation yarn that fails to investigate the facts on the back of such a death is downright indefensible.

I cannot decide who is the more foolish, poor Anne Marie Cockburn or the pontificating Camilla Cavendish of The Sunday Times? “Martha wanted to get high, she didn’t want die”, her mother Anne Marie said after the inquest last week into her daughter’s tragic early death.  “Society”, she went on, “must move from prohibition of drugs to strict and responsible education … putting doctors and pharmacists, not drug dealers in control …”

Ms Cockburn added that drug education would have enabled her 15-year-old to make a more fully informed decision, as if ‘informed choice’ were not the Bible of modern drug education. Ms Cavendish was all too quick to echo this misguided cry.

Sadly, despite her tender years, Martha knew just how to get high.

Putting to one side the question of whether tested, dose-controlled drugs could ever be made safe for the recreational purpose of getting high (scientifically doubtful to say the least); putting to one side whether a teenager could then be reliably trusted to use the requisite dose according to instructions (the prescribed amount only, with ample water, not with/after alcohol or any other drug etc); putting to one side the cost and possibility of meaningful policing necessary to monitor this, or to prevent onward selling, cutting and undercutting; putting all that aside, I am left with this question:

Does Ms Cockburn really think it is okay for the State to sell drugs and thereby sanction their use to all teenagers?

And at what age, exactly, would she draw the line?

Fifteen years, we must assume.  But why not 14, or 13, or 12?  Aren’t they too at risk  of wanting to get high, but not to die?  Or 18, and you are still left with the same problem.

Do they think having kids of these ages queueing at Boots for their recreational drug dose would be OK and safer? Would this be a once a month treat, or every Saturday – or every day?

What about parental consent? Perhaps Ms Cockburn thinks parents could purchase drugs on behalf of their children? Or is the State to take total responsibility for sponsoring the nation’s teen drug habit? Will ID be required?  What about older kids purchasing for and

selling on to younger ones?  Maybe ‘iris recognition’ drug dispensers would be the answer – as with methadone in prisons? She’d have to believe that the police would be more vigilant than prison guards to stop interception by bullies or dealers.

Then what about the impact would be on the vast majority of kids who, unlike her daughter, do not want or need to  get high; whose parents would find such sanctioning of their teens’ drug use quite unacceptable? Or doesn’t she care? Does it not matter that most young people (84 per cent of 16-24-year olds) are not that keen on drugs or their effects, that  the numbers of those who are have been steadily declining for the last 15 years.

Ms Cockburn’s failure to think these questions through can be forgiven, but not that of Camilla Cavendish of The Sunday Times, who also labours under the delusion that ‘ending the war on drugs’ would protect risk-loving teens.

Moves from prejudice to evidence are hugely cheering, Ms Cavendish wrote. No doubt they are when key facts are omitted – like the successful restriction of regular drug  use to 6 per cent of the adult population (compared with 20 per cent smokers and the 80 per cent plus drinkers); like the danger that the current 185 million drug users worldwide could increase to levels of legal drinking and smoking (2 billion and 1.3 billion respectively) with the removal of these controls.

Despite the massive drop in worldwide consumption of drugs today to circa 39 tons of morphine equivalent from 3000 tons at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, according to Ms Cavendish it only went wrong in 1971 with the Misuse of Drugs Act. No matter that London had become of the hub of a new international heroin market as a result of legal Harley Street prescribing.

Cavendish’s confused narrative does not end here. Legalising production, supply and consumption would end the whole vile industry, she thinks, though decriminalisation, which pushes up use and incentivises the illicit trade, is fine too.

She is by no means the only drug-liberalising advocate to avoid inconvenient facts – but as a journalist she should resist her ‘idee fixe’.

Cavendish might ask why school-age drug use in Portugal has doubled. And why Colorado and Washington, the two states that have legalized marijuana for recreational use, have failed to provide the US Centers for Disease Control the requisite information for The Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBS). Washington has not participated in the survey at all.

Why wouldn’t they want to know how their children’s drug usage compares with that in other states? – especially given the studies already showing that states with approved “medical” marijuana have the highest adolescent marijuana usage rates.

For a mother, playing the blame game in response to the agony of a teen drug death is understandable if misguided. I have been to the funerals of young  people who have lost their lives this way – and comforted their parents.

But for a journalist, spinning a drugs legalisation yarn that fails to investigate the facts on the back of such a death is downright indefensible.

Source:  www.conservativewoman.co.uk  17th June 2014

The Obama administration, driven by the notion that America’s prisons are unjustly filled with first-time marijuana offenders, has condoned marijuana use through an artful blend of inaction and avoidance towards legalization initiatives. Not only has the administration declined to challenge legalization ballot initiatives (or even speak against them during the state campaigns), they have turned a blind eye to recreational marijuana usage by ranking such activities as beneath their “prosecutorial priorities.”

In reality, less than one out of every 200 inmates in a state prison system is incarcerated due to first-time marijuana use or possession.  And many of those who are incarcerated have pled down from more serious charges.  The fact is most inmates are incarcerated for multiple, non-marijuana drug offenses, often involving trafficking or violence.

Of greater concern, however, is how this prosecutorial neglect will harm the administration’s own efforts to treat substance abuse through the Affordable Care Act.

While the administration’s new policy of neglect won’t substantially reduce drug-related incarceration, it will inflict harm on effective programs in drug prevention and treatment. Though the administration’s rhetoric has stressed a public health approach to curb drug use, their policies will produce short-term harm from increasing marijuana use and long-term damage to the administration’s stated prevention and treatment objectives.

Legal marijuana undermines social norms against drugs, diminishes perceptions of risk, handcuffs the courts as an instrument in treatment, and makes it less likely that the largest category of dependent drug users in need of treatment will pursue a path to their recovery.

Consider the impact on the Affordable Care Act. Initially hailed as a ‘breakthrough’ for substance abuse treatment, the Act mandates expanded insurance coverage for drug treatment with “parity” requirements (comparable to coverage of other medical conditions) that ACA supporters hope will revolutionize health care for the addicted.

Concerns now beset this provision, especially concerning marijuana, which is the largest cause driving treatment need. While the heaviest drug using age cohort (18-25 year olds) should now be covered until age 26 under their parents’ plan, if the ACA falters in its funding assumptions or in some other manner, federal funding for treatment under the old system would be wholly inadequate to cover expanded treatment need spurred by legal, recreational marijuana.

Legal marijuana also has a perverse impact on getting people needed treatment.

The National Survey on Drug Use and Health discloses the problem. Among the 7.3 million Americans in 2012 who met the criteria for needing treatment (4.3 million of whom were dependent on marijuana), high cost or lack of insurance were offered by some as the reasons that they didn’t actually get the treatment they sought. But these problems were cited by fewer than half of those who didn’t get, for any reason, the treatment they wanted. In fact, the entire category of those who sought treatment but failed to get it represents only 1.7 percent of those who needed it.

In fact, a remarkable 95 percent of those who needed treatment for a drug abuse disorder were not seeking it – that is, they are in denial. No provision of an expanded ACA can help those who do not seek their own recovery. Public policy should be designed to motivate those in need to seek help. Regretfully, widely accessible, socially acceptable marijuana provides no incentive for the dependent to enter recovery; rather, such a permissive environment makes it easier for a person to persist in denial and continue the self-destruction of addiction.

Moreover, the legalization mantra has taken its toll on the views of our youth. Perceptions of risk and norms of disapproval are consequential matters, especially for the young. School surveys show that the perceived risk in smoking marijuana regularly has declined among high school seniors from 80 percent in 1991, to only 39 percent in 2013. Norms of social disapproval have a similarly trended downward, from 80 percent disapproval among 10th graders to only 59 percent over the same time period.

Significantly, there is an inverse relationship between these two measures of youth attitudes and their actual rates of marijuana use. In 1992, when use was at an historic low, perceived risk of even “occasional” marijuana use stood at 40 percent, and past-year use by senior high school students was only 20 percent. But by 2013, those figures had reversed: perceived risk had fallen to only 19 percent, while past year use had soared to 39 percent. As researchers know, when perceived risk and disapproval fall, higher rates of youth use will shortly follow. Legal, socially acceptable marijuana will only accelerate this trend.

There is similar jeopardy for drug courts, which serve as an alternative to incarceration for non-violent drug offenders. There are now more than 2,700 such courts, where offenders are directed to treatment, completion of which can lead to clearing their record, with no resort to prison. They are a huge success; in fact, the criminal justice system today is the largest single source of referral for treatment for drugs like marijuana.  But the success of these courts in driving treatment will likely suffer as a consequence of legalization, which weakens the criminal justice system as an adjunct to treatment and recovery.

In the end, the administration is undermining effective responses to real problems by peddling a false narrative regarding incarceration and implementing public health policies at odds with its own objectives.

Source:     http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/208687  June 10, 2014

Lighting it up before school might not be as cool as you think. A new study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, links smoking marijuana in kids with lower intelligence and poorer focus, and may translate into long-term effects. A recent National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) report says that in 2013, an estimated 22.7 percent of high school seniors were smoking weed, with 6.7 percent of them smoked it dail. Those numbers are rising, too. The idea that marijuana is a harmless substance to kids is very concerning for researchers, who found that regular use of the drug over time, especially among younger kids, can impair brain development during a critical time in their lives.

 

“Long term, heavy use of marijuana results in impairments in memory and attention that persist and worsen with increasing years of regular use,” the report said, according toTime. With two states, Washington and Colorado, legalizing recreational use of weed, the drug has the potential to be even more harmful to children. Some argue that easier access will reduce smoking risks, but with drug use among children rising, researchers are trying to understand the impact on the mind. The new research also reveals that kids who smoke pot might be more likely to dropout, to participate in criminal activity, and to have lower grades.

The scientists reported that adults who started smoking as adolescents had “impaired neural connectivity,” which affects memory, alertness, and processing of basic routines. In turn, the ability to learn is worsened. Researchers also found that impaired brain functioning occurred for a few days after smoking weed, affecting a child’s ability to perform at their greatest potential in the classroom. According to NIDA, other side effects of marijuana smoking include rapid heartbeat — which also causes the eyes to look red. This usually happens only a few minutes after  lighting up. The drug also slows reaction times, which can result issues with response to signals and sounds. Their research also correlates smoking weed over time with an increased risk of developing psychosis, a mental disorder that causes you to lose sight of reality. People with psychosis have delusions, hallucinate, and hear things that aren’t really there.  Smoking weed is also associated with emotional disorders, such as depression and anxiety.

 

Researchers still have a long way to go to fully understand all the negative effects of marijuana on a child’s brain, but what they have found may help explain why some kids have trouble learning and excelling to their highest capacity.

Source: Volkow N, Baler R, Compton W, Weiss S. Adverse Health Effects of Marjuana Use. The New England Journal of Medicine.    June 2014. 

It’s not often that Sherwood, Oregon – a small, quiet suburb located southwest of Portland – makes the front page news – especially for stories related to drugs.  But it did the first weekend of February 2014, when two teenage girls ended up in the hospital after using a dangerous and relatively new designer drug.  The drug – officially known as 25i-NBOMe – is most commonly referred to as simply “25I” or “N-Bomb”.  “Smiles” is another nickname for N-Bomb and other closely related substances.

Fortunately for the Oregon teens, an off-duty deputy sheriff spotted them on the roadside as one of the girls was having a seizure.  He stopped and called an ambulance, only to have the other girl soon start seizing as well.  These girls survived, but several other teens experimenting with the deadly LSD-like drug haven’t been as lucky.  It’s been estimated that at least 19 deaths in the past couple of years are linked to the drug, including:

* June 2012 – The death of North Dakota teen Christian Bjerk, who was found lying dead on the ground after a fatal reaction to 25I [1].

 

* June 2012 – The death of 17-year-old Elijah Stai, who stopped breathing and ended up on life support after ingesting 25I mixed with chocolate.  The Minnesota teen died 3 days later, when his parents made the gut-wrenching decision to take him off life support [1].

* October 2012 – The death of a 21-year-old Arkansas male, who reportedly used N-Bomb intranasally.

* January 2013 – The death of Noah Carrasco, an 18-year-old Scottsdale, Arizona high school student.  He quickly lost consciousness after taking the deadly drug via nose drops that he thought contained LSD [2].

* April 2013 – The death of an 18-year-old student attending Arizona State University, believed to be caused by the designer drug N-Bomb [3].

* June 2013 – The death of 17-year-old Henry Kwan of Sydney, Australia, who threw himself out of a window and fell to his death after taking N-Bomb [4]

* September 2013 – The death of a 17-year-old high school student in Pennsylvania.  An overdose of the drug caused him to stop breathing, reportedly resulting in his death [5].

* February 2014 – The death of Jake Harris, a 21-year-old U.K. lifeguard and father-to-be.  Harris reportedly stabbed himself in the neck multiple times with broken glass after taking the drug [6]

 

Needless to say, the drug has the authorities – as well as many parents – very concerned.  One of the biggest problems is that the drug is often sold as LSD.  Although it’s similar to LSD in many ways, its effects can be significantly more dangerous.

 

Legal Issues Unfortunately, designer drugs often slip through the cracks in terms of drug enforcement, making them legal until deemed otherwise by the authorities.  With regards to N-Bomb, which had previously been legal, the fatalities linked to its use resulted in the Drug Enforcement Administration classifying it as a Schedule I controlled substance in October 2013.  The authorities have not been lenient with those individuals who either sold or supplied the drug to those who have suffered or died from its effects.

In the case of the two girls from Oregon, an adolescent boy was taken into custody for allegedly supplying them with the drug.  A total of 15 individuals have been charged in connection to the deaths of Elijah Stai and Christian Bjerk, a law-enforcement endeavor that’s been aptly dubbed “Operation Stolen Youth”.  Adam Budge, the 18 year-old friend who gave the drug to Stai, is facing murder charges for his death.  Charles Carlton, a 29-year-old man from Katy, Texas, pleaded guilty to numerous charges related to the two teens’ deaths, including possession with intent to distribute.  He had sold the deadly drugs via his online business, Motion Resources [7].

Potent Hallucinogen

N-Bomb is a hallucinogenic designer drug that is often likened to LSD, although some say that it’s up to 25 times more potent.  Designer drugs are synthetically produced by altering the chemical structure of existing drugs, like cocaine or marijuana.  They are meant to be used recreationally, and mimic the effects of the other drugs.  N-Bomb is actually derived from phenethylamine, commonly known as mescaline.  Mescaline is a natural substance found in the peyote cactus.  Mescaline’s use as a recreational drug became illegal in the U.S. in 1970, due to its psychedelic properties.

N-Bomb and other hallucinogens are known for causing powerfully altered perceptions, including brightly colored and widely distorted visual images.  Some users of the drug have described its effects as “Nirvana” and “ecstasy”, reporting “trips” very similar to those experienced with LSD.  As is typically the case with psychedelics, the unpredictable effects of N-Bomb have varied widely from one individual to the next.

Pleasurable effects of N-Bomb may include:

* Euphoria

* Bright moving colors and other vivid visual hallucinations

* Spiritual “awakening”

* A sense of profoundness

* Positive mood

* Enhanced awareness

* Enhanced creativity

* Loving feelings

* Sexual sensations and enhanced desire

Side effects of N-Bomb may include:

* Psychosis

* Altered state of consciousness

* Agitation

* Erratic behavior

* Chills, flushing

* Severe double vision

* Teeth grinding, jaw clenching

* Dilated pupils

* Depressed mood

* Confusion

* Nausea

* Intense negative emotions

* Paranoia

* Intense anxiety

* Muscle spasms and contractions

* Insomnia

* Impaired communication

* Vasoconstriction

* Swelling of feet, hands, face

* Kidney damage / failure

* Seizures

* Heart failure

* Coma

* Asphyxiation

How N-Bomb Is Used

N-Bomb or 25I is often sold on strips of blotter paper, which is one of the reasons users often erroneously assume it’s LSD.  The strip of paper is placed under the tongue, which allows the drug to enter the bloodstream sublingually. N-Bomb is also available as a powder.  Users can snort the powder like cocaine, smoke it, or mix it with a liquid and inject it like heroin.   Some users combine it with water in a nasal spray bottle to administer via the nose.  Vaporizing and then inhaling the drug is another method of administration used by some, but it makes controlling the dose very precarious.

When the drug is taken orally or sublingually, the effects generally last between 6 and 10 hours.  Those who inhale or snort the drug will generally experience its effects for a shorter period, ranging from 4 to 6 hours.  This can vary though, depending on the amount used.  When the substance is vaporized and then inhaled, the effects may kick in much more quickly but not last as long.

Dosing N-Bomb

A typical dose of N-Bomb is somewhere between 600 and 1200 micrograms.  Because the doses are so tiny (1 gram is the equivalent of 1,000,000 micrograms), it’s often very difficult to measure a dose accurately.  This is why users have a high risk of accidentally overdosing on the drug [8].

Multiple Concerns Arise About N-Bomb

Like so many designer drugs – particularly newer ones – N-Bomb isn’t fully understood.  It’s been on the street for less than 5 years, and it was discovered in a lab just 11 years ago.  So the full and long-term effects are not yet known.  What little information we do have is primarily from those who have had a bad reaction to the drug or died from it. Also, like other designer drugs and street drugs in general, there’s no way of knowing exactly what you’re getting.  It’s not at all uncommon for these substances to have other substances added in – making them even more dangerous than ever for users who don’t know what they’re getting.   Dealers often sell them under false names, like LSD.  After all, it’s a hallucinogenic drug with similar effects used in a similar manner.  No big deal…to them.

Information For Parents

If you’re the parent of a teen, it’s important to be aware of drugs in general, but especially designer drugs like N-Bomb.  First, these drugs are more readily available than you might realize.  Since new designer drugs are being created and coming available practically daily, they

slip through the cracks legally (at least for a while) so they’re much easier for teens to obtain.  Many are sold online or by friends or acquaintances.

Second, they’re appealing to many teens because they’re “exciting” and “cool”. They may rationalize that since it’s not a “real” drug, like cocaine or methamphetamine, it’s safe (or at least safer) to try.  And of course, their peers will often try to convince them that these drugs are harmless fun.  On top of that, teens tend to be reckless.  They tend to still perceive themselves as invincible, and often don’t consider the potential long-term consequences of their behavior.  Even when the risks are presented, teens often ignore them – much the same way they roll their eyes when reminded ad nauseam that drinking and driving is very dangerous or that wearing seatbelts saves lives.

Still, it’s vital to talk to your teen about N-Bomb and other designer drugs.  Strive to maintain good communication with him or her, and make sure your teen knows (both by your words AND your actions) that you genuinely care and that your door is always open, so to speak. If you do think your teen is using N-Bomb or any other drugs – including illegitimate prescription drugs, designer drugs, and regular street drugs – have a conversation as soon as possible.  Don’t ignore it.  Don’t minimize it.  Don’t assume that experimenting with drugs is just a normal part of adolescence.  Take it very seriously.  Consider setting up an appointment for an evaluation with an addiction specialist to determine if drug rehab is necessary.  Your teen may resent you, but a dead teen will never have the opportunity to appreciate how much you really do care.

Source:  addictiontreatmentmagazine.com  21st April 2014

Resources:

[1] http://www.houstonpress.com/2013-03-14/news/motion-research-charles-carlton/

[2] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/04/n-bomb-drug-stirs-fear/2135407/

[3] http://www.azcentral.com/news/arizona/articles/20130503phoenix-area-n-bomb-drug-stirs-fear.html

[4] http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/high-alert-why-synthetic-drugs-are-so-hard-to-police/story-e6frg8h6-1226673596866

[5] http://www.abc27.com/story/23605144/deadly-drug-n-bomb-claims-teens-life

[6] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2552893/Lifeguard-stabbed-neck-taking-former-legal-high-N-bomb-hallucinating-tried-stop-effect-drug.html

[7] http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/katy/crime-courts/article/Katy-man-pleads-guilty-in-multi-state-drug-ring-5305077.php

[8] healthandwelfare.idaho.gov

A newly fashionable drug is setting off alarm bells in the minds of both health officials and parents.  The drug known as “molly” has a rather innocent-sounding name. It is a type of MDMA (commonly called Ecstasy) that has been implicated in several deaths over recent weeks.  Four teens and young adults have died and others have been hospitalized after taking the drug during concerts and dance festivals on the East Coast. Needless to say, this drug is not only dangerous, but may lead to the need for addiction treatment for those who use it.

Molly’s Sought After Effects

Molly is a synthetic drug that’s been around since the 1970s.  However, it’s only recently entered into mainstream use. People who take the drug report that it makes them feel joyful, open and upbeat. This is likely why it’s become popular at dance parties, concerts and festivals. People say molly makes them feel as though they need to have physical contact with others. The drug can also cause users to experience mild hallucinations.

Molly’s Effect On Brain Chemicals

As a drug, molly works as both a stimulant and a psychedelic. It boosts the levels of three brain chemicals linked to mood: dopamine, norepinephrine and serotonin. Molly also releases oxytocin, a chemical that creates feelings of intimacy. Oxytocin is normally released into the body after sex or childbirth. This explains why users report the need to touch others while they’re under the drug’s influence.

Pure Or Not – Molly Is Dangerous

Molly is a crystal or powder form of Ecstasy, or MDMA. The club drug is typically manufactured by dealers using home kitchens or labs. The problem is that while dealers and users refer to it as pure MDMA, researchers say that any single hit might be mixed with other drugs, like meth or bath salts, or chemicals such as baking soda. Regardless of whether the drug is pure or mixed with other substances, it can have dangerous consequences that make addiction treatment necessary.

Consequences of Taking Molly Molly produces a range of side effects. Some side effects, like exhaustion and dehydration, are mild; others, however, are more serious. For example, the surge of serotonin it produces depletes the brain of this critical neurotransmitter.  As a result, when the high wears off, users often experience symptoms such as anxiety, depression and sleep problems. These symptoms can last for days or weeks afterward.

Molly users are also at risk for medical emergencies. The drug can cause the body to severely overheat, resulting in potentially fatal damage to the brain. In addition, the synthetic drug can trigger a severe drop in blood sodium levels, which may lead to brain swelling and fatal seizures. Reports from emergency room officials reflect the drug’s growing popularity. ER visits related to molly use skyrocketed 123% between 2004 and 2009, according to the Drug Abuse Warning Network.

Health officials are still trying to pinpoint the exact role molly played in recent deaths. The deaths could be tied to one of the drug’s inherent consequences, or they might be linked to a batch that was potentially mixed with another drug, like meth.

Furthermore, another side effect creates cause for concern. Because the club drug generates a strong desire to be physically close to others, it has the potential to lead to unsafe sex. Under its influence, a molly user is more likely to engage in risky behaviors that lead to sexually-transmitted diseases such as HIV, or sexual assault.

The Problem Of Molly And Pop Culture

Despite its dangers, molly is glamorized in some arenas of pop culture. Singer Miley Cyrus included a reference to the party drug in her recent release “We Can’t Stop”. Another entertainer, Kanye West, has also released a song with a lyric that reportedly refers to the drug. Madonna has referred to the club drug during live shows as well. This kind of glorification may influence a teen’s or young adult’s decision to try molly.

Molly And Addiction

This form of Ecstasy is an addictive drug with the potential to create psychological dependence. One of the difficulties with pinpointing a molly addiction is that it can be hard for a parent, educator, or law enforcement official to tell when someone is using the drug. There is no telltale odor, as with marijuana; nor does its use require special equipment, like needles.

Some signs you should be alert for include:

* New or worsening depression or anxiety

* Sweating or chills

* Jaw clenching or teeth grinding

* Sudden loss of appetite

* Sleep troubles

* Increase in sexual activity

* Blurred vision

If you suspect that your or a loved one has developed an addiction to molly, reach out for help.

Molly Addiction Treatment

Detoxification (detox) is the first step toward recovery. If needed, a treatment center medical team will monitor you or your loved one to ensure the drug is safely eliminated from the body. Once detox is complete, the real work of treatment begins. Molly users will go through a range of therapies designed to help them stay drug free. Talk therapy is used to examine thinking patterns and behaviors that contribute to use. You or your loved one will also learn how to change your thinking and learn healthy ways to cope with the negative emotions that can lead to molly abuse.

A teen user might take part in family counseling, which typically has two primary goals. The first is to identify and resolve conflicts that may have played a role in the teen’s drug use. A second goal is to teach family members how to work with the drug user to prevent relapse.

Aftercare is critical, especially for teen and young adult users who are often heavily influenced by the behavior of their peers.  Speak with the treatment center about options that help you or your young person stay drug free after the initial rehab course is completed.

Molly is not a safe drug. If you or a loved one is abusing molly, seek addiction treatment now. The next hit could be the one that generates devastating and lasting effects.

Source:   Addictiontreatmentmagazine.com in Synthetic Drugs  7th October 2013

Kevin A. Sabet, a former senior drug policy adviser in the Obama administration, is the executive director of Smart Approaches to Marijuana and the Drug Policy Institute at the University of Florida.

As soon as Coloradans cast their votes for legalization in 2012, would-be profiteers celebrated the expected green rush. One former Microsoft executive proclaimed that he would create the Starbucks of marijuana and “mint more millionaires than Microsoft.” A couple of Yale M.B.A.s started a multimillion dollar equity firm dedicated solely to financing the marijuana industry. Indeed, the big business of marijuana was born.

Like Big Tobacco of yesteryear, Big Marijuana knows that it needs lifelong addicted customers to prosper. Addictive industries generate the lion’s share of their profits from addicts, not casual users. This means that creating addicts is the central goal. And — as every good tobacco executive knows (but won’t tell you) — this, in turn, means targeting the young.

Welcome to Big Tobacco 2.0. In the emerging marijuana industry, potent edibles in the form of colorfully packaged cookies, candies, sodas and brownies are being advertised on the Internet and in mainstream newspapers and magazines across the state. A relentless marijuana lobby insists that these products are not especially attractive to children, yet continues to block controls on advertising, labeling, shape and color. When Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper wanted to limit access to marijuana magazines containing cartoon ads and coupons for one dollar joints by placing them behind the counter out of reach of children, the industry sued and won. That was the first of many victories for the marijuana lobby, whose case is buttressed by protections of commercial speech as free speech.

Five months into legal sales in Colorado, it is clear that big business is winning and public health is suffering. Despite some high profile deaths, increased calls to poison centers, more workplace marijuana positives and reports of fourth graders selling pot edibles at school, the industry shows no willingness to compromise private profit for public good. If real changes are to be made in the interest of health, the industry needs to get out of the political process and allow policy makers to implement measures like sweeping ad restrictions and limitations on product sales. But none of this is likely. The longstanding Madison Avenue culture of hyper-commercialization isn’t going away soon and so, legal marijuana in Colorado will continue to lead us down an all-too-familiar path.

Source:  http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/06/05/did-colorado-go-too-far-with-pot/marijuana-is-now-big-business

Smoking cannabis can reduce a man’s fertility by altering the size and shape of his sperm, research has shown.

More surprisingly, sex in the summer months has a similar effect, scientists found.

Conversely, abstaining from sexual activity for more than six days improved the “morphology” of sperm.

There was also reassuring news for prospective fathers who might be considering drastic lifestyle changes.

Common lifestyle factors including smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol had little effect on sperm quality.

When less than 4% of a man’s sperm has a normal size and shape, statistics show he will find it harder to father a child and may have to attend an IVF clinic.

Lead scientist Dr Allan Pacey, senior lecturer in andrology at the University of Sheffield, said: “The take-home message is, if you’re a habitual cannabis user, stop, and you need to stop for at least three months.

“I can’t tell you definitively that your sperm will improve, but that’s a reasonable assumption.

“The other side of the story is if you’re trying to have a baby, pay attention to the risks, but don’t become a monk and make yourself miserable.

Recognising that will contribute to happy lives and relationships.”

The study, the world’s largest investigating the effects of lifestyle on sperm morphology, recruited 2,249 men from 14 fertility clinics around the UK.

Participants were asked to fill out detailed questionnaires about their medical history and personal habits.

Scientists compared information from 318 men with less than 4% normal sperm and 1,652 whose sperm was higher quality.

Men in the first group were nearly twice as likely to have used cannabis in the three months before giving a sample, if they were aged under 30.

They were also nearly twice as likely to have produced a sample in the summer months from June to August.

The scientists believe younger men were most affected by cannabis simply because they were more likely to take higher doses of the drug.

Chemicals in the drug itself, not the tobacco used in “joints”, were probably responsible since cigarette smoking had little effect on sperm morphology.

Dr Pacey said the summer influence was unexplained but did not appear to be linked to heat.

“We didn’t expect this,” he said. “It’s complete conjecture on my part, but it could be a sunlight effect – day length affects our hormones and vitamin D in all sorts of ways.”

Previous research has shown that only sperm with the right size and shape can easily get past a woman’s cervix, which is surrounded by a “quality control” barrier of thick mucus.

Sperm with a poor morphology also swim less well because of their abnormal shape.

“You can compare a sperm cell with an aircraft,” said Dr Pacey. “If you’ve got a sleek aerodynamically shaped aircraft it’s going to fly better than one that looks like an old biplane with bits hanging off.”

Source:  www.HumanReproduction   5th June 2014

Cannabis has long been used for medicinal as well as recreational purposes.  Few topics spark as much debate on this blog and on our Facebook page than cannabis.

So we thought we’d take a look at the common questions raised about the evidence and research into cannabis, cannabinoids (the active chemicals found in the plant and elsewhere) and cancer, and address some of the wider issues that crop up in this debate.

This post is long, but can be summarised by saying that at the moment there isn’t enough reliable evidence to prove that cannabinoids – whether natural or synthetic – can effectively treat cancer in patients, although research is ongoing around the world.

What are cannabinoids and how do they work? “Cannabinoids” is a blanket term covering a family of complex chemicals (both natural and man-made) that lock on to cannabinoid receptors – protein molecules on the surface of cells.

Humans have been using cannabis plants for medicinal and recreational purposes for thousands of years, but cannabinoids themselves were first purified from cannabis plants in the 1940s. The structure of the main active ingredient of cannabis plants – delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) – was discovered in the 60s. It wasn’t until the late 1980s that researchers found the first cannabinoid receptor, followed shortly by the discovery that we create cannabinoid-like chemicals within our own bodies, known as endocannabinoids.

The CB1 and CB2 receptors.

We have two different types of cannabinoid receptor, CB1 and CB2, which are found in different locations and do different things. CB1 is mostly found on cells in the nervous system, including certain areas of the brain and the ends of nerves throughout the body, while CB2 receptors are mostly found in cells from the immune system. Because of their location in the brain, it’s thought that CB1 receptors are responsible for the infamous ‘high’ (known as psychoactive effects) resulting from using cannabis.

Over the past couple of decades scientists have found that endocannabinoids and cannabinoid receptors are involved in a vast array of functions in our bodies, including helping to control brain and nerve activity (including memory and pain), energy metabolism, heart function, the immune system and even reproduction. Because of this molecular multitasking, they’re implicated in a huge range of illnesses, from cancer to neurodegenerative diseases.

Can cannabinoids treat cancer?

There is no doubt that cannabinoids – both natural and synthetic – are interesting biological molecules. Hundreds of scientists around the world are investigating their potential in cancer and other diseases – as well as the harms they can cause – brought together under the blanket organisation The International Cannabinoid Research Society.

Researchers first looked at the anticancer properties of cannabinoids back in the 1970s, and many hundreds of scientific papers looking at cannabinoids and cancer have been published since then. This Wellcome Witness seminar is also fascinating reading for aficionados of the history of medical cannabis, including the scientific, political and legal twists. [Updated KA 26/03/14]

But claims that this body of preclinical research is solid “proof” that cannabis or cannabinoids can cure cancer is highly misleading to patients and their families, and builds a false picture of the state of progress in this area.    Let’s take a closer look at the evidence.

Lab research

Virtually all the scientific research investigating whether cannabinoids can treat cancer has been done using cancer cells grown in the lab or animal models. It’s important to be cautious when extrapolating these results up to real live patients, who tend to be a lot more complex than a Petri dish or a mouse.

Virtually all the research into cannabinoids and cancer so far has been done in the lab.

Through many detailed experiments, handily summarised in this recent article in the journal Nature Reviews Cancer, scientists have discovered that various cannabinoids (both natural and synthetic) have a wide range of effects in the lab, including:

* Triggering cell death, through a mechanism called apoptosis

* Stopping cells from dividing

* Preventing new blood vessels from growing into tumours

* Reducing the chances of cancer cells spreading through the body, by stopping cells from moving or invading neighbouring tissue

* Speeding up the cell’s internal ‘waste disposal machine’ – a process known as autophagy – which can lead to cell death

All these effects are thought to be caused by cannabinoids locking onto the CB1 and CB2 cannabinoid receptors. It also looks like cannabinoids can exert effects on cancer cells that don’t involve cannabinoid receptors, although it isn’t yet clear exactly what’s going on there.

So far, the best results in the lab or animal models have come from using a combination of highly purified THC and cannabidiol (CBD), a cannabinoid found in cannabis plants that counteracts the psychoactive effects of THC. But researchers have also found positive results using synthetic cannabinoids, such as a molecule called JWH-133.

It’s not all good news though, as there’s also evidence that cannabinoids may also have undesirable effects on cancer.

For example, some researchers have found that although high doses of THC can kill cancer cells, they also harm crucial blood vessel cells, although this may help their anti-cancer effect by preventing blood vessels growing into a tumour. And under some circumstances, cannabinoids can actually encourage cancer cells to grow, or have different effects depending on the dosage and levels of cannabinoid receptors present on the cancer cells. [Edited for clarity and to add reference – KA 27/07/12] Others have discovered that activating CB2 receptors may actually interfere with the ability of the immune system to recognise and destroy tumour cells, although some scientists have found that certain synthetic cannabinoids may enhance immune defences against cancer. Furthermore, cancer cells can develop resistance to cannabinoids and start growing again, although this can be got round by blocking a certain molecular pathway in the cells known as ALK.  combining cannabinoids with other chemotherapy drugs may be a much more effective approach

And yet more research suggests that combining cannabinoids with other chemotherapy drugs may be a much more effective approach. This idea is supported by lab experiments combining cannabinoids with other drugs including gemcitabine and temozolomide.

Clinical research But that’s the lab – what about clinical research involving people with cancer? Results have been published from only one clinical trial testing whether cannabinoids can treat cancer in patients, led by Dr Manuel Guzman and his team in Spain. Nine people with advanced, terminal glioblastoma multiforme – an aggressive brain tumour – were given highly purified THC through a tube directly into their brain.

Eight people’s cancers showed some kind of response to the treatment, and one didn’t respond at all. All the patients died within a year, as might be expected for people with cancer this advanced.

The results from this study show that THC given in this way is safe and doesn’t seem to cause significant side effects. But because this was an early stage trial, without a control group, it’s impossible to say whether THC helped to extend their lives. And while it’s certainly not a cure,  the trial results suggest that cannabinoids are worth pursuing in clinical trials. There is also a published case report of a 14-year old girl from Canada who was treated with cannabis extracts (also referred to as “hemp oil”), but there is limited information that can be obtained from a single case treated with a varied mixture of cannabinoids. More published examples with detailed data are needed in order to draw a fuller picture of what’s going on. [Updated 26/03/14, KA]

A handful of other clinical trials of cannabinoids are currently being set up. We are helping to support the only two UK trials of cannabinoids for treating cancer, through our Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre (ECMC) Network funded by Cancer Research UK and the devolved Departments of Health. One early-stage trial is testing a synthetic cannabinoid called dexanabinol in patients with advanced cancer, and the other is an early-stage trial testing a cannabis extract called Sativex for treating people with glioblastoma multiforme brain tumours. [Edited to add more information about the trials – KA 22/08/12, KA 24/03/14]

Unanswered questions

There are still a lot of unanswered questions around the potential for using cannabinoids to treat cancer.

The biggest issue is that there isn’t enough evidence to show that they can treat cancer in people, although research is still ongoing around the world.

And it’s not clear which type of cannabinoid – either natural or synthetic – might be most effective, what kind of doses might be needed, or which types of cancer might respond best to them. So far there have been intriguing results from lab experiments with prostate, breast, lung cancer, skin, bone and pancreatic cancers, glioma brain tumours and lymphoma. But the take-home message is that different cannabinoids seem to have different effects on various cancer types, so they are far from being a ‘universal’ treatment.

Most research has been focused on THC, which occurs naturally in cannabis plants, but researchers have found that different cannabinoids seem to work better or worse different types of cancer cells. Lab experiments have shown promising results with THC on brain tumour and prostate cancer cells, while CBD seems to work well on breast cancer cells.

Then there’s the problem of the psychoactive effects of THC, particularly at high doses, although this can be counteracted by giving it together with CBD. Because of this problem, synthetic cannabinoids that don’t have these effects might be more useful in the long term.

There are also big questions around the best way to actually get the drugs into tumours. Because of their chemical makeup, cannabinoids don’t dissolve easily in water and don’t travel very far in our tissues. This makes it hard to get them deep into a tumour, or even just deliver them into the bloodstream in consistently high enough doses to have an effect.

The clinical trial led by Dr Guzman in Spain involved directly injecting cannabinoids into patients’ brains through a small tube. This isn’t an ideal method as it’s very invasive and carries a risk of infection, so researchers are investigating other delivery methods such as tablets, oil injections, mouth sprays or even microspheres.

We also don’t know whether cannabinoids will help to boost or counteract the effects of chemotherapy, nor which combinations of drugs might be good to try. And there are currently no biological markers to help doctors identify who might benefit from cannabinoids and who might not – remember that one patient on the brain tumour trial failed to respond to THC at all.

None of these issues are deal-breakers, but these questions need answering if there’s any hope of using cannabinoids to effectively and safely treat cancer patients.

there are hundreds of exciting potential cancer drugs being developed and tested in university, charity and industry labs all over the world – cannabinoids are merely a small part of a much larger picture

It’s worth remembering that there are hundreds of exciting potential cancer drugs being developed and tested in university, charity and industry labs all over the world – cannabinoids are merely a small part of a much larger picture.

Most of these compounds will never make it into the clinic to treat patients for a huge range of reasons including toxicity, lack of effectiveness, unacceptable side effects, or difficulty of delivering the drug to tumours.

Without doing rigorous scientific research, we will never sift the ‘hits’ from the ‘misses’. If cannabinoids are ever to get into clinical use, they need to overcome these hurdles and prove they have benefits over existing cancer treatments.

Can cannabis prevent or cause cancer?

So that’s a brief look at cannabinoids to treat cancer. But can they stop the disease from developing? Or could they play a role in causing cancer?

There’s controversy around the health risks of cannabis.

In experiments with mice, animals given very high doses of purified THC seemed to have a lower risk of developing cancer, and there has been some research suggesting that endocannabinoids (cannabinoids produced by the body) can suppress tumour growth. But there’s no solid scientific evidence at the moment to show that cannabinoids or cannabis can cut the risk of cancer in people.

When it comes to finding out whether cannabis can cause cancer, the evidence is a lot murkier. This is mainly because most people who use cannabis smoke it mixed with tobacco, a substance that definitely does cause cancer. This complex issue recently hit the headlines when the British Lung Foundation released a study suggesting that the cancer risks of cannabis had been underestimated, although this has been questioned by some experts including Professor David Nutt.

What about controlling cancer symptoms such as pain or sickness?

Although there’s a lack of data showing that cannabinoids can effectively treat cancer, there is good evidence that these molecules may be beneficial in other ways. As far back as the 1980s, cannabinoid-based drugs – including dronabinol (synthetic THC) and nabilone – were used to help reduce nausea and vomiting caused by chemotherapy. But there are now safer and more effective alternatives and cannabinoids tend to only be used where other approaches fail.

In some parts of the world – including the Netherlands – medical use of marijuana has been legalised for palliative use (relieving pain and symptoms), including cancer pain. For example, Dutch patients can obtain standardised, medicinal-grade cannabis from their doctor, and medicinal cannabis is available in many states in the US.

But one of the problems of using herbal cannabis is about dosage – smoking it or taking it in the form of tea often provides a variable dose, which may make it difficult for patients to monitor their intake. So researchers are turning to alternative dosing methods, such as mouth sprays, which deliver a reliable and regulated dose.

Large-scale clinical trials are currently running in the UK testing whether a mouth spray called Sativex (nabiximols) – a highly purified pharmaceutical-grade extract of cannabis containing THC and CDB – can help to control severe cancer pain that doesn’t respond to other drugs.

There may also be potential for the use of cannabinoids in combating the loss of appetite and wasting experienced by some people with cancer, although a clinical trial comparing appetite in groups of cancer patients given cannabis extract, THC and a placebo didn’t find a difference between the treatments.

Is Cancer Research UK investigating cannabinoids?

We want to see safe, reliable and effective treatments become available for patients as quickly as possible. We receive no government funding for our research, and it is all paid for by the generosity of the public.  This is obviously not a bottomless purse, and we do not have financial reserves to draw on.

Because of this limitation, we can only fund the very best research proposals that come to us that will bring benefits to people with cancer.  We’ve previously written in detail about how we fund research projects. Cancer Research UK has funded research into cannabinoids, notably the work of Professor Chris Paraskeva in Bristol investigating the properties of cannabinoids as part of his research into the prevention and treatment of bowel cancer. He has published a number of papers detailing lab experiments looking at endocannabinoids as well as THC, and written an interesting review looking at the potential of cannabinoids for treating bowel cancer.

Our funding committees have previously received other applications from researchers who want to investigate cannabinoids that have failed to reach our high standards for funding. If we receive future proposals that do meet these stringent requirements, then there is no reason why they would not be funded – assuming we have the money available to do so.

We support the only two UK clinical trials of cannabinoids for treating cancer through our national network of Experimental Cancer Medicine Centres, funded by Cancer Research UK and the devolved Departments of Health. One is an early-stage trial testing a synthetic cannabinoid called dexanabinol for people with advanced cancer, the other is an early-stage trial testing a drug called Sativex (an extract from cannabis plants) for people with glioblastoma multiforme brain tumours. [Added 22/08/12 – KA, Updated KA 25/03/14]

“It’s natural so it must be better, right?” There’s no doubt that the natural world is a treasure trove of biologically useful compounds. But whole plants or other organisms are a complex mix of hundreds of chemicals (not all of which may be beneficial) and contains low or variable levels of active ingredients. This makes it difficult to give accurate doses and runs the risk of toxic side effects. For example, foxgloves (Digitalis) are a useful source of chemicals called cardiac glycosides, first purified in 1785 – a date widely considered to be the beginning of modern drug-based medicine. These drugs are now used to treat many thousands of people around the world with heart failure and other cardiac problems. But the entire plant itself is highly toxic, and eating just a small amount can kill. As another example, although the antibiotic penicillin was first discovered in a fungus, it doesn’t mean that someone should munch some mould when suffering an infection. In fact, the bug-beating powers of ‘natural’ penicillin are confined to a relatively small range of bacteria, and chemists have subsequently developed a wider range of life-saving antibiotics based on the drug’s structure. Aspirin is another old drug, first discovered in the form of salicylic acid in white willow bark. But this naturally-occurring chemical causes severe stomach irritation, which led to the German company Bayer developing an alternative version – acetylsalicylic acid – which was kinder to the tummy. Aspirin is now arguably one of the most successful drugs of all time, and is still being investigated for its potential in preventing or even treating cancer.

Numerous potent cancer drugs have also been developed in this way – purifying a natural compound then improving it and testing it to create a beneficial drug – including taxol (originally from yew leaves); vincristine and vinblastine (from rosy periwinkles); camptothecin (from the Chinese Xi Shu tree); colchicine (from crocuses); and etoposide (from the May Apple). And we recently wrote about a clinical trial being run by our scientists to test whether curcumin, a purified chemical from the curry spice turmeric, could help treat people with advanced bowel cancer.

But it bears repeating that the fact that these purified drugs in controlled, high doses can treat cancer doesn’t mean that the original plant (or a simple extract) will have the same effect.  So although cannabis contains certain cannabinoids, it doesn’t automatically follow that cannabis itself can treat cancer.

As we said above, there is no good evidence that natural cannabinoids, at the doses present in simple cannabis preparations, can treat cancer in patients. It’s also completely unknown whether there may be any other chemicals in ‘street’ cannabis extracts that could be harmful to patients or even encourage tumour growth.

“Have you seen this video? This guy says cannabis cures cancer!”

There is a strong and persistent presence on the internet arguing that cannabis can cure cancer. For example, there are numerous videos and unverified anecdotes claiming that people have been completely cured of cancer with cannabis, hemp/cannabis oil or other cannabis derivatives.

YouTube videos are not scientific evidence.

Despite what the supporters of these sources may claim, videos and stories are not scientific evidence for the effectiveness of any cancer treatment. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence – YouTube videos are emphatically not scientific evidence, and we are not convinced by them.

Based on the arguments presented on these kinds of websites, it’s impossible to tell whether these patients have been ‘cured’ by cannabis or not. We know nothing about their medical diagnosis, stage of disease or outlook. We don’t know what other cancer treatments they had. We don’t know about the chemical composition of the treatment they got. And we only hear about the success stories – what about the people who have tried cannabis and not been cured? People who make these bold claims for cannabis only pick their best cases, without presenting the full picture.

This highlights the importance of publishing data from scientifically rigorous lab research and clinical trials. Firstly because conducting proper clinical studies enables researchers to prove that a prospective cancer treatment is safe and effective. And secondly because publishing this data allows doctors around the world to judge for themselves and use it for the benefit of their patients.

This is the standard to which all cancer treatments are held, and it’s one that cannabinoids should be held to too. Internet anecdotes and videos prove nothing and benefit no-one – we need reliable, scientific research, which (as discussed above) is exactly what is going on.

“It’s all a big conspiracy – you don’t want people to be cured!” As we’ve previously said, accusations that we are somehow part of a global conspiracy to suppress cancer cures are as absurd as they are offensive. Not only to the thousands of our scientists, doctors and nurses who are working as hard as they can to find more effective treatments for the complex set of challenging diseases we call cancer, but also the hundreds of thousands of people in the UK and beyond who support this life-saving work through generous donations of money, energy and time.

Our aim is to beat cancer through research

Our aim is to beat cancer, and we believe that the best way to do this through rigorous scientific research aimed at understanding cancer on a biological level and working out how to prevent, detect and treat it more effectively. This approach has helped to change the face of cancer prevention, diagnosis, treatment, leading to a doubling in survival rates over the past 40 years.

As a research-based organisation, we want to see reliable scientific evidence to support claims made about any cancer treatment, be it conventional or alternative.  The claims made for many alternative cancer therapies still require solid evidence to support them, and it often turns out that these ‘miracle cures’ simply don’t work when they’re put to the test.

This doesn’t mean there’s a conspiracy to suppress the “True Cure for Cancer” – it means that doctors and researchers want to see solid evidence that the claims made by people peddling these treatments are true.

This is vital because lives are at stake. Some people may think that a cancer patient has nothing to lose by trying an alternative treatment, but there are big risks.

“What’s the harm? There’s nothing to lose.”

If someone chooses to reject conventional cancer treatment in favour of unproven alternatives, including cannabis, they may miss out on treatment that could save or significantly lengthen their life. They may also miss out on effective symptom relief to control their pain and suffering, or the chance to spend precious time with their loved ones.

Furthermore, many of these unproven therapies come at a high price, and are not covered by the NHS or medical insurance. And, in the worst cases, an alternative therapy may even hasten death.

Although centuries of human experimentation tells us that naturally-occurring cannabinoids are broadly safe, they are not without risks. They can increase the heart rate, which may cause problems for patients with pre-existing or undiagnosed heart conditions. They can also interact with other drugs in the body, including antidepressants and antihistamines. And they may also affect how the body processes certain chemotherapy drugs, which could cause serious side effects. There is also a reported case where a Dutch lung cancer patient took cannabis extract that had been bought from a street source. Within a matter of hours she was in hospital in a coma. This highlights the risks of taking ‘street’ cannabis extracts of unknown concentration and quality in an uncontrolled way, and accentuates the need for careful research into how best to use cannabinoids for treating patients.

when conventional treatment fails, there is little chance that turning to an unproven alternative touted on the internet will provide a cure It is a sad fact that although huge progress has been made over recent years, many thousands of people in the UK lose their lives to cancer every year – a situation that we urgently want to change through research. But when conventional treatment fails, there is little chance that turning to an unproven alternative touted on the internet will provide a cure. In this situation, we recommend that cancer patients talk to their doctor about clinical trials that they may be able to join, giving them access to new drugs and providing valuable data that will help other sufferers in future.

“Big Pharma can’t patent it so they’re not interested.”

Some people argue that the potential of cannabinoids is being ignored by pharmaceutical companies, because they can’t patent the chemicals occurring in cannabis plants. But pharma companies are not stupid, and they are quick to jump on promising avenues for effective therapies.

As we’ve shown, there are hundreds of researchers around the world investigating cannabinoids, in both private and public institutions. And there are many ways that these compounds can be patented – for example, by developing more effective synthetic compounds or better ways to deliver them.

On the flip side, other people argue that patients should be treated with ‘street’ or homegrown cannabis preparations, and that the research being done by companies and other organisations is solely to make money and prevent patients accessing “The Cure”. This is also a false and

misleading argument, analogous to suggesting that patients in pain should buy heroin or grow opium poppies rather than being prescribed morphine by a doctor.

The best way to ensure that the benefits of cannabinoids – whether natural or synthetic – are brought to patients is through proper research using quality-controlled, safe, legal, pharmaceutical grade preparations containing known dosages of the drugs.

To do this requires time, effort and money, which may come from companies or independent organisations such as charities or governments. And, ultimately, this investment needs to be paid back by sales of a safe, effective new drug.

We are well aware of the issues around drug pricing and availability – for example, the recent situations with abiraterone and vemurafenib – and we are pushing for companies to make new treatments available at a fair price. We would also hope that if any cannabinoids are shown to be safe and effective enough to make it to the clinic, they would be available at a fair price for all patients that might benefit from them.

“Why don’t you campaign for cannabis to be legalised?” As things currently stand, cannabis is classified as a class B drug in the UK, meaning that it is illegal to possess or supply it.

It is not for Cancer Research UK to comment on the legal status of cannabis, its use or abuse as a recreational drug, or its medical use in any other diseases. But we are supportive of properly conducted scientific research that could benefit cancer patients.

In summary

At the moment, there simply isn’t enough evidence to prove that cannabinoids – whether natural or synthetic – works to treat cancer in patients, although research is ongoing. And there’s certainly no evidence that ‘street’ cannabis can treat cancer.

As a research-based organisation, we continue to watch the progress of scientists around the world for advances that may benefit people with cancer.

As a research-based organisation, we continue to watch the progress of scientists around the world for advances that may benefit people with cancer. And although cannabinoid research is an interesting avenue, it’s certainly not the only one.

Kat

Note: We’ve already entered into two lengthy, time-consuming and ultimately circular debates about cannabis, cannabinoids and cancer which you can read here and here.

Because of this, we are taking the unusual step of keeping public comments closed on this post, as we feel that we have fully laid out our position. If you have a considered comment you would like us to publish on this post you can contact the blog team at scienceblog.cancer.org.uk

Finally, we are grateful to Dr Manuel Guzman (Complutense University, Madrid), Professor Vincenzo di Marzo (Institute of Biomolecular Chemistry, Naples, and GW Pharmaceuticals) and Dr Wai Liu (St George’s Hospital, London) for helpful discussions as we were writing this post.

References and further reading: * CancerHelp UK – Does smoking cannabis cause cancer? * CancerHelp UK – Is cannabis a treatment for brain tumours? * CancerHelp UK – Two trials of Sativex for cancer-related pain * National Cancer Institute (US) – Information about cannabis and cannabinoids for cancer patients * National Cancer Institute (US) – Information about cannabis and cannabinoids for health professionals

* Velasco, G., Sánchez, C. & Guzmán, M. (2012). Towards the use of cannabinoids as antitumour agents, Nature Reviews Cancer, 12 (6) 444. DOI: 10.1038/nrc3247

* Sarfaraz, S. et al (2008). Cannabinoids for Cancer Treatment: Progress and Promise, Cancer Research, 68 (2) 342. DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-2785

* Guindon, J. & Hohmann, A.G. (2011). The endocannabinoid system and cancer: therapeutic implication, British Journal of Pharmacology, 163 (7) 1463. DOI: 10.1111/j.1476-5381.2011.01327.x

* Engels, F.K. et al (2007). Medicinal cannabis in oncology, European Journal of Cancer, 43 (18) 2644. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2007.09.010

* Cannabinoids in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting – Todaro (2012) Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network

* Bowles, D.W. et al (2012). The intersection between cannabis and cancer in the United States, Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology, 83 (1) 10. DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2011.09.008

* Hall, W., Christie, M. & Currow, D. (2005). Cannabinoids and cancer: causation, remediation, and palliation, The Lancet Oncology, 6 (1) 42. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(04)01711-5.

 

 

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

To provide a review of the evidence from 3 experimental trials of Project Towards No Drug Abuse (TND), a senior-high-school-based drug abuse prevention program.

METHODS:

Theoretical concepts, subjects, designs, hypotheses, findings, and conclusions of these trials are presented. A total of 2,468 high school youth from 42 schools in southern California were surveyed.

RESULTS:

The Project TND curriculum shows reductions in the use of cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, hard drugs, weapon carrying, and victimization. Most of these results were replicated across the 3 trials.

CONCLUSION:

Project TND is an effective drug and violence prevention program for older teens, at least for one-year follow-up.

Source:  PMID: 12206445 Am J Health Behav. 2002 Sep-Oct;26(5):354-65.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

The aim of the study was to evaluate the contribution of cannabis to the prediction of delinquent behaviors.

METHOD:

Participants were 312 high-school students who completed self-report questionnaires measuring antisocial behaviors, the frequency of cannabis and alcohol use, psychopathic traits using the Youth Psychopathic traits Inventory, borderline traits, depressive symptoms, socio-economic status, life events, attachment to parents, and low academic achievement. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted to investigate the contribution of cannabis use and potential confounding variables to antisocial behaviors.

RESULTS:

Boys reported a greater number of delinquent behaviors than girls (10.2±9.2 vs. 5.4±5.3, t=9.2, P<0.001). Thirty-seven percent of boys and 24 % of girls reported having used cannabis at least once during the last six months (P<0.001). Among cannabis users, boys reported a greater frequency of use than girls: average use for boys was 2-3 times per month whereas average use for girls was once a month (3.4±2.3 vs. 2.6±2, t=2.9, P=0.004). Cannabis users reported a greater number of antisocial behaviors than non-users (13.2±9.9 vs. 6.1±6.3, t=13.6, P<0.001). Multiple regression analyses showed that cannabis use was a significant independent predictor of antisocial behaviors in both gender (β=.35, P<.001 in boys, β=.29, P<.001 in girls) after adjustment for alcohol use, psychopathological and sociofamilial variables.

DISCUSSION:

The unique and independent association between frequency of cannabis use and antisocial behaviors does not indicate the causal direction of the relationship. It may be that cannabis use induces antisocial behaviors by enhancing impulsivity or irritability or by the need for money to buy cannabis. Conversely, antisocial behaviors may lead to cannabis use either through becoming used to transgressions or through the influence of delinquent peers using cannabis. This link is probably bidirectional, cannabis use and antisocial behaviors influencing mutually in a negative interactive spiral. This association suggests that these two problems are to be jointly approached when treating adolescents using cannabis or having antisocial behaviors.

Source:PMID: 24815792  Encephale. 2014 May 7. pii: S0013-7006(14)00046-3. doi: 10.1016/j.encep.2013.11.003. [Epub ahead of print]

Universal Internet-based prevention for alcohol and cannabis use reduces truancy, psychological distress and moral disengagement: A cluster randomised controlled trial.

Abstract

AIMS:

A universal Internet-based preventive intervention has been shown to reduce alcohol and cannabis use. The aim of this study was to examine if this program could also reduce risk-factors associated with substance use in adolescents.

METHOD:

A cluster randomised controlled trial was conducted in Sydney, Australia in 2007-2008 to assess the effectiveness of the Internet-based Climate Schools: Alcohol and Cannabis course. The evidence-based course, aimed at reducing alcohol and cannabis use, consists of two sets of six lessons delivered approximately six months apart. A total of 764 students (mean 13.1years) from 10 secondary schools were randomly allocated to receive the preventive intervention (n=397, five schools), or their usual health classes (n=367, five schools) over the year. Participants were assessed at baseline, immediately post, and six and twelve months following the intervention on their levels of truancy, psychological distress and moral disengagement.

RESULTS:

Compared to the control group, students in the intervention group showed significant reductions in truancy, psychological distress and moral disengagement up to twelve months following completion of the intervention.

CONCLUSIONS:

These intervention effects indicate that Internet-based preventive interventions designed to prevent alcohol and cannabis use can concurrently reduce risk-factors associated with substance use in adolescents.

Source:  Prev Med. 2014 May 10;65C:109-115. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.05.003. [Epub ahead of print]

Abstract

This study examined descriptive and injunctive normative influences exerted by parents and peers on college student marijuana approval and use. It further evaluated the extent to which parental monitoring moderated the relationship between marijuana norms and student marijuana outcomes. A sample of 414 parent-child dyads from a midsize American university completed online surveys. A series of paired and one-sample t tests revealed that students’ actual marijuana use was significantly greater than parents’ perception of their child’s use, while students’ perception of their parents’ approval were fairly accurate. The results of a hierarchical multiple regression indicated that perceived injunctive parent and student norms, and parental monitoring all uniquely contributed to the prediction of student marijuana approval. Furthermore, parental monitoring moderated the effects of perceived norms. For example, at low but not high levels of parental monitoring, perceptions of other students’ marijuana use were associated with students’ own marijuana approval. Results from a zero-inflated negative binomial regression showed that students who reported higher descriptive peer norms, higher injunctive parental norms, and reported lower parental monitoring were likely to report more frequent marijuana use. A significant Parental Monitoring × Injunctive Parental norms interaction effect indicated that parental approval only influenced marijuana use for students who reported that their parents monitored their behavior closely. These findings have intervention implications for future work aimed at reducing marijuana approval and use among American college students.

Source:PMID: 24838776   Prev Sci. 2014 May 18. [Epub ahead of print]

People affected by binge eating, substance abuse and obsessive compulsive disorder all share a common pattern of decision making and similarities in brain structure, according to new research  from the University of Cambridge. “Compulsive disorders can have a profoundly disabling effect of individuals. Now that we know what is going wrong with their decision making, we can look at developing treatments, for example using psychotherapy focused on forward planning or interventions such as medication which target the shift towards habitual choices,” authors said.

In a study published in the journal Molecular Psychiatry and primarily funded by the Wellcome Trust, researchers show that people who are affected by disorders of compulsivity have lower grey matter volumes (in other words, fewer nerve cells) in the brain regions involved in keeping track of goals and rewards.

In our daily lives, we make decisions based either on habit or aimed at achieving a specific goal. For example, when driving home from work, we tend to follow habitual choices — our ‘autopilot’ mode — as we know the route well; however, if we move to a nearby street, we will initially follow a ‘goal-directed’ choice to find our way home — unless we slip into autopilot and revert to driving back to our old home. However, we cannot always control the decision-making process and make repeat choices even when we know they are bad for us — in many cases this will be relatively benign, such as being tempted by a cake whilst slimming, but extreme cases it can lead to disorders of compulsivity.

In order to understand what happens when our decision-making processes malfunction, a team of researchers led by the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Cambridge compared almost 150 individuals with disorders including methamphetamine dependence, obesity with binge eating and obsessive compulsive disorder, comparing them with healthy volunteers of the same age and gender.

Study participants first took part in a computerised task to test their ability to make choices aimed a receiving a reward over and above making compulsive choices. In a second study, the researchers compared brain scans taken using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in healthy individuals and a subset of obese individuals with or without binge eating disorder (a subtype of obesity in which the person binge eats large amounts of food rapidly).

The researchers demonstrated that all of the disorders were connected by a shift away from goal-directed behaviours towards automatic habitual choices. The MRI scans showed that obese subjects with binge eating disorder have lower grey matter volumes — a measure of the number of neurons — in the orbitofrontal cortex and striatum of the brain compared to those who do not binge eat; these brain regions are involved in keeping track of goals and rewards. Even in healthy volunteers, lower grey matter volumes were associated with a shift towards more habitual choices.

Dr Valerie Voon, principal investigator of the study, says: “Seemingly diverse choices — drug taking, eating quickly despite weight gain, and compulsive cleaning or checking — have an underlying common thread: rather that a person making a choice based on what they think will happen, their choice is automatic or habitual.

“Compulsive disorders can have a profoundly disabling effect of individuals. Now that we know what is going wrong with their decision making, we can look at developing treatments, for example using psychotherapy focused on forward planning or interventions such as medication which target the shift towards habitual choices.”

Source: University of Cambridge. “Creatures of habit: Disorders of compulsivity share common pattern, brain structure.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 29 May 2014. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140529100717.htm>.

Police figures reveal they were held on suspicion of trying to sell drugs including cocaine, heroin and cannabis

More than 1,000 children – some as young as 12 – have been arrested in a blitz on playground drug pushers.   Police figures reveal they were held on suspicion of trying to sell drugs including cocaine, heroin and cannabis.   One 12-year-old in London was arrested for allegedly having a Class A drug with intent to supply. She was also tested to see if she had been taking drugs.

The figures were revealed as charities warned gangs are using youngsters to peddle substances knowing they are likely to attract less suspicion.

There were 116 girls among the total of 1,111 pupils aged 16 or under arrested last year.

Camila Batmanghelidjh, founder of Kids Company charity, said: “These numbers show only those that are being caught, the real scale of this is infinitely more.

“However people need to understand that these kids are not in some way morally flawed. It is simply survival behaviour and it is a mistake to think that these kids believe it to be a glamorous choice.”   She added: “They are constantly in fear and being threatened by adults who run them and adults from other gangs as well as being frightened about being caught by the police.”

Children arrested for dealing drugs

o Total number of under-16s arrested  –   1,111

 

o Number of girls among them   –   116

 

o Age of youngest child arrested     –  12

A total of 23 girls were arrested in the capital for suspected drug dealing, including nine alleged offences related to the most serious Class A narcotics.

In South Wales a 13-year-old girl was quizzed over supplying Class B substances, as were 14-year-old girls from Cambridgeshire, Avon and Somerset, and Devon and Cornwall police forces.

A 15-year-old girl arrested in Dorset was quizzed on suspicion of dealing heroin. Sussex police nabbed a 16-year-old girl for allegedly selling cocaine and officers from Cleveland questioned a 15-year-old in relation to passing on cannabis resin.

In some of London’s most drug-riddled estates gang members in their late teens to 20s, known as “olders”, give younger teens, or “youngers”, and “tinies”, those aged 13 and below, their drugs to sell or hold.

A spokesman for drugs charity Addaction said: “In our young people’s services we do sometimes see the very young. These children are not normally addicted, but the very fact that they’re being drawn into that world is hugely worrying.   These will be the people we’ll be seeing in 10 years’ time if they’re not helped now.” He  added: “The earlier we can intervene, the better the outcome is likely to be.”

Separate figures from the Department of Education reveal there were 8,070 incidents last year of pupils getting into serious trouble over incidents linked to drink or drugs.

Source: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/over-thousand-children-arrested-drug-3632155#ixzz33UtSuf7Z    1st June 2014

Filed under: Parents :

Smoking and the breast cancer risk gene BRCA2 combine to “enormously” increase the chance of developing lung cancer, a study of 27,000 people has suggested.  The research, published in the journal Nature, found the gene could double the likelihood of getting lung cancer.

And some men and women faced a far greater risk, a team at the Institute of Cancer Research in London said.  Cancer Research UK suggested drugs targeted at breast cancer may work in some lung cancers.

The links between variants of the BRCA genes and breast cancer are well established – a diagnosis led Hollywood actress Angelina Jolie to have a preventative double mastectomy – but it has also been linked with an increased risk of other cancers affecting women such as ovarian cancer and prostate cancer in men.

The study compared the genetic codes of people with and without lung cancer. Smokers have 40 times the chance of developing lung cancer, but those with a BRCA2 mutation were nearly 80 times more likely, the analysis showed. A quarter of those carrying the mutation, and who also smoke, will go on to develop lung cancer, the research team said.

“It is a massive increase in the risk of developing lung cancer,” said Prof Richard Houlston from the team.   “There is a subset of the population who are at very significant risk. “The most important thing is reducing smoking; it is so bad for other diseases, as well as [increasing] the risk of lung cancer.”

Mutations to the BRCA genes stop DNA from repairing itself effectively.

“In the context of smoking there is such an enormous amount of DNA damage that any loss of DNA repair is going to be an issue,” Prof Houlston added.

The discovery could mean treatments that are being developed for breast cancer may also work in some cases of lung cancer.  “We’ve known for two decades that inherited mutations in BRCA2 made people more likely to develop breast and ovarian cancer, but these new findings show a greater risk of lung cancer too, especially for people who smoke,” said Prof Peter Johnson, Cancer Research UK’s chief clinician.

“Importantly this research suggests that treatments designed for breast and ovarian cancer may also be effective in lung cancer, where we urgently need new drugs.   “But, with or without one of these genetic flaws, the single most effective way to reduce the risk of lung cancer is to be a non-smoker.”

Source: bbc.co.uk/news/health   1st June 2014

1. Colorado has seen a tremendous increase in Colorado marijuana being diverted to other states since the state commercialized medical marijuana (mmj) in 2009. Rogue mmj operations are using the cover of the law to violate the law. They have become the black markets for other states (40 state have been identified) where they can double their profits. For instance: A. Interdiction seizures of Colorado marijuana on the highways have quadrupled from             an average of 52 a year to an average of 242.

B. Pounds of Colorado marijuana seized during highway interdictions have gone from an average of about a ton to about two tons. C. Parcel interdiction of Colorado marijuana by USPS increased ten times. 2. The legal selling and cultivation of marijuana as well as making marijuana infused edibles presents the “perfect storm” for involvement of Organized Crime Groups including the Mexican Cartels trafficking in drugs and using extortion to make money. A. DEA and IRS have already investigated, served search warrants and made arrest in a case of suspected Colombian Cartel money financing licensed medical marijuana operations.

B. Other DEA investigations outside Colorado involve large scale trafficking of Colorado marijuana into their jurisdiction. 3. Funding to support DEA in mmj states is not used to target patients or caregivers but rather rogue operation hiding under the law to violate the law by trafficking in large quantities of mj where they can double their profits.

Source:   Rocky Mountain HIDTA    http://www.rmhidta.org  June 2014

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

The online universal Climate Schools intervention has been found to be effective in reducing the use of alcohol and cannabis among Australian adolescents. The aim of the current study was to examine the feasibility of implementing this prevention programme in the UK.

DESIGN:

A pilot study examining the feasibility of the Climate Schools programme in the UK was conducted with teachers and students from Year 9 classes at two secondary schools in southeast London. Teachers were asked to implement the evidence-based Climate Schools programme over the school year with their students. The intervention consisted of two modules (each with six lessons) delivered approximately 6 months apart. Following completion of the intervention, students and teachers were asked to evaluate the programme.

RESULTS:

11 teachers and 222 students from two secondary schools evaluated the programme. Overall, the evaluations were extremely positive. Specifically, 85% of students said the information on alcohol and cannabis and how to stay safe was easy to understand, 84% said it was easy to learn and 80% said the online cartoon-based format was an enjoyable way to learn health theory topics. All teachers said the students were able to recall the information taught, 82% said the computer component was easy to implement and all teachers said the teacher’s manual was easy to use to prepare class activities. Importantly, 82% of teachers said it was likely that they would use the programme in the future and recommend it to others.

CONCLUSIONS:

The Internet-based universal Climate Schools prevention programme to be both feasible and acceptable to students and teachers in the UK. A full evaluation trial of the intervention is now required to examine its effectiveness in reducing alcohol and cannabis use among adolescents in the UK before implementation in the UK school system.

Source: PMID: 24840248 BMJ Open. 2014 May 19;4(5):e004750. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004750.

Dr. Robert DuPont, President, Institute for Behavior and Health   |   March 28, 2014

In a recent National Public Radio interview, Dr. Lance Dodes, co-author of a new book that attacks the efficacy of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and the many 12-step groups it has inspired, declared that AA — which he repeatedly misidentified as a “treatment” — probably has “the worst success rate in all of medicine,” and is “harmful” to those who do not do well within its program.

He told NPR that AA’s success rate was “between 5 and 10 percent,” and that AA harms people because “everyone believes that AA is the right treatment. AA is never wrong … If you fail in AA, it’s you that’s failed,” he said.

Moreover, Dodes criticized AA and Narcotics Anonymous’ (NA) “tally” system, which recognizes incremental periods of continued sobriety by awarding chips. “The dark side is, if you have a beer after six months of sobriety, you’re back to zero in AA,” Dodes said. “That makes no sense. It’s unscientific. It’s simply crazy. If you have only a beer in six months, you’re doing beautifully.”

I couldn’t disagree more. His message is not only inaccurate and distorted, but also dangerous. No one should be discouraged from participating in these fellowships. They save lives every day.

When people ask me the percentage of success of AA and NA, the 12-step fellowships, I say it is 100 percent — for those who follow the programs as they’re intended to be followed. This means not just going to an occasional meeting, but to many meetings every week, having a sponsor — who is similar to a sober companion — “working” each of the 12 steps in depth, specifically as they apply to the recovering addict, and making recovery the No. 1 priority.  This group of related fellowships is a modern miracle. There are many reasons to be proud of America, but none is more personally important to me — or more unique — than the founding of Alcoholics Anonymous in 1935 in Akron, Ohio.

AA is not “treatment,” and it cannot be meaningfully compared to any treatment. When can anyone find a treatment program located in virtually every part of the world? A treatment program where someone calls you daily? A treatment program where you can call someone at 3 a.m.? And a “treatment” that not only is free to the suffering addict and alcoholic, but that requires no insurance, government funding or a license, and is not subject to any regulation?

No one makes money from it. Rich folks cannot even give money to it, because it needs none, other than the few dollars for administrative costs that its members donate during the meetings themselves. No one writes books about it. The groups actually seek no publicity; in fact, publicity goes against its principles. The word “anonymous” is part of its name for a reason; members respect the anonymity of those who participate, as well as their personal stories.

Moreover, unlike what Dodes apparently believes, no one judges you if you relapse. No one makes you feel as if you’ve failed. Rather, you receive unconditional support. I know of no other programs like these. They are not treatment, nor are they religion. The only requirement is a desire to stop drinking and using drugs.

But to say, as Dodes seems to be suggesting, that AA merely is a supportive social organization completely misses what this miracle is: AA and NA are well-established, sophisticated and effective paths to “recovery,” a term adopted by these fellowships to make clear that AA does not offer to help members get back to their “premorbid” state, but rather to reach an entirely new and better state of living. Its members are not “reformed,” which has a negative connotation, but “recovering,” which is — and must be — a lifelong process.

Those in recovery serve as an inspiration, not only to drug addicts and alcoholics, but to everyone they encounter — a striking and remarkable contrast to the response they would receive if they were still using alcohol and drugs.

The bright line drawn by AA and NA — the sobriety date that marks the last time a recovering addict used alcohol or other drugs — is essential. It differs radically from the academic and professional standard for drug and alcohol addiction , which tolerates slips and relapses. The bright line of the sobriety date is a matter of importance and of huge pride for fellowship members — it is a core marker of identity in the fellowships, and a fundamental defining part of the disease of addiction. One of the true joys of this fellowship is attending a group celebration that commemorates a recovering addict’s “clean time” anniversary.

The all too common academic, professional views on addiction, well represented by Dodes, run counter to the AA and NA goal of sobriety. Many professionals and academics see continued alcohol and drug use as OK but “problem-generating use” as not quite as acceptable. They encourage controlled, responsible alcohol and drug use. They encourage cutting down, but not stopping. They view drug and alcohol use by addicts as a lifestyle alternative that, like sexual orientation, should not be “stigmatized.”

That is a reckless view. An addict who has one beer after six months of sobriety is not doing “beautifully.” Instead, he or she is courting catastrophe, and likely to easily fall back into active addiction. An addict cannot just have one beer, or one cigarette, or one pill. True lifelong recovery does not happen that way, and anyone who believes that it does is heading for a major relapse.

There are endless examples of skeptics like Dodes who seek alternatives to AA, or approaches that attack AA. I suggest to my patients who reject AA that they find one of these alternatives, and see what they think of it. They tell me that such programs are hard to find. I ask them, “Why do you think that is the case? Doesn’t that tell you something?” When they go to these alternative meetings and hear little beyond AA-bashing, I ask them, “How will this help keep you sober?”

AA and NA do not replace treatment; they enhance it. I see this daily in my own practice. Some addicts do get well without AA or NA, but far more of them fail. I encourage my patients to join the fellowships, and I rejoice with them when they do, confident that they have a better chance at lifelong recovery.

When patients tell me they have attended AA or NA meetings but they haven’t helped, it doesn’t take long to discover that their attendance was brief. I urge them to find a sponsor and speak to their sponsor daily. I tell them to work the steps with a life-or-death intensity, and to do what is known as “90/90” — attend 90 meetings in 90 days. Those who follow these suggestions almost always end up with a new outlook on life and the potential for long-term sobriety. [Most Alcoholics in ‘Serious Denial’ About Treatment ]

Clinicians like me all have come to believe that these fellowships are a blessing — not just for our patients, but for all of us.

The wisdom of the 12-step fellowships does not come simply from Bill Wilson or Bob Smith, AA’s founders. It is wisdom distilled from the experiences of millions of suffering addicts and alcoholics. That source makes it utterly different from the academic studies of addiction. With the 12 steps, what works sticks, and what doesn’t disappears. The leaders don’t abandon the latter; the entire community does.

The 12-step approach is ever-changing and growing. It also is endlessly diverse, fitting in with every culture and subculture in the world. It is adaptable and sensitive to vast diversity. It is unlicensed and uncensored. Anyone can start an AA or NA meeting anywhere he or she chooses. Those groups that meet real needs of real people will thrive and grow.

To be sure, attacking AA probably sells books. Sadly, Dodes’ view of the 12-step fellowships, while misguided and ill-informed, is held by many otherwise sensible and well-informed individuals. I never have understood their skepticism. Think about it. Why have these programs endured so long and become so widespread?

The answer: It works if you work it.

Source:  www. livescience.com 28th March 2014

Abstract

This investigation used meta-analytic techniques to evaluate the effectiveness of school-based prevention programming in reducing cannabis use among youth aged 12 to 19. It summarized the results from 15 studies published in peer-reviewed journals since 1999 and identified features that influenced program effectiveness. The results from the set of 15 studies indicated that these school-based programs had a positive impact on reducing students’ cannabis use (d = 0.58, CI: 0.55, 0.62) compared to control conditions.

Findings revealed that programs incorporating elements of several prevention models were significantly more effective than were those based on only a social influence model.

Programs that were longer in duration (≥15 sessions) and facilitated by individuals other than teachers in an interactive manner also yielded stronger effects. The results also suggested that programs targeting high school students were more effective than were those aimed at middle-school students. Implications for school-based prevention programming are discussed.

Source:  Health Educ Behav. 2010 Oct;37(5):709-23. doi: 10.1177/1090198110361315. Epub 2010 Jun 3.

 

BINGE drinking and smoking marijuana in adolescence can cause irreversible brain damage, a new study has found.

Chronic abuse for just a year and a half damages white matter and leads to worsened neuro-cognitive abilities into adulthood, researchers say. Drink and drug abuse is also associated with poorer neural structure, function and metabolism, and can change the structure of the brain and lead to diminished self-control, it is claimed.

“Research has shown differences in the brains of teens who use alcohol and marijuana as compared to teens who do not use these drugs or report only very infrequent, minimal use,” said Joanna Jacobus, of the University of California, San Diego, and lead author for the study.

“Alcohol and marijuana may have a negative impact by altering important cellular communication in the brain, preventing development of new healthy cells, and/or causing inflammation, which can adversely impact healthy brain development in many ways.

White matter, the areas of the brain which contain the “information highway”, allows for quick and efficient communication between brain regions. If these are damaged, it can mean slower processing and poorer performance in memory, attention and decision-making.

A teenager’s brain is still developing, and brain connections which inhibit risky behaviour are still forming, meaning some youths are likely to think of the immediate effects rather than the consequences.

Co-author Professor Duncan Clark said. “Maturation of the brain during adolescence is thought to be the foundation for self-control. The developing adolescent brain, compared to the fully developed adult brain, is also probably more vulnerable to alcohol neurotoxicity.

“Adolescents are vulnerable to loss of control and, when this loss of control involves substance use, excessive or risky substance use can have adverse consequences.”

For the study, published in a special online issue of Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, the researchers followed 92 adolescents – 63 males, 29 females – aged between 16 and 20 who were divided into two groups: 41 with extensive alcohol and marijuana use histories and 51 with consistently minimal, if any, substance use. They all underwent extensive brain scans.

Poorer white matter tissue health was found in teens who engage in heavy alcohol and marijuana use and that health declined over the period of the study.

Prof Clark said: “We are concerned that even subtle deficits in brain microstructure may lead to diminished self-control.”   Ms Jacobus added: “Our findings underscore that early initiation of alcohol and marijuana use can have negative implications on the brain.

“We hope this information can be communicated to teens to help them understand why drinking during adolescence is discouraged.  In the future, biomarkers such as tissue health may help identify teens that are particularly vulnerable for engaging in riskier behaviours such as drinking.”

Source: www.Scotsman.com  15.12.12

What are the facts?

The International Agency on Research on Cancer Monographs has declared alcohol carcinogenic. It is the ethanol within alcohol that is carcinogenic and it is impossible to differentiate between different risks associated with different alcohol.

According to some studies, 10% total cancer in men and 3% total cancer in women could be attributable to alcohol consumption

Why alcohol causes cancer?

There are a number of biological mechanisms that may explain alcohol’s contribution to cancer development.

– Ethanol may cause cancer through the formation of acetaldehyde, its most toxic metabolite.

– Acetaldeyhde has mutagenic and carciongenic properties, and bonds with DNA to increase the risk of DNA mutations and impaired cell replication.

– Ethanol may also cause direct tissue damage by irritating the epithelium and increasing the absorption of carcinogens through its effects as a solvent.

– In addition, alcohol can increase the level of hormones such as oestrogen, therby increasing breast cancer risk, and increase the risk of liver cancer by causing cirrhosis of the liver, increased oxidative stress, altered methylation and reduced levels of retinoic acid.

Lifestyle factors such as smoking, poor oral hygiene, and certain nutrient deficiencies (folate, vitamin B6, methyl donors) or excesses (vitamin A/ Beta carotene), owing to poor diet or self- medication, may also increase the risk for alcohol-associated tumours.

Research Findings

Heavy ethanol intake is associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer (PCa) among low-risk men with at least one prior negative prostate biopsy, investigators reported here at the annual Genitourinary Cancers Symposium. It also is associated with an elevated risk for high-grade PCa. Renal& Urology News

Alcohol attributable burden of incidence of cancer in eight European countries based on results from prospective cohort study

In western Europe, an important proportion of cases of cancer can be attributable to alcohol consumption, especially consumption higher than the recommended upper limits. Among men and women 10% and 3%  of the incidence of total cancer was attributable to former and current alcohol consumption in the selected European countries: British Medical Journal

Source:  www.alcoholandcancer.eu  June2012

 

Filed under: Alcohol,Health :

Back to top of page

Powered by WordPress