Saturday, January 7, 2012

WHY Should We Drug Test Before We Allow Someone to Own or Carry a Firearm?

I believe that we should make pot legal, regulate it, and tax the hell out of it.  Part of that regulation should address issues like driving safety while under the influence - direct, or residual, and also the changes in the brain as it relates to other safety issues, including firearm ownership, and activities that might put others at risk like hunting.

We need to be objective about all drugs and their effects, we need to understand what drugs do and don't do, in demonstrable, quantifiable ways, as we do with alcohol.  In taking a more objective approach we trust people to make their own decisions, and we hold them accountable for those decisions.

Decriminalizing pot would put a huge dent in the money in the coffers of the drug cartels.  It would remove a huge and expensive burden on our society and government, and it could be an excellent generative source for revenue.

Additionally, as we better understand the brain interaction of the active chemical ingredients, taking a page from the tobacco industry, which has systematically changed the chemical levels in their tobacco plants, it would conceivably be possible as a condition of regulation to require a very low level of any chemicals that have a destructive or negative or dangerous effect on our brains, while allowing or even encouraging higher quantities or stronger acting qualities of the beneficial effect producing chemicals.

We have the technology; we should use it rationally.  The advance in our understanding of so-called recreational pharmaceuticals should as well encourage us to make more and better use of drug testing for a range of actions where impairment or altered judgment is an affect, including driving privileges and firearms permits.  We see daily that people are routinely in denial about those things which alter their performance and their ability to act, from text messaging while driving, to driving or other activities while using alcohol, pot and other substances and activities.  If we seek to replace the subjective with the objective, then we must agree to the importance of implementing testing and measurement.

From MSN Health:
FRIDAY, Jan. 6 (HealthDay News) -- Smoking marijuana can mean different things to different people -- for some, anxiety and paranoia can set in, while others mellow out.
Now, a unique brain scan study suggests two ingredients in pot may work independently to achieve these effects.
British scientists who watched the effects of the two marijuana ingredients -- Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) -- on the brains of 15 young men say the research shows how the drug can either ease or agitate the mind.
"People have polarized views about marijuana," said study lead author Dr. Sagnik Bhattacharyya, a researcher in the department of psychosis studies at the Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London. "Some consider it to be essentially harmless but potentially useful as a treatment in a number of medical conditions, and others link it to potentially severe public health consequences in terms of mental health. This study explains why the truth is somewhere in between."
The findings were published in the January issue of Archives of General Psychiatry.
According to Bhattacharyya's team, it's long been noted that cannabis can prompt the onset of psychotic symptoms, such as paranoia and/or delusional thinking, among otherwise healthy people.
"A number of studies have (also) clearly shown that regular marijuana or cannabis use in vulnerable individuals is associated with increased risk of developing psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia, where one loses contact with reality," Bhattacharyya said.

Just how this occurs in the brain wasn't understood.
In the new study, the researchers used functional MRI brain imaging on 15 healthy men, roughly 27 years old on average and described as "occasional cannabis users."
On three occasions under fMRI monitoring, the men received one of three identical-looking gelatin capsules: one containing 10 milligrams (mg) of the marijuana ingredient THC (deemed to be a "modest" dose); another containing 600 mg of CBD; and a third filled with flour.
Testing was conducted in a highly controlled and monitored environment, in which no marijuana was actually smoked.
The fMRI scans (which track brain activity in real time) were conducted one and two hours after capsule administration. During the scans, the men engaged in simple visual-cognition tasks (such as pressing buttons to reflect the direction of a series of flashing arrows). Psychopathological assessments were conducted throughout the brain imaging process.
The team found that THC and CBD appeared to affect the brain in different and opposite ways.
Ingesting THC brought about irregular activity in two regions of the brain (the striatum and the lateral prefrontal cortex) that are key to the way people perceive their surroundings. THC seemed to boost the brain's responses to otherwise insignificant stimuli, while reducing response to what would typically be seen as significant or salient.
In other words, under the influence of THC, healthy individuals might give far more importance to details in their environment than they would have without the chemical in their brain.
THC also prompted a significant uptick in paranoid and delusional thinking, the authors said, and the more that "normal" brain responses were set off-kilter, the more severe the paranoid or even psychotic reaction.
The effect of the other main pot ingredient, CBD, was nearly the opposite, however.
Ingesting the CBD capsule appeared to prompt brain activity linked to appropriate responses to significant stimuli in the environment, the team reported.
According to Bhattacharyya, this suggests that, on balance, marijuana may play both a good and bad role in the context of psychosis.
The study also suggests that CBD, at least, may "have potential use for the treatment of psychosis," he said, even as marijuana's other principle ingredient, THC, raises the risk for developing psychotic complications.
Dr. Joseph Coyle, a professor of psychiatry and neuroscience at Harvard Medical School in Boston, said the current work goes a long way toward "connecting all the dots" when it comes to understanding the marijuana experience.
"What we're talking about here is the kind of perception, in this case prompted by marijuana, that leads a person to think that other people who are just talking in the subway are all actually talking about him," he noted. "Or people who are just tipping their hat for no reason are actually doing so specifically about him. And so this paper strikes me as important, because it actually looks at this kind of increased anxiety and increased hyper-alertness which are major factors in psychosis -- and then finds out what's going on in the brain among people who experience them.
"So I think this provides another brick in the foundation when talking about direct causality," he said. "It links the psychological state marijuana brings about with a specific psychophysical response in the brain. And that's very, very interesting."
More information
There's more on marijuana at the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse .
SOURCES: Sagnik Bhattacharyya, M.D, Ph.D., department of psychosis studies, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London; Joseph Coyle, M.D, Eben S. Draper professor of psychiatry and neuroscience, Harvard Medical School, Boston; January 2012, Archives of General Psychiatry


  1. You're just trying to get a reaction. You don't believe what you are writing, and that makes it boring.

  2. I agree with legalization, and I'd support labels that declared what's in the product. I don't go along with regulated dosages, but that's a minor point. Marijuana doesn't interest me, and even if it were legal, I can't see myself partaking--just like what Lionel said about heroin. As for alcohol, I don't generally drink in public, and I certainly don't drink when I'm carrying a handgun. But I don't see what this article has to do with drug testing for carry or ownership of guns.

  3. I just love reading research done by people on crack and meth-heads.
    What an idiotic article.

  4. So you support the states that are requiring drug testing to receive welfare?

  5. FWM, are you comparing receiving welfare to receiving a CCW permit or to the right to own a gun?