Skip to main content

Weekly: Blogging @ the Speakeasy

"Ron Paul on Medical Marijuana," "Hillary Clinton Pledges Support for Needle Exchange," "John Edwards Criticizes the War on Drugs," "Does Marijuana Make You Better at Sports?," "John McCain's Awful Response to a Cop Who Wants to End the Drug War," "Update on Pain Physician Dr. William Mangino," "Needle Exchange Action May Be Imminent," "California Sent 1,000 Drug Offenders to Fight the Forest Fire," "Republicans Try Marijuana at Higher Rate Than Democrats."

Marijuana is Better For Your Lungs Than Tobacco

This week, the Drug Czar announced once again that smoking a joint is as bad for your lungs as five cigarettes. We've been hearing this for years, and familiar as it may be, this popular talking point is just wrong. Research and common sense show that marijuana is actually far better for your lungs than tobacco. Allow me to explain.

Put simply, the research used to claim that marijuana is worse for your lungs than tobacco clearly shows the exact opposite of that. One can simply read the results of the study to see that tobacco scored worse in most categories with regards to its effects on the lungs. The 5:1 ratio comes from the "airflow obstruction" category, in which marijuana did score worse. But that's just one of several categories. Furthermore, the study didn't even say marijuana was 5 times worse in that category. It said between 2.5 and 5 times worse, which dishonest reporters simply rounded up to 5 to get headlines.

If we're talking about the lungs, the two biggest concerns are emphysema and lung cancer. Tobacco scores far worse in both categories:
Emphysema was detected in only one of the cannabis smokers (1.3%), in 15 (16.3%) of the cigarette smokers, in 17 (18.9%) of the combination smokers, and in none of the non-smoking groups. [MedPageToday.com]
With regards to lung cancer, the case for is even stronger. Conclusive evidence shows that marijuana does not cause lung cancer at all, and may even help prevent it.
While smoking marijuana is never good for the lungs, the active ingredient in pot may help fight lung cancer, new research shows.

Harvard University researchers have found that, in both laboratory and mouse studies, delta-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) cuts tumor growth in half in common lung cancer while impeding the cancer's ability to spread. [Forbes]
That's the research, now for the common sense. It should be easy to understand that tobacco users smoke more than marijuana users. That's just a fact, and it has everything to do with the relative harm of each. Even if marijuana were more harmful to the lungs, it still wouldn't matter at all, because hardly any marijuana users actually smoke enough to hurt their lungs. Most don’t even smoke every day. They also quit more easily, thus consuming a vastly smaller quantity in their lifetime. The two cannot even be compared for this reason.

One should never be surprised to find the anti-marijuana propaganda machine turning out wildly exaggerated scare stories about the dangers of pot. But this whole episode provides a startling depiction of how irresponsible and just plain wrong marijuana's critics always prove to be.

So, to recap: marijuana is more likely to cause "airflow obstruction," while tobacco is more likely to cause emphysema and lung cancer. You tell me which one is 5 times worse.

[Via DrugWarRant]

California Sent 1,000 Drug Offenders to Fight the Forest Fire

As the Malibu wildfire nears full containment, it is very worth noting that about 1,100 male and female nonviolent drug offenders normally warehoused in California prisons were called upon to risk life and limb fighting last month’s massively devastating blazes. In fact, nearly one in eight of all firefighters who participated were drug offenders.

After a few phone calls to the state corrections department I learned that about 3,000 inmates helped to fight the wildfires, along with 6,000 non-incarcerated firefighters. Almost 4 out of every 10 inmates involved (about 37%) were nonviolent drug offenders.

Breck Wright, a non-incarcerated firefighter who has worked side by side these inmates on numerous occasions, told The Associated Press, "I think it would be very hard without them. It would really impact us…They are very effective, hardworking and are well-trained. They know what they are doing."

Boy, does this one merit examination – I mean, 1 out of every 3 firefighters relied upon were prisoners?! California is a "tough on crime," three-strikes-you're-out state, which from 1980 to 1999 experienced a 25-fold increase in the number of drug offenders sentenced to state prison. Sentencing in drug cases can be severe. For their effort, the prisoners receive $1 per hour and two days off their sentences for every day spent on the fire lines. An added benefit, of course, is the chance to break the monotony of prison life.

California has at its disposal 4,502 prison inmates fully trained to fight fires, 1,655 of whom are drug offenders. Only inmates considered "minimal custody" are permitted to participate -- violent criminals, kidnappers, sex offenders, and arsonists are all banned. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Conservation Camp Program (CCP) began in 1946 -- before the "war on drugs" kicked off in earnest and became the driving force behind California’s explosive prison growth. Saving state taxpayers more than an average of $80 million annually, the program provides three million person hours in firefighting and other emergencies, and seven million person hours in community service project work.

If the news accounts are accurate, and I don't have a basis for disputing them, the prison firefighters sought to participate in this program and feel that they are getting something out of it, both during their prison terms and after they're released. Nevertheless, the question should be asked whether it is moral to send prisoners, people who by definition are being confined against their will, into a dangerous operation in which some of them could lose their lives. Yes, they went out willingly -- they served with pride -- but why do we have them in prison in the first place? Drug use and drug sales are consensual acts, and the people engaging in them should mostly be left alone. Some drug offenders no doubt got to where they were through living screwed up lives. But even they just need help, or positive opportunities available without going to prison, not incarceration. And why aren't there more opportunities for prisoners generally, and safe ones?

If this group of people is worthy to send to risk their lives to save our lives, homes and businesses, aren't they worthy of freedom too? At a minimum they deserve better than the paltry amount of time off and chincy number of dollars that they're getting. Let's get serious -- how about pardons? After all, the non-incarcerated firefighters have stated how much they needed the prisoners' help. How many homes would have burnt down, communities been destroyed, lives lost, without them? The business owners in Socal who could have lost it all should offer as many jobs to ex-offenders as they can too.

It's sort of hard to decide whether this program is ethical or not, given how unethical is the system we have as a whole. Maybe the prisoner firefighters have served California in another way too -- by highlighting through their courage the moral bankruptcy of prohibition and the war on drugs.

Subscribe to