Monday, 24 March 2014
Does Strong Marijuana Cause Addiction?
Strong pot matters, but maybe not the way we think.
Colorado, Washington, and some 20 additional states have now made various provisions for legal transactions involving marijuana. And since time immemorial, there has been an illegal market for marijuana. But try getting your hands on some marijuana straightforwardly, through appropriate channels, for purposes of medical research, and, well, most researchers have just said forget it.
Because in the U.S., a bizarre system of drug classification has led to the ludicrous situation of a virtual government monopoly on cannabis for experimental purposes. Can’t researchers just walk around this roadblock and procure pot in some manner that is legal in their state? No, they cannot—not if they want any serious research grants, or publication in refereed journals. Without the federal government imprimatur, marijuana research isn’t kosher, and could put researchers at legal risk. Researchers who go through channels report frequent and unpredictable delays, and this has been true for decades. Yet millions of recreational marijuana users can secure a supply of the drug, often accompanied by specific genetic information, often with relatively little effort.
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has refused to budge on its opposition to petitions for reclassification of cannabis. A recent Washington Post article attributed the problem to “stigma associated with the drug, lack of funding and legal issues…. Scientists say they are frustrated that the federal government has not made any efforts to speed the process of research.”
However, as almost everyone knows, things are different in The Netherlands. It isn’t a big problem for researchers at the University of Amsterdam and elsewhere in that country to engage in behavioral studies of actual marijuana smokers. Participants in a recent study, the results of which appear in Addiction, were even allowed to use their own weed. (Thanks to Ivan Oransky for bringing this study to my attention.) The thesis being tested by Peggy van der Pol and colleagues is a familiar one: Do marijuana smokers “titrate” very strong pot—that is, do they modify their smoking/dosing behavior accordingly, in order to reduce overall THC exposure? If so, just because a cannabis user is ingesting high-THC plant material doesn’t mean that his or her THC blood levels are that much higher than smokers of less potent weed. But if this is NOT true—if smokers of strong pot are boosting their THC exposure significantly, the results could conceivably include impaired driving and greater rates of marijuana addiction.
Most studies that attempt to estimate the risk of cannabis dependence in pot smokers rely on a familiar yardstick—the number of days a smoker smokes per month. Dosing behavior, and other behavioral aspects of marijuana smoking that affect THC exposure, are usually ignored. The Dutch researchers found that, in a group of 600 frequent cannabis users, some smokers did in fact show “shorter puff duration and inhaled lower smoke volumes when joints with a higher THC concentration were used.” So, yes, users did engage in partial titration when they smoked stronger marijuana. However, this did not translate into the expected results. In a final sample of 98 participants, the scientists discovered that “users of stronger cannabis generally used larger amounts of cannabis to prepare their regular joint.” (The study participants smoked marijuana European-style, mixing their marijuana with tobacco.) And even though subjects smoking joints with higher THC levels did inhale at slightly lower volumes and at a slower pace, the average user of pot with THC levels of 12% or higher definitely inhaled more liters of smoked THC per month than users of less potent pot. But just to confound matters, total THC exposure over a month’s time turned out to be “a weak predictor of dependence severity, and did not remain significant after adjustment for baseline dependence severity.”
Nonetheless, even with some degree of titration, “a positive association between total puff volume and withdrawal/craving was found, indicating that a larger inhaled volume may increase the THC exposure sufficiently to result in significant effects on clinical outcomes.” (Here is the UK National Health Service take on the research.)
It is always difficult to say for certain in a prospective, cross-sectional study of behavior whether participants are acting the way they would act in “real life,” although efforts were made to allow smoking at home, or in Dutch coffee shops, as well as the laboratory. Interestingly, the one behavior that seemed to predict dependence in post-hoc analyses was a simple one. Smokers were allowed to mix a joint however they wished, and smoke however much of it they wanted to. Smokers who finished their joints, rather than leaving a portion of it for later, were the smokers more likely to be associated with dependence in the follow-up studies. In fact, “percentage of the joint smoked may be a simple proxy for risky smoking behavior.”
In addition, certain withdrawal symptoms correlated with dependence: “Increased somatic withdrawal symptoms are predictive of relapse, and…. increased physical tension is a significant predictor of relapse.”
As with alcohol, it seems that it is not necessarily how much you smoke or drink. It is how you smoke or drink. Strong marijuana doesn't cause addiction. The way certain people use strong pot can result in addiction, however.
Earlier research has shown that higher levels of cannabis dependence are associated with greater functional impairment, and that "the average level of impairment caused by cannabis, while mild for most users, can rise to the level of tobacco withdrawal which is of well established clinical significance.”
Physical distress, a “somatic” variable, often matters more, in terms of relapse, than the amount of marijuana smoked, or any other symptom on the roster of functional impairments—including mood and other negative affect variables. In an earlier study published in PLOS ONE, investigators found that “cannabis withdrawal is clinically significant because it is associated with elevated functional impairment to normal daily activities, and the more severe the withdrawal is, the more severe the functional impairment is. Elevated functional impairment from a cluster of cannabis withdrawal symptoms is associated with relapse in more severely dependent users.”
van der Pol P., Liebregts N., Brunt T., van Amsterdam J., de Graaf R., Korf D.J., van den Brink W. & van Laar M. (2014). Cross-sectional and prospective relation of cannabis potency, dosing and smoking behaviour with cannabis dependence: an ecological study, Addiction, n/a-n/a. DOI: 10.1111/add.12508
Friday, 14 March 2014
The Escalating Debate Over E-Cigarettes
Follow the bouncing ping-pong ball.
“E-cigarettes are likely to be gateway devices for nicotine addiction among youth, opening up a whole new market for tobacco.”
—Lauren Dutra, postdoctoral fellow at the UCSF Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education.
“You’ve got two camps here: an abstinence-only camp that thinks anything related to tobacco should be outlawed, and those of us who say abstinence has failed, and that we have to take advantage of every opportunity with a reasonable prospect for harm reduction.”
—Richard Carmona, former U.S. Surgeon General, now board member of e-cigarette maker NJOY.
“Consumers are led to believe that e-cigarettes are a safe alternative to cigarettes, despite the fact that they are addictive, and there is no regulatory oversight ensuring the safety of the ingredients in e-cigarettes.”
—From a letter to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) signed by 40 state attorneys general.
“E-cigarettes need more time to develop and to out-compete deadly conventional cigarettes, but they have the potential to end the tobacco epidemic. So if regulators decide to ban them or submit them to stricter regulations than conventional cigarettes, this would be detrimental to public health.”
—Professor Peter Hajek, director of the Tobacco Dependence Research Unit at the Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine.
“There is no scientific evidence that e-cigarettes are a safe substitute for traditional cigarettes or an effective smoking cessation tool. In fact, they may entice young people into trying traditional cigarettes.”
—Russ Sciandra, New York State Director of Advocacy, American Cancer Society.
“I firmly believe that the [New York] City Council’s bill restricting e-cigarettes is a major blow to people who are trying to stop smoking and will end up accomplishing the opposite of advocates’ intended goals of improving people’s health and reducing smoking-related deaths.”
—Tony Newman, director of media relations for the Drug Policy Alliance.
“Once a young person gets acquainted with nicotine, it’s more likely that they’ll try other tobacco products. E-cigarettes are a promising growth area for the tobacco companies, allowing them to diversify their addictive and lethal products with a so-called ‘safe cigarette.’”
—Alexander Prokhorov, head of the Tobacco Outreach Education Program, University of Texas.
“What would constitute a final victory in tobacco control? Must victory entail complete abstinence from e-cigarettes as well as tobacco? To what levels must we reduced the prevalence of smoking? What lessons should be drawn from the histories of alcohol and narcotic-drug prohibition?”
—Amy L. Fairchild, professor of sociomedical sciences, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University.
Photo Credit: St. Paul Pioneer Press (Chris Polydoroff).
Sunday, 9 March 2014
Hey, Wake Up, It’s Brain Awareness Week
Your brain doesn’t come with an instruction manual.
The Dana Foundation’s annual Brain Awareness Week (BAW), March 10-16, seems particularly appropriate and useful this time around, after a year in which brain-based disease models of human behaviors came under fire from social scientists and neuroscientists alike.
A recent analysis of the coverage of neuroscience in the popular press showed that the number of news articles using the terms "neuroscience" or "neuroscientist" had increased by a factor of 30 between 1985 and 2009. Moreover, the NIH's massive Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative, designed to speed up our understanding of the neural workings of the human brain in the years ahead, is in progress.
The Dana Foundation’s annual Brain Awareness Week (BAW), March 10-16, seems particularly appropriate and useful this time around, after a year in which brain-based disease models of human behaviors came under fire from social scientists and neuroscientists alike.
A recent analysis of the coverage of neuroscience in the popular press showed that the number of news articles using the terms "neuroscience" or "neuroscientist" had increased by a factor of 30 between 1985 and 2009. Moreover, the NIH's massive Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative, designed to speed up our understanding of the neural workings of the human brain in the years ahead, is in progress.
Brain Awareness Week, which takes place each year during the third week of March, is the global campaign to increase public awareness about the progress and benefits of brain research. The Federation of European Neuroscience Societies (FENS) administers a BAW grants program for European partners.
During the week, campaign partners around the world organize activities to educate their communities about the brain and brain research. A product of the Dana Alliance for Brain Initiatives, Brain Awareness Week “unites the efforts of partner organizations worldwide in a celebration of the brain for people of all ages. Activities are limited only by the organizers’ imaginations and include open days at neuroscience labs; exhibitions about the brain; lectures on brain-related topics; social media campaigns; displays at libraries and community centers; classroom workshops; and more.”
In league with hundreds of governmental and private partner institutions around the world, BAW’s enormous calendar of events testifies to the success of this outreach. The week kicks off with an interview with Kelley Remole, Ph.D., the director of neuroscience outreach at Columbia University and the co-president of the Greater NYC Chapter of the Society for Neuroscience.
Here you will find a pile of publications and resources.
And here is a bunch of downloadable brain stuff for kids.
During the week, campaign partners around the world organize activities to educate their communities about the brain and brain research. A product of the Dana Alliance for Brain Initiatives, Brain Awareness Week “unites the efforts of partner organizations worldwide in a celebration of the brain for people of all ages. Activities are limited only by the organizers’ imaginations and include open days at neuroscience labs; exhibitions about the brain; lectures on brain-related topics; social media campaigns; displays at libraries and community centers; classroom workshops; and more.”
In league with hundreds of governmental and private partner institutions around the world, BAW’s enormous calendar of events testifies to the success of this outreach. The week kicks off with an interview with Kelley Remole, Ph.D., the director of neuroscience outreach at Columbia University and the co-president of the Greater NYC Chapter of the Society for Neuroscience.
Here you will find a pile of publications and resources.
And here is a bunch of downloadable brain stuff for kids.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)