22. CANNABIS - Apoptosis (Cell Death) Research

The following article is exactly reproduced from a copy which may contain minor typing errors.

Marihuana, The Harrison Act, and The Supreme Court

The irrefutable proof of the cellular toxicity of Marihuana is finally at hand! The active ingredient of the drug, THC, impairs irreversibly the formation of DNA in sperm cells and in lymphocytes, cells of the immunity system. DNA is the chemical molecule that makes up the genome that carries and transmits life.

These findings first reported in Science in 1974 were not observed in cigarette smokers or consumers of alcohol. The incrimination of THC in DNA formation was greeted with denial or skepticism by prominent molecular biologists or by distinguished psychiatrists who had, in the sixties, become the specialists in drug addiction.

Never the less, the impairment by THC of DNA formation in male germ cells and in lymphocytes was reported in dozens of subsequent studies that are assembled in a volume "Marihuana and Medicine," published in 1999.

Decreases in sperm production and increases in abnormal forms of sperm caused by THC have been attributed to "apoptosis" of the cell. Apoptosis describes the process of programmed cell death which occurs over hours and days, in successive stages, resulting in the fragmentation of DNA and the disintegration of the cell. It is an irreversible biological process, which some have called the programmed suicide of the cell.

An incorrect assumption of some scientists was that "socially relevant usage" of marihuana, like smoking one or two joints daily, would not produce apoptosis. This notion is erroneous, it fails to take into account the distribution of THC throughout the body and its lengthy storage in fat depots and subsequent slow release in the same active form as when first ingested. After a single marihuana cigarette, 50% of its THC is stored in fat depots for five days. It will take 30 days for complete elimination. If one smokes marihuana every two days, one will store ten times more than the initial dose of THC after ten days and 30 times more after 30 days. Such amounts will induce apoptosis of sperm cells and of lymphocytes. If one expresses the dose of THC in molecules rather than in milligrams, the magnitude of THC accumulation becomes manifest. One dose (10mg of THC) is equivalent to trillions of molecules, which are going to reach trillions of cell receptors.

During the past century, physicians and public health officials from countries where marihuana and hashish had been widely used reported on the damaging effects of these drugs on their people and their society. These reports, which had little scientific input, were at the origin of the United Nations International Convention of 1960, held in New York City.The convention, unanimously adopted by all UN member nations led by the U.S., banned use, possession, and trafficking of opiates, cocaine, cannabis under penalty of the law. The U.N convention is a mandate from the people of the world to achieve a global interdiction of drugs of abuse, to protect public health and the safeguard of man. This interdiction preceded the knowledge that all of these drugs impaired DNA formation. Scholars of international law have suggested that since DNA is at the core of the human genome, its systematic and organized destruction as perpetuated by drug dealers should be considered a crime against mankind.

In China, Japan, Singapore, and Islamic countries, severe penalties are meted out against traffickers of the drugs singled out by the UN single convention. These countries assemble two thirds of the world's population. Laws of interdiction, with lesser penalties, are enforced in Sweden and Scandinavia, but in other European countries, they are ignored. The Netherlands has long opted for the legalization of hashish and marihuana sales, and has become the main provider of methamphetamine (ecstasy) in Europe. The illegal drug traffic in Holland accounts for close to 1% of its GNP. International laws against marihuana are flouted in the United States and several states have legalized its sale for medical purpose, in effect legalizing the general use of the drug.

The Supreme Court has accepted to review the contentious debate between federal and state laws; The Court will have to address, once more, as it did after adoption of the Harrison Act of 1914, the concern of American citizens for their own rights as opposed to the concern of society for the safeguard of public health and future generations. The Harrison Act of 1914 was initiated by Theodore Roosevelt and his health advisers, Dr. Alexander Wiley and Dr. Hamilton Wright, at the turn of the century. The Act banned the use of opiates and cocaine and interdicted their use in the treatment of addiction for which "there was no cure". The Harrison Act was first overturned by the Court in 1916; a decision which prosecutors claimed made the Act ineffective. In 1919 the Supreme Court, with the backing of Oliver Wendell Holmes, reversed this decision and upheld the Act as it was originally formulated. Thereafter the interdiction measures of the Harrison Act were successfully applied by law enforcement authorities and the Courts. Inclusion of marihuana among controlled substances in the United States was formalized by an act of congress, The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. This legislation of interdiction prevailed until the 1960s when the acceptance by students and some of their mentors became the order of the day on many prestigious American campuses and their medical schools. Interdiction of marihuana was compared to the Volstead Act, unenforceable, but also unjust since marihuana was claimed to be "less dangerous" than alcohol.

Such popular trends amplified by the media exerted a major influence on government agencies created in the 1970s to address the medical and social problems of drug and alcohol abuse. These agencies were assembled in a large bureaucracy ADAMHA (Alcohol Drug Abuse and Mental Health Administration, which had a yearly budget of hundreds of millions of dollars in the eighties. Presently the yearly budget of the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institute on Mental Health exceed one and a half billion dollars, mostly for research projects allotted to universities.

All the specialized government agencies led by distinguished psychiatrists, in chartering their policies have failed to recognize the cause effect relationship of drug induced molecular changes in vital organs and the persistent alteration of the behavior of addicts. Their policies were also influenced by the general belief that new medications, similar to those used successfully in molecular medicine, should also be sought for the treatment of drug addiction, and the environmental problems associated with drug abuse should also be addressed.

By contrast at the turn of the century most physicians, like Dr. Hamilton Wright who steered The Harrison Act through congress, were convinced that heroin and cocaine were far more dangerous than alcohol. They also believed there were no medication to treat addiction. Abstention was the only cure. Current examples of the benign neglect of the Harrison Act are illustrated by the use of opiate substitutes and of cocaine for the management of drug addiction in federally funded programs. Methadone and buprenorphine, opiate substitutes, are now routinely used for the treatment of heroin addiction, and so is cocaine. For the past 25 years cocaine in all of its forms, intravenous, sniffed or smoked has been administered to paid cocaine addicts in federally funded programs implemented by physicians and scientists in search of a cure for addiction. Results have been disappointing but the search for a cure continues. Government agencies have not conveyed to the public the knowledge of the destructive effects of cocaine, marihuana, or opiates on vital cellular functions. Conversely, powerful financial pressure groups have swayed public opinion towards a policy of social and medical acceptance of these drugs while recognizing their destructive biological effects.

The 2001 ruling of the Supreme Court will have a major impact on the future of the Harrison Act and the U.S. drug policy in the twenty first century. This ruling may not obligate the American people to comply with the law, which remains a personal choice in a free society, dedicated to the pursuit of happiness; but this ruling might indicate the compelling biological reason for which the Act should be upheld for the safeguard of the nation, today the most powerful on earth. The people of America might be asked again: Is this a nation of law or a nation of men? In the first instance, a new consensus should emerge.

Gabriel Nahas M.D., Ph.D., New York, February 13, 2001

Tel: (212) 263-6343
Fax: (212) 263-8743

Email: nahasg01@popmail.med.nyu.edu

References:

Musto D, The American Disease, Oxford University Press 1987

Nahas G. Marihuana in Science and Medicine, Raven Press N.Y. 1985

Nahas G. et al Marihuana and Medicine, Humana Press, Totawa N.J. 1999

Drugs are illiegal because they are dangerous - They are not dangerous because they are illegal.