Steven Ross: Think of the children
Monday, October 24, 2011
A recent letter to the editor in the Oct. 22 Steamboat Today stopped me in my tracks. Most of us are kind of numb about folks stretching the truth during a political season, but this enchanting fairy tale was over the line. Young people are going to get hurt, or worse.
The British Medical Journal “The Lancet” has been quite vocal about the respiratory effects of smoking cannabis. Consider the following excerpts: “Chronic heavy cannabis smoking is associated with increased symptoms of chronic bronchitis, such as coughing, production of sputum, and wheezing. Lung function is significantly poorer and there are significantly greater abnormalities in the large airways of marijuana smokers than in non-smokers. Tashkin and colleagues have reported evidence of an additive effect of marijuana and tobacco smoking on histopathological abnormalities in lung tissue.
“Long-term cannabis smoking may also increase the risks of respiratory cancer. There have been reports of cancers in the aerodigestive tract in young adults with a history of heavy cannabis use.
“Cannabis smoke may be carcinogenic; it is mutagenic in vitro and in vivo. Cannabinoids impair cell-mediated and humoral immunity in rodents, decreasing resistance to infection, and non-cannabinoids in cannabis smoke impair alveolar macrophages.”
If that were not enough, on Nov. 15, 2010, Roni Rabin wrote in his New York Times column Vital Sign that “Marijuana smoking often starts in adolescence — and the timing could not be worse, a new study suggests. Young adults who started using the drug regularly in their early teens performed significantly worse on cognitive tests assessing brain function than did subjects who were at least 16 when they started smoking, scientists reported Monday.
“The findings ... led researchers at McLean Hospital to surmise that the developing teenage brain may be particularly vulnerable to the ill effects of marijuana.
“‘We have to understand that the developing brain is not the same as the adult brain,’ said Dr. Staci A. Gruber, the paper’s senior author and director of the cognitive and clinical neuroimaging section at McLean, a Harvard-affiliated hospital in Belmont, Mass.”
Please keep children in mind. There are lots of Piped Pipers out there. Protect your homes and families from the harmful effects of smoke. Should one be willing to risk his or her children’s lungs and brains, that person might wake up one day to discover that his or her offspring have severe lung problems, expensive legal issues and marked difficulties keeping a decent job.
Steven Ross, MD, FAAP
Steamboat Springs
Comments
hereandthere 1 year, 7 months ago
"Piped Pipers". Thats cute Doc. These pro ban folks are truly shameless in the tactics that they are willing to use to pursue their social engineering agenda. Not only do we get subjected to accusations that the anti ban folks are participating in voter fraud for encouraging citizens to exercise their constitutional rights, we now have another "good" doctor attempting to portray users of mmj as pied pipers trying to lead the innocent children into using pot.
1999 1 year, 7 months ago
you know tobacco is legal, right?
1999 1 year, 7 months ago
being hooked on prescription drugs often starts in the young years as well.
how many prescrips to ritalin have you dispensed sir?
antibiotics?
pain meds?
anti anxiety meds?
have you prescribed ny of those to kids under the age of 18??
it's clear to me that you are the Pied Piper of prescription meds.
rhys jones 1 year, 7 months ago
The Pilot has sunk to a new low. By repeatedly publishing articles such as this, long on emotion and short on science, mostly favoring the ban, they abandon any claim of impartiality or objectivity.
This is more of the SOS, and I'm staying out of this one, before it turns into the Routt County War, which would delight our publishing friends. Bang the drum. Beat the dog. You so cool.
1999 1 year, 7 months ago
Rhys,
it is becomeing quite commical.
if you substitute cigarettes in this letter...you'd think he was talking about about our quite legal and easy to obtain tobacco products.
wierd
kevin fisher 1 year, 7 months ago
Oh the kids!
Marijuana does not increase the chance of lung cancer.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html
Guinevere 1 year, 7 months ago
hit the highway - short on science? If there's one thing this letter is not, it's short on science. And you think the Pilot shouldn't publish "articles such as this." I guess you think it'd be right to only publish ones against the ban? I believe I've seen several letters from your side. I am sick of the pro-dispensary crowd bashing everyone who dares to have a different opinion than them. Harassing and bullying is what people stoop to when they're intellectually out of ammunition.
S_G30 1 year, 7 months ago
I have to agree with Guinevere. Anytime a there is an argument against MMJ you get a hodgepodge of people arguing the same points over and over again. Perscription Drugs, Alcohol, cigaretts. Give it a break. Now we have an MD, who I'm sure you will all discredit, saying to keep the smoke away from kids, and here we go again. Smoke it if you want to, keep it away from kids, get a job, and vote. The horse is dead quit kicking it..
steamboatsconscience 1 year, 7 months ago
Yeah like the pro ban crowd is civil Watts last comment on the article "Dispensary owners help boost number of county’s registered voters" This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement." Because of that the Pilot deemed we cannot comment on that article anymore. I did not see what that comment was but she did accuse Kevin Fisher of voter fraud for LEGALLY getting voters registered saying he handed out the actual voter registration cards. she also accused the nurse who was doing consultations of handing out actual mmj cards which is also a lie. So the pro ban crowd uses lies,deception and fear to bully their point across. Look in the mirror guinny, you are the one who is "intellectually out of ammunition."
seeuski 1 year, 7 months ago
Freedom of speech Mr. Jones, don't think we have lost that quite yet under the current regime but...... Hey, is anyone excited about the first ever full test of the Emergency Broadcast System on Nov 9th? What is that slick cat Obama up to now? What a sly devil he is? At 2PM EST he is going to circumvent our entire communications system. What is he getting ready for in 2012? Hmmmmm.
BeCoolHoneyBunny 1 year, 7 months ago
Thank you doctor, your points are well spoken. I agree, don't expose children to drugs.
But that's not the issue.
If you are for banning, then the points you state have nothing to do with it. I would except more from an MD.
BeCoolHoneyBunny 1 year, 7 months ago
I am not for one side or another on this issue, but I am for logic, reason and common sense. From reading each sides arguments I conclude that the anti-MMJ crowd makes no sense and does not use logic. How easy these arguments could be shot down as non sense by a junior high debate squad.
In most cases their arguments to ban would do the very thing they are most opposed to, less regulations.
Saying it's for the children is stupid, it's not available to children through the dispensaries. Saying smoking is bad for you is stupid when you know there are other ways to ingest them that are not harmful.
Anyone with half a brain can see through the BS.
Kat Kelly 1 year, 7 months ago
If the MMJ Dispensaries would run like an actual Pharmacy and NOT a Head Shop more people would be in favor of keeping them open and see the good they can do for those whom really are in need.
Jeff Kibler 1 year, 7 months ago
Head Shop? I confess that I've never been inside a dispensary, but if what you imply is true, Head Shops are a helluva lot more interesting than they used to be.
trump_suit 1 year, 7 months ago
Steamboat,
Have you been inside a dispensery?
Did you know they have passed every single law enforcement check to date? Not just one of them, ALL of them have passed every single time.
Seems your comment is driven more by the anti-mmj hysteria than actual fact.
bandmama 1 year, 7 months ago
From a physicians point of view, I understand the article. But this is not about the children, it is about the right of legal consenting adults to use the medcation of thier well informed choice to lesson effects of the many ailments MMJ has been shown to do. I cant help but have a small moment of confusion when so many talk about the "children" and many of those same folks show up as a "family" to local establishments where liquer is freely flowing, in front of the (oh my dramatic pause)... Children!!!! Great example being set there, huh. Even worse? After tossing a few glasses of wine/beer or a cocktail or two, how many take the children in tow and get into the car and drive home. I have yet to see a child welcome in the dispenseries, in fact I get the feeling it is discouraged.
Scott Wedel 1 year, 7 months ago
Strictly speaking, this letter does not advocate banning dispensaries. It actually limits itself to criticizing a previous letter in which a mmj patient said he started taking mj in his teens and it cured his lifelong asthma. And so the letter takes issue with the suggestion that teenage mj use is medically advisable. Or that mmj is a good treatment for asthma.
The interesting part of the letter is how it says "may also increase" because unlike tobacco which does increase incident of cancers, etc, mj usage harmful effects are less severe and so they are right around the study's margin of error. It looks to me that living with smoke is generally not healthy, but virtually no one spends hours inhaling mj smoke.
And the problem of studies of heavy teen users of any substance always brings up the associated issue of what is going on that the teen is a heavy user. A teen that is a chronic heavy user of anything has other very serious issues. It is hardly surprising that a teen who started mj use prior to age 16 has more issues than those that started after 16.
Not that it is responsible to encourage teenage substance abuse of anything including mj, but mj is pretty clearly less harmful than teenage use of alcohol or tobacco.
Thus, a careful reading of Dr Steven Ross's letter suggests it is not taking issues with dispensaries since presumably dispensaries do not support the idea of young teens using mmj.
Dr Ross's letter is taking issue with a previously letter by Daryl Levin describing how he used mmj to cure his asthma.
BeCoolHoneyBunny 1 year, 7 months ago
Thanks for the summery Scott. It was kind of confusing since I didn't know what prior article he was referring to. Just assumed it was about the dispensaries, since that is what the paper likes to publish.
I do find the last paragraph confusing.
"Please keep children in mind. There are lots of Piped Pipers out there. Protect your homes and families from the harmful effects of smoke. Should one be willing to risk his or her children’s lungs and brains, that person might wake up one day to discover that his or her offspring have severe lung problems, expensive legal issues and marked difficulties keeping a decent job."
Levin's story says he started when he was a young adult in college. Why must the Dr. give warning to protect the children? Where from Levin's story does he take that someone is willing to risk their children's lungs and brains?
bandmama 1 year, 7 months ago
Scott, you are right at pointing out the the basis to the article. But most of us can read between the lines at the points of this view. Simply put. There are choices that are to be made by "legal consenting adults" and those same choices are not up to the children. As a community we have the responsibility to make clear those choices made by adults and what is......considered "ok" by those under/over the age. Booze, Ta-bachey, and Weed (yup I used the term most likely to be used) and script drugs are not choices that most want to allow an underage person to subjected to. While I have made my opinion clear on the topic, if we are going to go for the gold and regulate one substance than all of those pesky little vices need more control. As an adult, parent and member of this community I realize that to spend all effort on one debatable substance is pointless and confusing to youth in general. I am limiting "my" ability to think clearly" and rationalize any and all decisions on what is best for the "children". I wont do that. Be honest with the youth. Be fair and do all we can to educate them and maybe ourselves with an open well equiped mindset. Otherwise we just screw ourselves. The seemingly arguement, one one side vs the other is going nowhere but promoting hostility and closed minds. Not the brightest approach. In my humble opinion.
bandmama 1 year, 7 months ago
Ok, but have to be a smart a&& and make a small jab at the title, "think of the children". Smooth move, what about the adults fighting substance abuse of any form. It isn't just about the children. And to publish an article that brings out something to think about with such a heart tugging title? Really poor taste...and judgement. A mockery and/or complete irresponsible attempt at journalism. Again, in my humble opinion. Love always, Bandmama....HA! wonder how long this comment gets to sit before the Pilot yanks a chain.....
Scott Wedel 1 year, 7 months ago
Bandmama, The writer of the letter to the editor does not get to pick the title when published which is chosen by the paper.
I think the title "Think of the Children" is a misleading title and puts a slant on the letter than I don't think was intended by Dr Ross. I think a better title would have been "MMJ is not for childhood asthma".
And while Daryl said that he did start using mmj as an adult, he also said he had the asthma as a child. Thus, leaving the suggestion that he thinks mmj would be effective against childhood asthma. But he didn't actually go that far by saying that.
I think the published letter is seriously flawed because it is directly responding to another letter without ever mentioning the author of that letter and assumed the reader is intimately familiar with Daryl's letter. And then the paper put a slant on the letter with a title suggesting an advocacy position that was never taken by the letter.
bandmama 1 year, 7 months ago
Gee. Ya think???
HowardRoark 1 year, 7 months ago
I have tried to make comments here; my comments have been civil and honest. The pilot deletes my comments here often. Why is that?
HowardRoark 1 year, 7 months ago
Lets see how long it takes for the pilot to delete these comments.
HowardRoark 1 year, 7 months ago
Dr. Tashkins research proved exactly the opposite of what Dr. Ross states. Dr. Tashkin started his research looking for a link between mmj, cancer and lung damage, and he found that mmj opens the airway and did not cause cancer at all with miniscule damage to the lung. Watch this video for Dr. Tashkins own words, which have not been cherry picked by Dr. Ross in order to mislead the public about the true results of Tashkin's work.
Dr. Donald Tashkin Marijuana Lung Cancer Study Pt 1 of 2 by aolthof007
steamboatsconscience 1 year, 7 months ago
I was wondering where the anti mmj crowd got their information from. Now I know.
7 Chilling Reasons Why You Shouldn't Smoke Marijuana by SouceBalls
bandmama 1 year, 7 months ago
I still find fault with the, shall we say lack of responsibility from the Pilot to publish an article with undertones of.....religious/moral/"good old-time-folk" opinions. Facts folks...to back an opinion printed, one should include some thought. Not just "faith based words". Unless the ultimate goal is incite emotion. Oh wait it did. My bad and from a "NEWSpaper". HAHHAHHAAAA!!!!!
Requires free registration
Posting comments requires a free account and verification.
Or login with:
OpenID