"the assassin of youth"

 

cannabis & the media

For more than eighty years now, media coverage about cannabis has been tugging at the strings of emotion, instead of reliable information. From the coarse lies initially spread about this substance, some media switched to biased reports of serious studies with a recurring theme: between decriminalization pros and cons, who will be the designated winner.

It's now time to think of another approach

With respect to cannabis, since the ‘30s media have played a major role influencing health policies and public opinion. Everything starts during the ‘20s in the US. The farming of Cannabis – that is hemp – is taking off. For thousands years, hemp has been utilized in many domains: medicine, fuel, oils, rigging, etc. For this reason, Hemp was an important part of many different cultures worldwide. At that time hemp manufacturers were walking on air. A brilliant future lay ahead for them due to the development of new production techniques. The competition is none too pleased. Hemp is about to evict cotton and synthetic fibers.

The current laws are inefficient and iniquitous. Inefficient, because cannabis use has never, ever been so high. Iniquitous, because in the most repressive countries thousands of simple users have simply nothing to do in jail.

A counter measure will soon be found (1). In a few years the entire nation will be subjected to extraordinary media hype aimed at portraying cannabis as the “evil weed”. Headlines follow one on the other recounting rapes, ax murders and other bloody massacres allegedly perpetrated under the influence of cannabis (2).

The propaganda campaign reaches its objective. In 1937 a gullible American congress declares cannabis "The assassin of youth". A law is passed in Congress, The Marihuana Tax Act, sounds the death knell for the hemp industry and initiates a series of acts leading eventually to a worldwide criminalization of cannabis use (3).

Over the years however, detractors of hardcore prohibition raise their voices. Long-haired libertarians give way to experienced scientists who rightly stress the current laws' inefficiency and iniquity. Inefficient, because cannabis use has never, ever been so high. Iniquitous, because in the most repressive countries thousands of simple users have simply nothing to do in jail.

Some media have taken a position regarding criminalization. In a 1995 editorial, the highly respected British medical journal, The Lancet, claims, "The smoking of cannabis, even long term, is not harmful to health"(4). In 1997, it's the turn of the British newspaper The Independent, to launch a major campaign aimed at legalizing cannabis.

The explosion of cannabis use, however, will eventually catch up with the movement calling for decriminalization, as will the emergence of products containing highly concentrated tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, the active ingredient in cannabis.

During the ‘70s, THC average concentration was 3% in the most modern greenhouse cultivations. Nowadays, selections of more powerful strains and genetic manipulations regularly produce a 20% to 40% THC concentration, including the famous "skunk".

Of course the deal has changed. In most Western countries, addiction services are confronted with an invasion of young, "skunk" smokers, addicted to a drug which, until now, was not supposed to provoke addiction.

Old Habits Die Hard

Old habits die hard; media renew their efforts with the usual sensational headlines. On the one hand, The Telegraph weighing in with its headline last April: "Skunk-Addicted Schizophrenic Fulfills Sick Fantasy by Killing a Black Woman", and, on the other hand, The Lancet making amends for its ‘95 editorial (see article in this issue) and The Independent making apologies for launching its ‘97 decriminalization campaign.

Elements upon which the journalists' arguments are founded are certainly true; however, the information given is often overly simplistic. The latest examples in the news: In 2007, the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand published a study about the effect of cannabis and tobacco use on lung structure and function. The conclusions appear to be uneven: among five symptoms taken into account in the study, cannabis seems more dangerous than tobacco in two cases (risk of chronic bronchitis and respiratory obstruction) and tobacco in three cases (whistling respiration, cough and emphysema). However media solely mention one symptom out of five: respiratory obstruction.

Headlines follow on the heels of the study: "One joint as harmful as 2.5 to 5 cigarettes" stated the July 31 st edition of French daily newspaper, Liberation. And, "Smoking a joint equals smoking 5 cigarettes" claimed Le Monde on the same day. For the man in the street, the assertion rapidly becomes: "Cannabis is 5 times more carcinogenic than tobacco". And Choc magazine concludes: "Smoking (cannabis) or breathing - make your choice!".

OK, now we're warned! With other research study outcomes, some media feel obligated to drive the point home, proclaiming "The end of debate between legalization pros and cons". Others simply draw mistaken conclusions. According to the latter, about 1/3 of all cases of psychosis would be due to cannabis use. While the research study reported in The Lancet shows that cannabis use may increase the risk factor by 40%, a clearer way of reporting the results would be to explain that if 1% of the overall population will develop schizophrenia, cannabis use would increase the risk to 1.4%. Worrisome? Definitely. But it is not the tsunami they announce.

We Deserve a Serene Debate on Cannabis

Without prejudging anything, nor taking any stand whatsoever, we deem that such simplistic stands deprive the public of the serene debate they deserve about critical issues such as whether or not the current status quo of harsh prison sentences for use is the most favorable option for encouraging good health.

Media have a critical role to play. It may be utopian to hope that they will play this role evenly and responsibility, for it requires relinquishing their usual role of interpreting, and sometimes distorting, the strict logic of the issue being reported on and assuming a new, educational function. Dramatizing cannabis use is as irresponsible as trivializing it. On the other hand, initiating a real, public debate on the very fundamental nature of our consumption of controversial substances, all of them, including the consequences or lack thereof, would be extremely profitable and would enable us to regulate their use more appropriately, in addition to helping us better support and empathize with those addicted.

In this domain science informs debate, but it can never replace it.

Pierre Bremond
Consultant to Dianova International

(1) Thanks to the activism of first commissioner of the new Federal Bureau of Narcotics, the ancestor of the Drug Enforcement Administration, Harry Anslinger

(2) "The Gore File" lists all articles published during this campaign (Click here to view)

(3) The Marihuana Tax Act (original spelling of “marijuana”) did not specifically prohibit hemp production. However, it imposed a burden of taxes that would rapidly turn into a deathblow to hemp industry. Nowadays, massive deforestation and expensive oil are factors for a revival of the hemp: the European Union legally produces more than 100,000 tons of hemp every year, with an insignificant percentage of THC.

(4) Lancet 1995; 346: 1241

(5) Read article by "The Independant"