Marijuana Myths Marijuana Facts: A Review Of The Scientific Evidence (Paperback)

~ (Author), John P. Morgan (Author) "IN 1970, in response to marijuana's rapidly rising popularity, Congress authorized $1 million for a national commission to study marijuana..." (more)
Key Phrases: United States, Shafer Commission, Costa Rica (more...)

Editorial Reviews

Review

Their meticulous, dispassionate, and concise summaries of the scientific literature make the book a useful primer and a valuable research guide. -- Reason, Jacob Sullum

Product Details

• Paperback: 241 pages
• Publisher: Lindesmith Center; 1 edition (August 1997)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0964156849
• ISBN-13: 978-0964156845
• Product Dimensions: 8.9 x 5.9 x 0.6 inches
• Shipping Weight: 12.8 ounces
• Average Customer Review: 4.6 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (43 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #247,558 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

350 of 368 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A very important book, plus my response to a review, November 18, 2000

By	"ebreit42" (New Port Richey, Florida United States) - See all my reviews

This book is something important that needs to be in the public discourse. I don't smoke marijuana, and I've never tried. But I've read a lot about it and this book is not really as biased as the drug counselor claimed in his/her review. In fact, this book is merely an echo of what honest scientists have known for more than a hundred years, with new modern evidence to confirm that knowledge.

Since I cannot offer much more praise for this book than most people here, I thought I could do people who haven't made up their minds a better service by refuting the claims made by the drug counselor. Here is my point-by-point breakdown of that review:

First, the reviewer (I'm going to use the female pronous from now on) said that you get what you look for and she warned us all to take an "unbiased approach."

This is an interesting way to determine if something's biased: if you agree with it, it's not, if you don't agree, it is. And if you don't agree, you then warn others to be "unbiased." Please spare me the moralizing. She's a drug counselor, not a scientist as will become quite clear by the time I'm finished.

The next claim is that marijuana is "a psychologically addictive drug." What she doesn't mention is that this book does not claim otherwise. Obviously one must wonder whether she even read it. The books says, and I'm quoting verbatim from chaper 3 "Marijuana and Addiction," "Marijuana does not cause PHYSICAL [emphasis added] dependence." This is an important distinction: nictotine, caffeine, and alcohol ALL cause physical dependence.

What about psychological dependence? Physical dependence is the one that is the most dangerous. Anything can be "psychologically addictive." All that means is that people get "addicted" to the pleasure something brings. Sex is psychologically addictive, so are most things that make people feel pleasure in any amount. I once read about a man who got psychologically addicted to Advil tablets, yet in and of itself that's not a big deal, and he "quit" without any drug counselor's help. The real danger is from physical dependence: Drugs that cause it also have withdrawl symptoms because they change the make-up of neurotransmitters in the brain. Marijuana DOES NOT DO THAT.

If you're wondering about how much this drug counselor knows, than it's about to get even worse. This is probably the most disingenuious statement in her review:

"There has NOT been a lot said as to the harmful effects of marijuana as relates to traffic accidents, driving under the influence, industrial accidents, etc. The human toll here has yet to be defined but is estimated as astronomical. The economic costs of marijuana's well-known amotivational syndrome are all too well known."

That statement is a flat out lie and by now it's clear that not only did she NOT read the book at all, but she's never read anything about marijuana from an "unbiased approach."

The British government recently completed a study that showed marijuana using motorists are LESS LIKELY to get in car wrecks when they're high (source, "Reason" Nov. 2000). Why? The claming effects caused the drivers to drive more cautiously and less recklessly without causing a decrease in reaction times or judgement as seen with indentical studies using alcohol.

Second, there isn't an "astronomical" human toll from marijuana use. The real number of deaths that the government has linked directly to marijuana use? ZERO. That is not to say that marijuana can't cause deaths, just that it hasn't been shown that it does, in fact most researchers now agree that there is no way to overdose on marijuana.

Finally, "amotivational" syndrome is not causally linked with marijuana. This is a simple distortion of science to serve a poltical agenda: correlation does not equal causation and marijuana does not cause amotivational syndrome. Chirst people, don't review a book you haven't read.

I love this next one, this person really is an idiot:

"(And by the way, one reviewer stated tobacco as being more harmful-that is not proven. The amount of tar and nicotine in one "joint" is much higher than in one cigarette. Get your facts straight)"

Okay folks, if you're following the pattern here than you know what comes next.

First, tobacco smoke is much more harmful than marijuana smoke, but not for the reasons most people realize. Second, anyone who thinks there is nicotine in a joint needs their head examined, and finally all of this has been proven.

Tobacco smoke is bad, really bad. Everyone knows this. It's the smoke that kills, not the nicotine. But tobacco smoke kills only because smokers must inhale such a high amount to get a decent level of nicotine into their bloodstream. Marijuana "joints" deliver much more active ingredient per unit of smoke than tobacco by FAR. Most smokers smoke a pack a day or more, yet the average marijuana user may smoke a couple of joints a week. My roommate uses it a couple of times a month. This is because nicotine causes physical addiction, marijuana does not. The tobacco user inhales an ever increasing level of smoke to get that nicotine fix that was formerly delivered with less, the marijuana user does not need to do this. Trust me, I may not use marijuana, but I do use tobacco.

Also, studies of heavy tobacco users who also use marijuana show no "superadditive" effect: if marijuana smoke was as bad as tobacco smoke than it should've been obvious in people who used both, because that way scientists would be able to get around the fact that many people don't need to smoke that much marijuana to get high. The studies showed that there was no superadditive effect and that marijuana does not obstruct the lung's small airways and cannot be linked to lung cancer or emphysema even in heavy chronic users.

Marijuana smokers inhale less over time than tobacco users, so they experience less lung damage. But let's be clear: any smoke burns when you inhale, thus that probably means it's not as good for you as not inhaling it. And marijuana smoke contains lung irritants, just like tobacco smoke does. The honest truth? Marijuana has not been linked to the problems that tobacoo has been, but that is not proof that it is safe to smoke it, it just may be safer than tobacco.

Okay, I debunked the "unbiased approach" and I apoloigze for the length of this review. I think the reviewer I debunked did a disservice to all of you: she obviously didn't read the book, and she flat out lied.

She said that one reviwer wrote that some people just get what they look for.

I'd like to add that some people should take off their blindfolds before they try to see.

65 of 69 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars 99.9% of people killed in traffic accidents..., December 19, 2004

By	Steven Cain (Temporal Quantum Pocket) - See all my reviews (TOP 1000 REVIEWER)

...eat potatoes. So, if we ban the sale of this dangerous vegetable, think of the lives that would be saved.

Cynical? Moi? Sorry, but that's the level of logic that has been applied in the mindless, wasteful and cruel war on the production and consumption of a healing herb that the Lord placed on the Earth, apparently in error, and which the pharmaceutical industry have tried to eradicate.

This is a very welcome addition to the growing number of truly well-researched books that have gone a long way towards debunking the cowardly, hateful lies that self-serving politicians and those who bribe them, have tried to sell us for decades.

Has marijuana "addiction" ruined people's lives by de-motivating them? Possibly. I don't know any such people myself, but I do know a lot of very dynamic achievers who regularly smoke marijuana. Yet alcohol which is fully and widely acknowleged to have ruined the lives of millions of people, as has gambling, is totally legal and freely available.

Do you know anybody who experiences increased aggression while on marijuana? Decreased, yes. That's why a number of police officers have stated that they would rather go into a room full of stoners than a room full of drunks.

There are many things in this world that do create social problems, especially those involving extreme violence. Compared to ultra-violent TV and movie shows, first person shooter computer games and hard liquor, where is marijuana on the scale of things? Nowhere. It is not a factor in increasing violent tendencies, quite the reverse.

If the boys who carried out the Columbine massacre had been found to have traces of marijiana in their systems, we would never have heard the end of it. Yet how much has been made of the presence of traditional pharmaceuticals in the system of either shooter?

In 14 years, we will see the FIRST centennial of woman suffrage. Prior to 1918, it was ILLEGAL for a woman, even a white, university educated woman, to vote in an election, own property or inherit property from her father.

Did that make sense? Was it fair? Was it sane?

No, but it was the Law. Just as it was illegal to be a homosexual, to practice witchcraft, or to commit suicide until well into the latter half of the 20th century.

The Law. Right.

Please read this superb book.

37 of 40 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars The sad thing is that it is unlikely to change opinions., July 6, 2000

By A Customer

First off, this is a well-written, extremely informative book about both medicinal and recreational use of marijuana. Before reading the book, you are either one of the five percent of Americans who smokes pot or you aren't. The book isn't going to make you run off and buy an eighth of dank if it isn't something you'd do anyway. Conversely, it isn't likely to make chronic smokers quit. The people who need to read this book (parents, elected officials, educators, etc.) most likely either won't read it or dismiss it as pro-pot propaganda. While marijuana is the most widely used illegal drug, I think it will be several decades before public opinion changes in favor of legalizing this drug, whose benefits are greater than alcohol and cigarettes, yet whose harms are negligible by comparison.