MARIJUANA ARTICLE STIRS ONLINE CONTROVERSY

Last week, the Argus published an article by Jonathan Chien, the
health promoter at Lakehead's Health and Counseling Center. The
article, titled 'Marijuana Talk,' was also published on the Argus
website at theargus.ca. It became a controversial subject, generating
many negative remarks.

Some people commented severely on the nature of research in the
article, while others did not refrain from criticizing the very
personality of the author. 'This person is a blatant liar and should
be either flagged as a false posting, or banned from the site for
spreading lies and falsities,' wrote one commenter who identified
him/herself as Dave.

But the question is, why such a harsh reaction? What was in that
article that many people found so offensive? Were there any blatant
lies? And if so, what were they? Let's put on our Dr. Holmes attire
and get ready for some Argus-style Scotland Yard investigation.

Let's first review Chien's article for those who did not read it but
are now drawn in by our clever use of the word 'controversy' in the
title. Chien's article begins with an overview of the controversial
nature of the drug.

"Marijuana is a hot topic," he writes. He then gives us the scientific
classifications for cannabis. The first part of his article concludes
with a study conducted at Lakehead. According to this study, "less
than a quarter of students reported they had used marijuana a minimum
of one time within the last 30 days. Not everyone's doing it!"

It is the second part of Chien's article that stirred the controversy
and was the target for much of the criticism levelled at him. This
concerns the "effects of marijuana use." It is here that the
commentators debate many of the claims put forward. Chien states, "a
common belief amongst students is that smoking marijuana is harmless"
but goes on to say, "you need to know that marijuana can be harmful
and dangerous."

"Marijuana has more than 400 toxins and cancer-causing chemicals," he
continues. "When compared to tobacco cigarettes, one marijuana joint
is equal to five cigarettes... and can cause more lung damage than
smoking cigarettes."

One commenter strongly disagreed this point, pointing out that the
toxins are only produced when cannabis is burned. In contrast to the
400 toxins cited by the author, the commentator writes, "vaporization
is proven safe in peer-reviewed research published last year and
produces a total of 5 chemicals when done correctly." He or she is
quoting a study performed by the University of California Center for
Medicinal Cannabis Research (CMCR), an institute that investigates the
medical uses of cannabis.

Similarly taking issue with the idea that cannabis can cause lung
cancer, the commenter puts forward the views of Dr. Donald Tashkin, a
researcher whose previous work considered Marijuana dangerous.

"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between
marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more
positive with heavier use," he concludes. "What we found instead was
no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."

Allan Erikson agreed to the above commenters' research and posed the
rhetorical question that, if such correlation exists between cannabis
use and lung cancer, "where are the bodies?"

Not all criticism was formulated so rationally. One comment read
simply: "This article is little more than biased misinformation
designed far more to justify the insane prohibition than to report the
truths about cannabis."

The next point of contention was the claim in the article that, "like
tobacco, marijuana can be addictive. People who use it regularly can
develop a psychological or physical dependence." While one commenter
outright dismissed this, among other claims, as "gutter science,"
another took the time to quote a study. According to this study from
the 1990s, whose credibility the Argus staff is unable to verify,
various substances and their addictiveness can be ranked from a scale
of 100 to zero. Whereas Nicotine and crack top the list, Marijuana is
somewhere at the very bottom.

The rest of Chien's article goes on to warn students against other
harms associated with marijuana in terms of trouble with the law and
job hunting. But many commenters, even those with a relatively mild
tone, blamed the article for its bias. One wrote, quoting a report of
the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy (cfdp.ca/canrep):

"Most, if not ALL of what you posted is incorrect. Informed readers
know I am correct. Uninformed readers of course, now face the dilemma
of which of these two opposing views to believe - mine or Jonathan's.
After all, we can't BOTH be right. So here's a fair offer. I don't ask
you to assume that I'm right, nor will I attack my 'opponent', or
bully you into believing me. I simply ask that you take an hour or two
and do some of your own research. I suggest staying with peer-reviewed
scientific journals, to eliminate bias and get the benefit of actual,
good science."

As a reaction to the effects of marijuana on professional and personal
development put forward by Chien, many commenters felt that these were
actually effects of criminalization of the product, not the product
itself. "Criminal record, lost scholarships, lost jobs... These are all
problems caused by prohibition, not marijuana," wrote one, while
another said that "the inclusion of marijuana in the CDSA (schedule)
that creates this legislated prohibition feeds the coffers of
organized crime; prohibition provides the impetus for it all, not the
substance."

But there was still one more common concern that many people raised
against the article. They felt that as the author represented the
viewpoint of the Health and Counseling Service at Lakehead, he should
have been more careful with his claims. "It's one thing to publish
your OPINION on something... it is another matter to present as FACT,
what is clearly incorrect information. It is particularly
irresponsible to do so when you are in a position that carries with it
an assumption of credibility." Another asked rhetorically, "this
blatant propaganda is coming from a counselor??"

Some of these comments also blamed the Argus for publishing such
material on the grounds that the research is biased but comes from a
position of authority and thus has the potential to misinform and mislead.

The case rests with the reading public; as a newspaper, the Argus is
not supposed to take sides. However, we are here to provide a platform
for a positive discussion. So we ask the student body to conduct their
own investigation and tell us the following;

Who is right? Who is wrong? Should the Argus have published the
article without asking for research references from the Health Center?
Or was it the responsibility of the Health Center in the first place
to have quoted studies along with their respective claims?

Undoubtedly Mr. Chien mentioned certain websites at the end of his
article, which, according to him, could be relevant sources for
further information. According to Argus inquiry, one of these quoted
links (http://www.camh.net/) appeared to be the source of Mr. Chien's
article, the other two being Government Canada websites.