Fun with Warning Labels; Prop 65′s Smoke Screen
Friday, July 3rd, 2009The San Jose Mercury News reported that Marijuana smoke will be added to the ever-growing list of cancer-causing materials covered by prop. 65 in CA.
Putting marijuana smoke in this category seems misplaced at best when diet colas, which contain everything from saccharine to questionably FDA-approved Nutrasweet and other chemically engineered sweeteners are not included. (Sorry if Nutrasweet or Diet Coke is on the list, but I couldn’t find it.)
It is particularly ironic that marijuana smoke will be the only smoke on the list, given the level of industrial air pollutants that are not included on the list.
The purpose of prop 65 is to protect our citizens and drinking water, yet toxic molds are not included on prop 65! Further, “businesses are not required to provide OEHHA with any information regarding their Proposition 65 warnings.” The OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment) mission is to enhance public health and the environment through scientific evaluation of risks posed by hazardous substances.
It’s too bad the very studies used by OEHHA to make this decision were deeply flawed regarding the methods, leading to artificially high readings of hazardous compounds. Some of the leading cannabis researchers in the world published a three part study on cannabis smoke a few months ago. This study compared the techniques used to analyze cannabis smoke and they found huge flaws with current methods which produced exaggerated levels of side products. In some cases, the authors suggest that previous researchers left out essential information regarding their methods–making it impossible to repeat previous experiments or confirm the results! Despite credible reports which demonstrate that practically all previous research comparing cannabis and tobacco smoke is flawed and inaccurate, OEHHA went ahead and used bad science to support their politics.
A political decision like this, will undoubtedly cause confusion for years to come. After all the two main ingredients on the plant, THC and CBD, have notable anti-cancer properties. In fact, research which demonstrates that combining THC and CBD has synergistic or greater than additive anti-cancer properties, will be presented at the upcoming International Cannabinoid Research Society meeting (July 7th-11th in Chicago).
The leading researcher in this area is Dr. Tashkin, who has been employed by the U.S. government and for the last 30 years has been examining if a link does exist between marijuana smoking and cancer. He did not find a link between cannabis smoke and cancer, unless the smokers also used tobacco.
Prop 65 may cause future inconveniences for any cannabis patients who needs to be able to smoke in a public or private facilities, i.e. trying to ease their glaucoma before their eyes explode from the ocular pressure.
1) Legitimacy
2) Deterrence to non-medical users
1) This is a step towards regulating cannabis. A simple regulatory mechanism such as requiring a warning label, may provide some legal protections for those who follow it. Therefore by listing the potential harms, as on every bottle of a pharmaceutical drug, it provides a bit of legitimacy because the consumer is protected or informed, and because it reinforces the reality that cannabis is a medical treatment.
2) Often I hear criticisms regarding access to medical cannabis, specifically with regard to who has access to it and who gets it. Additionally, some are concerned that people who fake illnesses to get pharmaceutical drugs will also con doctors who recommend medical cannabis. A cancer warning would deter any casual/recreational user from taking advantage of a system intended to serve the state’s seriously afflicted and chronically ill population.
What about the Science?
A) the active ingredients in cannabis, when isolated or in combination have anti-cancer properties.
B) Cannabis smoke contains some of the same cancer causing material as tobacco smoke.
C) People who smoke cannabis have less of a chance of getting lung cancer then non-smokers or cigarette smokers
So, there is no concrete proof that smoking cannabis will cause or fight cancer but the individual compounds in the smoke have anti-cancer and pro-cancer properties. Meaning the side products of cannabis smoke can cause cancer but the most abundant ingredients (cannabinoids) fight cancer. How they work together remains unclear, so it seems unfair to label cannabis smoke as a carcinogen because that’s only half the story.
I know neither politics nor science is about being “fair.” However, science is the pursuit of truth/facts. So in the interest of truth, let’s incorporate what is actually known about cannabis smoke into the Prop 65 warning:
“Cannabis Smoke contains compounds known to the State of California that may cause or treat cancer.”
Please donate! Every dollar helps this site bring you the latest scientific findings!
Thanks,
Jahan
