Julia Czudak

Demonizing the Devil’s Lettuce: Why Current Research on Cannabis is Insufficient

The notion of legalizing marijuana has become more favorable in the United States than ever before. This has become apparent as more states are legalising the herb that has been ill advised and called the “devil’s lettuce” in negative propaganda for decades. Decriminalizing a substance that was banned for decades under the sentiment that it is a dangerous drug, will implore the scientific community to investigate possible outcomes of doing so. Studying the long-term and short-term effects of consuming cannabis will become a priority for many researchers, considering getting results will be easier without legal repercussions. These results will be very important to consumers considering they will be experiencing the side effects.

Current research on pot and the effect it has on consumers is very limited due to legal restrictions and has, for the most part, failed to answer the question of whether or not marijuana is safe for recreational purposes. Since the legalisation of pot became a split issue for the American public, the research teams in charge of the experiments were often accused of being biased and providing inaccurate conclusions. The majority of current studies fail to provide an actual answer for whether or not marijuana was safe to consume because of the poor design of experiments, the misinterpretation of data collected, and the bias of research leaders.

Most studies (thus far) investigating the effects of cannabis on those who use it are not designed with enough sufficiency due to the meager sample size of subjects and/or not taking outside factors into account. This becomes an issue because, ultimately, the results may be inconclusive or misleading. The number of subjects in an experiment is very important because a conclusion must be consistent. A large sample size is the only way to confirm the precision of the results and therefore validate the conclusion. The experimental group of a cannabis study, for example, also acts as a representative of everyone else who consumes the plant. Conclusions based on a select few will not accurately represent the population of pot-consumers or the side effects that may be caused by the activity.

One study from 2011 concluded that people who smoke marijuana have a decreased dopamine brain reactivity which leads to negative emotionality and addiction severity (Volkow, N. D. et al., 2014). In other words, those who habitually smoke marijuana are more likely to be depressed and pessimistic, and as a result, are inclined to become addicted to the substance. One issue with this experiment was the meager total of 110 participants. Of these 110 subjects, 62 were nonusers while only 48 participants were marijuana users (Volkow, N. D. et al.). This sample size is much too small to accurately represent the entire populations of smokers and nonsmokers. The experiment was conducted in New Mexico and since the state has not yet decriminalized the recreational use of marijuana, the limited quantity of subjects is not surprising. Not many people would put themselves at risk of getting arrested for an experiment.

Those representing marijuana consumers were all using the herb for medicinal purposes and this further discredits the conclusion of the experiment because outside factors were not being taken into account. According to the New Mexico law of 2007, medical marijuana was permitted under the condition that the resident was confirmed by a physician to suffer from conditions such as chronic pain, PTSD, cancer, etc. Hospice patients were also granted the right to smoke marijuana. These conditions were not taken into account within the experiment, but they are outside factors that can potentially corrupt the experiment. The conclusion that researchers of the study presented did not take into account that becoming addicted to a substance could be a result of underlying issues. This is especially relevant in this case where the entire experimental group was suffering from emotionally or physically painful conditions at the time of the experiment. The entire conviction of the experiment is based on the fallacy of a single cause and therefore detracts from the researchers’ effort to seek reliable answers about the effects of pot consumption.

Misinterpretation and generalization of data is very common in most research about controversial activities or substances because most of these faults are a result of the implicit bias held by researchers. This experiment in particular was conducted by members of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (Volkow, N. D. et al.). Since the majority of the analysts in this experiment are associated with advocates of substance abuse prevention- who have a history of bias against marijuana without plausible evidence of its harm or addictive nature- the experiment is prone to be based on subjective measures rather than objective ones.

Other than biased research leaders, tools used in experiments may be just as tendencias. One study attempting to conclude the long-term effects of marijuana use on the brain used a tool called the Marijuana Problem Survey (MPS) as a means of measuring the behaviors of their experimental group (Stephens, R. S., et al., 2002). The name of the tool itself is problematic since it suggests a negative connotation with marijuana. It also automatically blames the cannabis for any problems subjects might be facing. This means coincidences or any other outside factors are not even considered because every problem the individual may face over the duration of the experiment is- according to this research tool- solely due to their smoking habit.

This subjective lens continues to be a trend in the experiments; a study held in 3 areas of high prevalence of cannabis consumption as well as production (Tunisia, Morocco, and Algeria) concluded that smoking marijuana was a risk factor for lung cancer (Berthiller, J. et al., 2008). Although researchers later admit that 96% of the test subjects were also tobacco smokers, they continue to call cannabis a culprit and risk factor for lung cancer. Considering a large majority of both the control and experimental groups were also tobacco smokers, there is no acceptable basis to blame the consumption of marijuana itself for the increased lung cancer risk. The title of the study as well as its entire proposition is very misleading and inaccurate.

Some researchers, on the other hand, work hard to avoid such mistakes and try to make their experiments as unbiased as possible. One study working to find the effect cannabis has on memory was a double-blind, randomized, double-placebo-controlled, crossover designed experiment (Hindocha, C., et al.) and use of well-validated tasks. Double-blind experiments and randomized trials avoid bias because the subjects as well as the researchers themselves is unaware of who is in the control and who is in the experimental group until the experiment is over. Thus, the data is untampered with and results will have a high guarantee of not being biased or rigged.

Even with those precautions, a study found that the researchers are prone to guess which subjects are users or nonusers and simply recreate their biased agenda. A 2018 study found that researchers were able to predict who was a user or non user with a 75% accuracy (Sodos, L. M., et al., 2018). According to this study,  the experiments conducted after scientists are able to define which group the subjects are a part of, usually result in scores that at least partially reflects the view of the researcher (Sodos, L. M., et al., 2018). The subjects’ own cognitive abilities are then not taken into account as much.

Researching the cannabis plant and its effect on those who consume it is a difficult task. There are legal repercussions that can limit the sample size of the test subjects and therefore lead to inaccurate results. Scientists must also take into account the many factors that can also be a contributor (other than marijuana) to a side effect. Bias is almost unavoidable in cases like these where a relevant, split issue is at hand; even double-blinding is suggested to be not as accurate as previously thought. Still, the effects cannabis may have on an individual who consumes it is very important to generations who will witness the legalisation of the substance.

 

Works Cited

1.Volkow, N. D. et al. Decreased dopamine brain reactivity in marijuana abusers is associated with negative emotionality and addiction severity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, (2014).

2.Stephens, R. S., Babor, T. F., Kadden, R. & Miller, M. The Marijuana Treatment Project: rationale, design and participant characteristics. Addiction 97, 109–124 (2002).

3.Berthiller, J. et al. Cannabis Smoking and Risk of Lung Cancer in Men: A Pooled Analysis of Three Studies in Maghreb. Journal of Thoracic Oncology 3, 1398–1403

(2008).

4. Hindocha, C., Freeman, T. P., Xia, J. X., Shaban, N. D. C. & Curran, H. V. Acute memory and psychotomimetic effects of cannabis and tobacco both ‘joint’ and individually: a placebo-controlled trial. Psychological Medicine 47, 2708–2719 (2017).

5.Sodos, L. M., Hirst, R. B., Watson, J. & Vaughn, D. Don’t Judge a Book by its Cover: Examiner Expectancy Effects Predict Neuropsychological Performance for Individuals Judged as Chronic Cannabis Users. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 33, 821–831 (2018).