HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0314.069 1996-1998 1 ~ = r
.
~p ; ~
11~~
ur .
c.
IN THE TABERNACLES OF NATURE, GARDENS ~F BEAUTY, WHEREVER TWO OR THREE GATHER, BEHOLD HE IS IN OUR S11llST
Phone (808) 328-9794 Fax (808)328-9426 Mail P.O. Box 828 Kaawaloa Hawaii, 96704
The Religion of Jesus Church, Alternative Energy Advocacy and The Hawaii Hemp Council,
are pleased to announce a joint venture [no pun intended] advancing the idea of the societal change to Hawaii
becoming the worlds first petroleum free zone, and the creation of a crime free 1 to 2 Billion dollaz a year
agricultural industry .
Proposal for the transformation of Hawaii from a petroleum based energy supply to a Hawaii produced
pollution free energy supply, created by the utilization of Hemp biomass.
This proposal is accomplished by
1. over a fifteen to twenty year period transforming Hawaii from electricity produced by diesel or steam turbine
to electricity produced by fuel cell using a methanol produced from Hemp bio-mass
2. to produce the fuel stock from locally grown hemp reinvigorating fallow former sugar and pineapple lands
3. to use this methanol in electric cars driven by fuel cells, with governmental car fleets and rental caz fleets and
buses being the first vehicles utilizing this technology.
4. to market and effectively use the valuable byproducts left over after the biomass portion of Hemp stalks are
removed.
It is our estimate that 185,000 acres of Hemp will produce enough biomass to produce: etctiveu
iime__-._- BY
3300 million liters per yeaz [MLPY] of methanol 3--?---. 7
~ County Coundl / ~-FC
which is enough to replace the 1200 MLPY of gasoline and the 640 MLPY of diesel fuel used in Hawau today.
Hawaii consumers pay around $800,000,000
per year for these petroleum fuels.
The fiber left over after that portion of the plant suitable for biomass is used is a remainder o£
1.6 billion pounds of fiber from 185,000 acres worth $400,000,000
and 450,000,000 pounds of seed worth $ 90,000,000
for atotalcrop value of $1,290,000,000
1.29 billion Dollazs. flr~ ~ 3 ~
In 1992 Hawaii Island's sugar crop had a value of $38.2 million. )b Ae. U 5
~ Presented F ~
r~ :ttIN 3 ~sr
v
The combined acreage of sugaz and pineapple in 1970 was 302,000 acres in addition to sugar lands the Big Island
has around 800,000 acres of pasture land suitable for the production of Hemp. Hemp provides a economic
opportunity for the Big Island potentially 33 times the economic resource of sugar.
We wish to promote the fair re-emergence of the Sovereign Nation of Hawaii and propose a 10 per cent of gross
profit tribute be either paid to or held in trust for what ever internationally recognized entity is finally established
as the repository of Hawaiian Sovereignty. Taxes were paid to the Hawaiian monazchy in 1827 in the form of un-
wrought Hemp.
[n Hawaii in the 1820's Hemp was reported to yield 13 tons per acre of fiber the above figures were based on a
yield of 10 tons of fiber per acre
We wish to praise the forward looking position taken by Mayor Steven Yamashiro's Administration [see attached
letter requesting expedition of DEA permits from the Mayors administration] Hawaii Island is in dire straights due
to the failure of sugar cane and the Mayor is in this case truly looking out for the interest of the citizens of this
island.
Rev. Dennis Shields The Religion of Jesus Church
Roger Christie The Hawaii Hemp Council
Michael Allen Alternative Energy Advocacy
fuel cell -n. An electrochemical cell in which the energy of a reaction between a fuel, such as liquid hydrogen,
and an oxidant, such as liquid oxygen, is converted directly and continuously into electrical energy. Fuel Cells
produce electricity by catalytic conversion of a hydrogen bearing fuel source with oxygen the by-products of
this catalytic combustion is water carbon dioxide and electricity.
r
a
Heavy Habitual Marijuana Smoking Does riot Cause
an Accelerated Decline in FE'V, With Age
DONALD P. TASHKIN, MICHAEL S. SIMMONS, DUANE L SHERRIII, and ANNE H. COULSON
Depsnments of Medicine and Epidemiology, UCLA Schools of'Medklne snd Public Health, Los Angeles;
and Division of Respiratory Sciences, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, Mitona
7o assess the possibk rd~ of daily smoking of marijuana in the development of chronlc obst+uctlve
pulmonary disease (COPD), w• avakratad the cites ofhabitual use of marijuana with or witltout tobacro
on tM ageaelated change in lung function (meawrtd as fEVt) in comparison with the effect of non•
smoking and regular tobxco smoking. A convanknce sample of 394 healthy young Uucasian sdulp
{68%men; age: 33 t 6 yr; mean t SD) Including, at study entry,137 heavy, habitwl smokers of mariju•
ana aksrte,112 smokes of rrsarijwrta plus tobacco, 63 agular srrtoken of tobacco alone, and g6 non-
smoker of either substance wan rewind from the grease Los MgNae community. FEVt wa s mea•
sured in all 394 particlpaMS at study entryand In 2SS wbjacts (a5 on up to six additional occasbns
at Intervals of i 1 yr (1.7 s: 1.1 yr) over a period of g yr. Random<ffects models wen used to estimate
mean rtes f darJlne in FEVt and to compare these rase between smoking groups. Nlhough men
showed a sI~nlRUnt affect of tobacco on fEVt dadlne (p < O.OS), In Walther men nor women was
marijwea smoking assotlated with greater declines In FEVs than was nonsmoking, nor was an addl-
Uva effect of marljwna and tobacro noted, or a signifkant alattonshlp found between the number
of marijwna cigarettes smoked per day and the ran of decline in FEVt. Wa conclude that regular
lobpcco, but not maHjwna, smoking is assoriand with greats annual rtes o(decAna to lung function
than Is nonsmoking. 7lrasa Rndinys do not support an assoctadon between regular marijuana smakirtg
and chronk COPD but do not exclude the passibility of other adverse aspiratory effscts. Tashkln DP,
Slmmaats MS, flrarr111 DI, tou(wn AN. Haag hablWal tssarQwna smoking dose not cause an
accaleratad dadlne In t~1f1 svlth aye. ar r titarta can tar tats tarrsuna[•tw.
Marijuana remains [he moat commonly smokeddpdt subsnnce of marijuana smoker (goblet-cell roetaDlasis, reserve-eel! hyper-
in AmeriaD society (I, 2). After more titan a decade of declin- ptasla, squamous metaplasia) (I?, 18) that ue consistent with
ing prevalence of marijuans ux in she Uai[ed States, an upswing symptoms of mucus hypersecrtion.
in is ttsehas recently been demodstnted, espedally among ytwng In eoetnu m the concordance of fmdings in recent studies
individuals (1, 2). Because the COnalilarnia of marijuana smoke with respett to the Impact of regular marijuana smoking on
aresimilsrlnmatryrespectstolhoaeoPwbacro(3,4),i[upttssi• chrordctespfatorysymptoms,ctross•sectlonalstudiesofmariju•
ble that habitual smoking of marijuana may lead to some of the ana uses in I,oe Angeles (15) and of smoker of nontobacco (pre-
same respiratory effau that derive from regular tobacco use. sumably and hereafter referred to as roarljuana) in Tlraon (16)
ThbDOSSibilityissupportedbysevenltsnlmalandeellularuudles, have revealedconNctingeffeetsonlungfunttion.TheLosAn-
which have shown [hat chronlc exposure to marquess smoke geles study (t3) felled to demonstrate arty rclalionshio between
can Injure respiratory tissue (S-9). Ahhough earlier studies in marijuanA use and impairment in testa of lung tunctlon, includ-
humans yielded conlticUng data about the associa[lon ttetween ing xnsltive indlea of smelt airways dysfunction, whereas the
heavy marijuaru smoking snd tUnleal evidence of respiratory Tucson study (l6) demonstrated obstruttlve ven[lla[ory deftxu
illness pt)-r4), more resent eliaicat studies have demonsvatetl a additive to thox attribuuble to regular toboceo ux Recent anal-
relatlonshlp between habitual marijuana use and symptoms of ysis of longitudinal data from the lUcson study (19) estimated
chronic bronchitis(15,16). Moreover, histopatbobgic studieshave significant decrements In PE V, in continuing male (but na fe-
revealed epithelial al[entiona rn biopsinfrom proximal bronchi male) marijuana smokes ? I yr after marijuana smoking was
first reDOrted. hiorcove4 these decrements were twice as large
as the estimated decrements in continuing tobacco smokers, and
the effects of both habits were additive. The latter data suggest
(ascvired h afpinol ram Aorii 3, r996 std in mired roan rune 1d, try6) that marijWM smoking might be a significant rifle factor for
SuvP~d by Grant No. sot D,W)ote from the nstlonet insnorles or Progressive airflow olsatructlon.
MotthlN,uanN tmettuu an aua Muse. To further evaluate the possibility that continuing marijuana
eamspondena+na raquesn for reprwro shwid be addressed a twnad v. smoking might lead to progressive declines in lung tunctlon not
rashLtn, M.D., Dep.nmenl of MWklne, l1CU ktroot of Medsone, ten M- con3iStently apparent in C(09YSactiOnal tllldler, we invited non-
gets. sooss-taco. smoker and smokers of maryuana and/or tobacco who wire
~I++~Ptr4tt6nMed VdtiS,ppsal-110.1997 partidpantsinarohOrtatudyofthapulmonaryeffecttofhabitual
112 AhtEAIC/1N IOt1aNAt Or aESpMTD11Y ANO CaTCAL laaE MEDICINE VOl r53 t997
marquaoa use (IS) to undo;o repeat lung iuoctioo ratios on we stso fined+semnd nndomstfcts condor in which tobsceo and
Up LO six addjtional OCCatWn! u InlervaL of u least 1 yr. The marijuana Wtaa rrar oonarant ooY.riabta, nubcr than tmedependent.
preunt rcporl presents the «sulU of the analysb of this longitu- For thif aaalysis, each subject was clauihM u a never or continuing
dinal study of lung (Ynttlor,. smoker of astir sabeurus setsaratdY, based on whNher the subject wu
dlhd a ttoewoker or ¦ smoky of that subwvtee u ach aad every
time, rapcdiwJY. tkherwise, subjsds were dusifud at intermittent
METHODS stnoksr for that wbthnct
?he initial sample consisted 01' haltbY volanleere ZS to 19 yr of age, RESULTS
including 114 hw~y, lubitwl smokers of marijuana oboe (MS), 173
rctular smokers of bob maAJuatsa aad tobatxo (MTS), M smoker or Of the 446 cligibk subjaW Initially enrolled in the study, 394
toWCeoonly(fS),aad97tsoosvlokm(NS)otasp.wbuantepSySwb• underwent measurements of lung function.Ikmognphicchar-
jau wcn ioitisuY rcrultedfrom the gwenl Los Artgda area through ac[aistics, smoking dates, and FE V, of the 394 uudy participants
newspaper and hello anooanumaU from 1913 through 1913. Cdkrla with evatuabk lung function ue shown io Table 1 by smoking
for study entry haw bcsn previously teporudO3A Speeinally category at the time of study eptry (Visit p. The tobacco-only
were peroro wllo reported current or prevltws utraveoow drug use a amokm were :lightly oltkr then subjats in the other smoking
cmokina of other i0lcit subatM0.Y (as, crack cocaine, pltwsycWiru, calegoties (p <0.0f). 7Tse marijuana smoker were heavy daily
rtuthampheumitte, ltcroin, ana opinro) mdse usw 12 ttma u t1a,Jr tivn smokrrs (mean of motx Than 3.S join[s/d), whereas the tobacco
or within the previous 6 mo. Persoas with ugaifkant aeenpadonal
posureatombsuncssparntiuyhsyrdptstpmpkatorybwlth,orwith smokerssmokedsnaverajeotnculylto].Spaeksoteigarettes
a hinory o?chronk resp(ntory Olness, ttcrealw rxelttded. Da day. The combined smoker of marijuana plus tobacco
Eligible subjects oomplded a AetaBed rspiramry and drug ux qua- smoked less tobacco than did the tobaccoonly emoka: (P <
tionnurcsdsptedfromtheAms+kan7TonckSaday/1VatlostalHan, 0.03), whams the curronl intensity and lifttims amount of
Lang andBioodltuutrote(ATSrttHl.etfgasstloanairs(2~ardtbeNa• marl}uaeasmokingwunotaigniffcantlydifterrntbetwanthe
tiontJlnstitutetmDrugAbuse(NIDA)aatlonwideuusryondlntgabuse dual and marijuana-only smoker. The mean age and tobacco
121). An «tensive battery of pulmonary fuaetkn tats wa afso per• coosumjNion of the female subjetts in cash smoking category ~
formed DetalL of the tarot praadma, mK6odf of Wndatioa, aad wet simile l0 those of the male wbjlxXS In the same category.
compultoa with apakd teferentx valsw uxd la the steely have btert 13asetine 9s pnditted FEV, did not differ across smoking tate-
dacribed prcviouilY (1S). A oohed of shoe partldpwu (56MS,12 MTS.
26 TS, and 10 NS) use uodawatl fibaoOtk htaocltoseopR Monchoal- Bona.
veolu lavaae (14A1), and brooch4l mtteoul ltiapkr u variable tiara Table 2 shows the number of longitudinal aSSasmenU by gen-
tollowint puunoaary fuactios tasting. AsvWU of tM brotlellosaopk der. The mean interval berwept tx)nsecutlve vjsjta was l.7 # 1.1
rtudiea haw been reported pm9otuly (17, 2A 3)lL (SD) yr, with tlllydrttnm and maximum lnlttt3la of approximately
Sinoe 1915. aknsive e(toeu have haw made w reaootad u tau I and 8 yr, rapedlvely. The mean interval bawern the first and
annually. by mall anti telephone, erg 416 partkipaou who)ud wader- last vkit for earl, subjtxt was 4.9 # 2.0 yr. Nearly two-thirds I
gone lnidd tatlag in 19U tAeoagh 19al. Mau wu eau oader a llS. of the cohort (253/394) were rated on two or more accaslons. ~
PodalServ{tsarnllauualtthalpror)dedthsserderwltbldeatlneadas Narly all of those slot rotated had moved out of the area or
of the address b whkb the mast was de{ivaeed. Parkipams who were wort othtu7vise lost to f011tsw•up The proportion of male and I
rose 10 to0o"~"up (Ot" '~pf0t ~ ~ °D ~a~°g ~ femafs sub ens who ttndarwent moro than one att of Lung ~un~-
traced thronghwork tebphate numbers, totltaeta 1rltb Iodivkioals idea- ) ~
rifted by the wbjed a gltdy m Lwow tds err err whawbaw, Suudepad- lion tests wet similar, and the proportion of subjmh who were
meat of motor vehltk roams, voter reairuatloa fuss, tbs U.S. goelal /atpd mor than ontt (MS 66.79s; MTS f6.37s; TS tS4.6We; NS
Seauity t«w.rdlna system, std eoasnwslal credit seareaea A Geld vhtt 7339s) did trot differ slgnlfipntly from those who did not un• l
to the tau know raidma of a panklpam sm utilized U atoassr% logo follow-up tatins by baseline arookiog category (P > 0.09; i
7heNatirnalDeuhlod«(NDgwuusedtoidsatitydatb3olkeshdy chi•squarsaoalyris). Moreover, within each smoking category. ~
group NDt seareha srerc run each Scar for indiddwb not kttoww so ,p sigaiflant ditferencu were found in the age. bassllne smok-
bealive at tM end of tbu yar. For datM of uudy wb)retr kkutlfed ~ or baxllne FE:V, of the subjats who were
by she NDI, death tertitlrnss and haphat and psshology records were OnnC and those with mtiltipll toU, acept That MTS I
requested t0 deteradlte the paM Of lath.
Rxamacted patddyams were tnvked ro naddgo abapuewt twrde in the ftdiar-up ywp were sUSbtly lighter lobaao smokm {l6.0
of «aminuloas at pMaN or a 1 yr, iadudiss an Interval ceplrtory cigaMta/d) than MTS who wtae studied oply once (25.7 rigs- 1
anti drug uu interview aed u Inu locoed orDitat«Y spiromstrSc 74o tctla/d) (p < 0.05). 1
«perkasdroehaieiaaswhowesssross•trataadutMuudyprooeduta Fouctan pattieipanh woe known to have died during the
performed ells initial and togow•uD putmonuy fanabu mfr. The same follow-up ptciod, Itttdtd(pg g MTS 2 MS. 3'15v and 1 NS [Chown
pulmoatuy hnalan pulpmsm and I++g+! proadarw wereaad ttaoual~ cauacs of death included sequGed immune dsficknty syndrome
out the uudy (1S). l2ttalfonwha wen at>odolstered by trafood our- (AIDS) (1 MS, I MTS, and 2 TS); violence (3 MTS); suicide (1
viewer. MTS}; drug overdose (t MTb~; breast Attar (1 MTS and t NS);
oats Analysts end asphyxiation from aspinled ftsod (1 TS).
For FfiV„ nndomtfkete modsUng was used b adman the rate of Ths numbs of sub)eets in lath smoking category who [e• ~
maiacd continuing smokers" of cash sub:tana or temporarily
dsctlns In lung Mnaion with sae u relation to smokhsg snttu roc martju• quit (tr started) smoking a particular substanpe during the follow-
ana or tobaooo at any polar a time, wNh utwking tutor a ¦ time- ~ ~iod (tintermittent amoken'~ is shown in'tybie 3. More
dependent srovsdabk (21, 2f1.Othsr Dotwdd rovarklrles were height than gpsA of smokva of marijuana with or without robaao ron-
(constentlaad Intrnsky of use of marlJuana (joints/day! and tobacao t'mued m smoke mar wets thfOu
(tieardtaadarl.the wbaaaa-.n.rt)taaa tntaadiaa..aa corms rtndt- U ts?tout tlrc touow.ap perloa, and
ins of each sulrwaor, whkh were all assered m cash survry (tieoe• a
~
7n
s7~rs of~dwl smo bacco acrd ma~uansa con- .
depettdtnU. The model also inclttd:d else from wbjoas with Daly rme J
muaureaxnL These stogie obssrvatltms ooatrlbua ro the sstiwte of tinned to smoke tObaaa Relatively few subjects in any smoking '
the utettept but do trot attka the slope estimate. The advantage of this ategory began smoking tither tobacco or marijuana Qttring
model is that it Blows for one a more chorea M smoking saws owr follow-up. Although moo smoker of marijuana initially (58sJs
ttma Anuyw were patormsd for sow and vapmap ssyantdy. of MS and 6791 of MTS). including thou who quit smoking ,
i P. 03
L / ~ s3hkfn, Simmons, Slleria, et d.: Marijwtla and Mnu+, Changes in FtV, 143
T,lata 1
1
i" ORa40GMF11K ANO SMOgNG CIIAMCtialalltl OF fYMlM AT VISrT 1
ieaftco Manluanf FEVi
N Mean Aqt
7volr0u (lA/F) (r4 ( IpOC!-yr) rie:,n/~ tpd-M (%wM
MS 101/30 ll.af OS• OAt0.0- 7.1 z0.6 4.1;0.6 Sd.2f rt.v t06l1.4
MTS affil 33.a x0.6 1a.4f 1.l1 16.0!1.77 7.6303 45.1539 106x1.1 '
r5 33172 76.7l0.4t T7.f l1J 21A l1.9 OAS O.O OAt QO 106x1.9
N! Sip) 71Af4a 0df00 OAlO.O O.Ot0.0 O.OSOA 10311.4
Oarw,ion dMambtlanr. M • nu1C r • faeatC !I! • 1NnhrN tmogn; 3171+n,,,yuMa pNf w5nm! Lnatf.4 R • teeacta snob
rn; NS • •on VMYenC lainl,/d • nurM,er dpW, (w 1~•OwvYMtll per dry, pil,tyf • nWnpp d'pinU Iw j0int<gyivalfnbl p;,
dry • n,/naer d nest ,naf4d.
• lEM.
_ 6~1~13~p<aos>.
1e10tlna ca710wfn (p < 0.05).
I
1
marijuana, reduced their dailyamouatof marijuana use, others of a mutjlsana e[fett wa, independent of the effect of tobacco,
(3141 of MS and 361Ps of MTS) increased their usr, the rraultant ad indicted by the similarity of [he flndinga for the different
avrnge teduuion in use was rNatively small (0.7 and 1 Joint Catesoiia of muijuana smokaa (never, conHnu[ng, Interrttia
anions MS and rif1S, 3espeuivelyj. Amangl/sitW tabsceo amok- trnt) when the analyses wan confined to either !lever tobacco
en, including these who subsoqumtly quit smoldne tobaocat a94s smokaa (Figure 3A) or continuing tobacco smokers (Figure 38).
of TS and 364E of MTS reduced tbeir daily numbs of deuatta, Simile observations were rated womrn. The slopes for all
whercaa 194a of'f5 and 344a of MTS increased their dally Ilse atesor[es of marijuana smoker ue tteeper among the contin-
of toWccac the mean changes in 7S and M1S were rsdltuions uing tobeceo smokers than among the never tobacco smokers,
of 4.8 snd 0.8 cisarettes/d, respectively. as a consequence of the effort of tobacco (not marijuana) on
Figure 1 shown the estimated decline in FEV, Mth age by the rote of destine in FEV,.
smoking atatua derived from the raidom-eftaeu model for men In contrast to lnarquana, the continuity of tobacco smoking
(Haute IA) and women (Flsure l8), with smokbts states [or did affect the rate of desdlte to Itmg function, with 6 comiueat
tobaesa and muijuana, and the tobaoco-muljuanalntetaction gradlrnt of inaeasiag desllne from never tluonsh intermittent
rntered as a timedependeat covariabk, in men, tobaeso amok- to continuins tobecoo stttoking, as shown for mar is F{gurc 4.
ing, but not marijuana:cooking, vat alnoclated with a signifi- Table t shows the results of randomeffests models, which
antty steeps dacLne in F6 V, ollmparcd with aonsmokins, in- are plotted in Figure I through 4; t few were used to duermine
dicatins an aesekrated decline In tuns funpkln wiW iacreaaing whether the slope coeffideots dl[taed from Zero The fisted
ace for tobaeso smoking but not for marijuana smoking nom- coeffkirnts lepltaeni the decline W FSV, with age for each of
Ferrel with uonrnMkios. $hnAu fbldittgs was aibseT3ed to womat, the rcfeteoa groups, and for the ooarekrenee getups they rcp-
although tlrcslops difference far tobaocodW not aohievestatisti• resent the ate of decline relative w each reference group. For
cal signifkance A 7Kgati;! intaaetkta M'aa found braiseal mut)n• eaamptt the results fa Flsurs lA Ir7dieere the the rcterence group
are and tobacco smoking In men but not in wromrn (Figure lA; (noasmokrn) heel a 253 mUyr sate of deslinq whereas mari-
'Ibble 4). Juana amokm had a 30.8 ml/yr me of destine, or a difference
' WhrnthcintrnsityoftnarijwnasmokingonFEV,desllae ofi.Sml/yr(wshowainTible4)fmmtherefaencegtoup.MTS
with age was examined in men, ao diffneaces were noted bor. had a derJiee 10.3 mVyr gteata titan did NS which Is the sum
lwnn even quite heavy marijuana smoklns pa, 3 Joints/d) and of the marijuana and tobacco terms and their interaction (which
noasmokisls of muijuane (Figure 2A). Simile fllldiags were is zero for aft croups exlxpt MTS). Slight differences from the
noted in women. In contrast, the amount of tobacco srnoltcd was f
figures aro due w roundoff error. According to the model for
signlflfwttfy correlated with decline in FSV, with ace {Figure Figure 2A, FBV, in marijuana smoker deelin6d only 0.036 ml/yr
2H), altholrsh a dose-response relationship for lobaao wan not fasts than in naumoken of marijuana for each joint per day
dtmonstraled in women. reguluy smok6d. [n Figure 3A (never smokers of tobacco only),
Fisurc ~ shows the e(fea of the eootinuiry of marijuana FEV, in intermlttmt and continuing smoker of marijwna dr
smoking among mm wbo were noramokeTS of tobatm (Figure clitted 0.47 and x.94 mUyr faster !ban in never smokers of mari-
3A)oreoatinuiastobacaosrooken(Figure3$).withmarijuana Juana, rapectlvely.
smoking Natty (never, continuing, lotamittenp u a constatlt
covulabk Neither the oonUnulns nor the inlvmituat msriju-
ana smokm eaNbitad cry ai;ni[kanHy diffatntrates of deslina
in FBV, u compared with raver amokaa of otmiluaaa. This luk
rAass s
coNnFam a aawaritc sTATUs
TAata J NW11eft a sngrm N Farll t:,,.awy
NUMaart Oa StIgaCTS Wn71 ONI Oa alOaE NSira ItaON Mt---~~ T_~co
Yivl M0. I ~ ! 4 ! f 7 TaW StaNf n Ce,WnuYq I~tfnna4nl aMt
Inlelmi
MS a7 71 {a e
fNM H H la ZS 27 ]t 11 76t MTS f) 46 1r 40 23
renal! 41 24 li 16 I7 f a 126 Tor 41 - 7 )7 !
ToW 170 7! sS I1 to 30 30 3f1 NS 67 - 1 - 1
j
1 3~-~ ~ ! TUE 06 : c. PM
P. 04
t41 AME3jICAN JOURNAL Of RESMRATORY AND l UL CAgE MEDICINE VOL 151 )997 1
~ MALEB FEARA~ES
A a.oo 9 t.oo j
I ~
aso _ s.ao~ I
i a.oa ~ s.ao ~
? 6.60 1.'~.,_ ` ~ 7.60 ~ -
~ ~ ~ ~
a.oo :.9a =
i '
~ i L~
1.eo w Se .o ~e so as eo 1'w so ss w as w 6s so ~
AOE (pa) AOi (Tral '
AmuY aNSn. NS T¦ Md a7i Na Ta Ye YTa
e FEV, eilil ri.a Ili ]Oa as M m, (rp: Md Jed !at Sa] '
Figure 3. Declines In FEVi (in Illln) witn aye (in yean) by 6mokirg status at any Irleaswement rung estimated from linear rantlom-et)ecU
model In men (A) and women 31ope coefrKgnts for annual decline in FEV, (in milliliters) for earn smoking status arc shown at bottom
of earn panel. Tne modN Includes terms wr toWcco and manjuana smoking status and wbacco-marijuana Interaction.
piStUSSION ~
ings from this follow-up study fait to demonftrete that habitual
Data from the present prospective studyof 253 Donsrookers and deity smoking of marijuana in amounts as much as 3 joints (or
smoknn of marijuana and/or lobaxo (meluding npptostimatery joinrequivalrnts) per flay is associated with greaur age related
150 huvy habitual tinoktraof tstuiJutana with orwithout tobacco rata of decline in FEV, than is nonsmoking (Figures 1, 2A and
smoking as study Initiation) who were tared oD 2 to 7 separate 3). These results tie lD contrast to the acLxlerated annunl rag ,
omsioas over a maximum span of 8 yr extend the suits of ofdedineinlungtunctionlhatotxvninregular tobaccosmokvs
an earUer crow-sectional survey of IuD>I function in 391 smok• of comparable aye ff)gures 1,18. and 4). Moreoveq no additive
ing and nonsmoking young adulu, whieb foiled to show any im- efforts of nsarijusna and tobacco on the age-Teiated decline in '
pact of lleavi; habitual muUuanaunoking (averageof>3 joints, lung futsctioa was noted. A negative interaction betwern mariju.
or jant-equivalents, per day)on lures fiatalort. LgsSitudlnal find- goes and tobeeeo, however, was noted (TAbte 4), as suggested by
uaLE ~
MNDOM EFFECTS MODELS ~
StOf'E COEfsICIEteTS ones VARWLES 0Y AGE
I
Slg7e [uNicieM
Fgwt WriaWt (SE)T- t P Valet
to NOnfmokeM -25.3
Matllwn+ -S.S (3.6) 0.9d ~ OJ3 i
Tobaccs -31.0 (ai) 3.6a 400025 t
Manlu+na-IOWCm inurxam -20.0 (t0.% 2.56 0.011
le Non•aaetn• -29.a
' Marlluano 3.3 (7.7) 0..6 0.65
Tobacco' -e.a (7,!) 120 0.11 1
MarNwna_tobct6 blterrtfl6rr 7.1 (9.6) 0.72 0.0 I!
2A N6lgnrpllera N maryuaM• -7.36
Maryuana armlM -0A76 (0.37) 0.099 0.92
id Nplsmaaara N blNCOt• -].b l
Tobacco amount -0N wt9
. 7A and a Nomnahn• (2,15) 7.q 0.00067
ToGgs -nu P.77 3.50 OA0019 )
MaNIVaM -0.97 (3,6) 0.17 07a )
. NgYlnatan• -Zl3
- T°b•ae -13.0 (3.7) 1.56 0.00039 '
} MNnnct 9•WP. sag +wYK4n ndcaln eaaNnn barn ,Yrmar prwa.
flop rplrifymr tN M par Tarr W raWrp N air,, •
~ M naArb ¦wtrrdt 1 arm r6r Mgnl toes Yawn).
INetf al amM rmMYq armum: marrywra • ma+bar d awMt la' ~ vYuWI tar r
6+riTl•^r4rpn0rMSn,6Nnp Wtw WMlarmrgrara o,W tey.rrof ~dwN~acfo+numw. of upsnnn txr
uq. wnyna. R9u•t U antl 6): o. my unr6na t . <w.tnuy in,tY•
••`rttt +Mencn9rr arm N t for N11a o tar aM tlhn,
h.rrnrr ~w~ng gum ams cFie,YU 7 rM ak t . +twr •mWrd. 7 . Mrmmenl unowirq,) - mmLw+rr. brWng. Srr tin rw ,
--97 TL1E db •I P. 05
a
ishkln, Simmons, Sheriil, rt al.; M. and Mnwl CMnge In FEVr US
q a.op 8 a.op
I
I 1
a.ao r a.sO j
s.w ~ ~ s.w ;
i
7.00 ~ 0.00 jL I
zw
w sa 10 a6 w S6 w Y~s0 0a a6 t0 eS w sa e0
AOE tpq AO!
MO 4•A4WNa 1{lgNTal0aY aJM4rAeAr ~ NO TOaA0C0 to CIOIOAV a7 CIOIOAv
Amwl eemn. Annue a¦eaw
y, nay ~ ~„e aid era/ Y /!V, ~ tea apt M.a
ilgure t. Declines in FEVI (in liters) with age (in yen) by intensity of smoking marijuana (A) Or tobacco (a), estlmated from random-effeRs
model in men. Stops coeffidents ror annual decline in FEW (In milEliters) for smokers of n, 1.5, 3.0 joints/d U) or 0, [t3, and 27 tobacco
cigatetus/d (b) are shown at ttw lwrtom of the figure. )
1
the similarity of the annual rate of decline in FEV, in the Com- yr) of Tucson, Arizona (19). The latter sample, which included
btned smokers of marijuana and tobacco and In the oonsmok- lee then l00self-reported smokero of nontobaao (marijuana)
ing eontroi subjects, in control to the accelerated rare of decline either alone or with tobacco at study entry, had lung function t ~
found among the tobaKo-only smokers (Figure IA). Although measured in 2 to a surveys conduced every 2 yrover a maximum
the dynamics of recruiting the different smoking groups were span of 8 yr. In the latter study, the estimated annual decline
similar, we cannot exclude the pouibflity that the results In the in FEV, attributed to marijuana Brooking ttporled a[ least der-
dual smoken of marijuana and tobacco trrlght have been in- ing the initial survey was 102 mi/yr, which was equ[valeot to ap- /
flueand by an inadvertent sampling bias. Nonetheless, tmrall, proximately S4'a of the predicted FEV„ in contrast loan expetted I
the findings in the presort study d0 not support pn association rate of decline of apptosimately 14e of predicte0 FEVI iA non-
betwecn even heavy, regular marijuana smoking and the Bevel- smokers. In the same study, moreover, the annual decrcmrnt in ;
opnsent oP chronic obstructive pulmonary dixase (COPD). FEV, anion;the muijuana smokers was twice as large as the i
Yhne(fndinjsareatvariancewl[htheresuluofaprcvious estimated annualdeclineduetocurrcattobactodgarettesmok-
Iongltudinals[udyln whichdatswereanalyzedfromastratifitd ing(6gmq,andtneeffectsofsmokingbothtypWOfsubstancn
random sample (n ~ BSti) o/young adult residents (age a 40 were additive (19).
t
i
NEVER TOBACCO 3MOKERB CONTINUING TOSJICCO tiMOKERS
q a.w ~ ~ e.os
I
..w 4• e.w I-
e.ool # e.oo!- ~ t
G E I
~ s.w i a.w= ~ f
s.w j s.oo'- _ ,
I
i
2.60 a0 a1 a0 to w N eo 0•w ~ >o a6 a0 to w sa w
AOl (rrq AOE (yn) 4
eAnnL41N M¦Vl¦ MiUY,TT[NT GeNTNylp aII~W NMa INT[a4OtFMT GONTINU41e ~
AnwY d¦dn¦ AnnIW OfaNl
M MI 1, silk Ma aLa aU rl FlM, pilot iPa 4¦ Ys
' Ngure 3. DadlnH in FEVI (in lion) wiN age (in yNrs) by condnurty of marijwna smoking (never, intermitunt, and continung), estimated ~
from leaser random-eflecu model among mete never toWao smokers (A) ¦nd eonetnuing tots¦cco smoken (B). Stops coetfidents for annual
decline irl FIYI (in milliliters) in never, inermittent, and continuing marijuana smokers ark shown at bottom of each panel.
.I
P. 06
146 AMERIUN JOURNAL OF RESwaA70RY ANl ~TYUL GaE MEDICINE VOl 153 t997
ji a.0o cocaine smoking during [he follow-Up period, and none initi-
i ~ sled Intravenous drug abuse. Asthma or ahu chest illness was
II+ not listed as an txdusionary criterion for participation in the
,FI e.ao Tbeon study (lfi, 19). It is unlikely, however, that the presence
oP rhea lllnasa would hsve accounted for the differentially
p a m greater rate of foss of lung fundion in the merpuana smokcrs
! ~ - _ compared with the nonsmoking or tobacco smoking participand
` ~ in the 7beson study (19). Although a higher rate of initiation of
~ sso smoking of other illidt substance (ag., crack cocaine, which
• ' I would be included u a aontoba«o substance) by the nonlobattro '
s a smokers in the 7Ucson follow-up sample might have contributed
to the observed excesivc rate of decline among these smokers,
it it of interest that habitual crack smoking has generally not
a'+0 so ss ao a se u so ~n associated with impairment in spiromaric indices, at least
in Dross-sectional stadia (26, 27).
) i To•~ooa_ A9E i7nl Although a "healthy smoker" eff«t might have accounted for
arVaa anelUllTTaI1T tOeTWl111q
I Aural ed,r the absence of 8n abnormally rapid decline in lung Function in
a rev, hex esa oar au the marijuana smoking voluoteert [or the Los Angela study, this
n 1. Declines in FEV, (In liters) with ors ca+tinuit possibility scems unlikely, ain« tobaxo-smoking participants
Rya a9c (M ye ) by Y in the same uudy did athibit accelerated declines in FEV„ and
of toWcco srttoking (never, inlerminem, and ranWuirg), estimated
i one would not aped that a "healthy smoker" effect would be
from random eHectsmodel in men. Sops coeffldentslaannual dr confined only to the marijuana smokcrs. Additional eviden«
cline in FEVI (in mlllttiters) for never, Intermittent, end continuing against a'9teallhy smoker" effect in the Los Angeles marijuana
tobacco smokers arc Chown at the iattom W the fiyun. smokers is their relatively high prevdenceof symptoms of chronic
and acute bronchitis at Visit I, which was comparable with the
prevalence of rhea same symptoms In the tobacco smokcrs In
the same study (IS), as weE as in the nontobacco (marijuana)
The reason for the diurepanry between the results of these smokers In the Tucson study (I6).
two longitudinal stadia Is unclear. One possible rason might A weaknet of the praenl study is the relatively low follow-
be dw to population sampling differcncea, lira the nndomty up rate (654a), raising the possibility of a diffuential Ions to
selected 7Uaon sample was mare likely W be representative of follow-up of the sicku panicipants, who might hsvc exhibited
the marijuana tmoking population at a wdole than was the Los greater rata of decline in lung fundion over time. Although the
Angela coaveNenceumpie, which may have selectively undo- latter posslbitiry scoot be excluded, the fact that nearly all
recruited "sicker" smokcrs. Other possible rasons for these participants who could be contacted and did not move out of
discrepant raulu include differenea in environmental or oc- the area returned for relating, that follow•up rates were com-
cupatiotulexpoturcs,tx3ncomitancsubstaaceabuse(uidcTrom parable across smoking ategories, and that baseline lung
tobaceq ouch as stack cosine, pheniyctidine, a huoin), intco- function was similar in those who did and those who did not
sity and continuity of muiJwna amokirsg,and other host char- undergo follow-up [sting diminishes the likelihood of this ex-
aderistla, such as allergy and coacomiunt illaesa. With regard planation for the lack of a demonstrable impact of continuing
to possible eonfoundiog by differences in inlrnalty and/or con- marijuana smoking oolong-function decline, particularly since
tinuity of marijuana use, it la noteworthy that the muijwna an accelerated decline In FEV, wgs detected in the tobacco.
stnokusinthepreuotnudywerepartk:u4rlyhavytwrentusas smokingpaniclpantc.
(manofover3Jointed)andreportedheavydktimeuse(mean Other potential con founding influencesthatmightRaveef-
of43w36joint-yr,deflnedaalheaumberofjoingpudaytima fasted the results of this longitudinal study of lung function
the number of Years smoked), and mat (8211 of MT5 and 7341 change include tystcmatic difference in technician or equipment
o[ MS) continued to smoke marijuana during she rntlrc follow- puformance. However, the same equipment was used through-
I - up puiod. In conerut, the muijuana etaokm In theTueton co- out the entire study, and all tats were Ixrformcd by two highly
hors were much lighter amokm 1 jolat/d, on average), and experienced technicians who adhered to a rigorous daily calibra-
rcpor[ed smash towsr gfetime Intensity o[ ass (man of g3 lion and quality control protocol (26), and were cross trained
marijuana jolnt•yr, wbrn caleultted as the rumba of joints per in apirometry using Ute same instrtimcnt. Moreover, any instru-
daY lima tbenumbs of years smoked) (19). Although the authors mart drlR or iatm«haidan variability in tau Prrforman« would
do ttol specify the conllnWty of marijuana use io thdr Cohort aol be expaled to dlffuentially influence the results only io the
of everrttatlJwnausen,contUtuingaqultUngmarijuatutmok- marijuanacmokers,tineesubJeasinallsmokingcetegoriawere
ing did not influence the decrements id lung fundion atitnated tested at similar lima throughout the follow-up period.
from their model Thus ditfermm fg cvrrnu and tlPtxime atnoum Our failure to flad evidence of progressive tuna dysfunction
of marijuana ux, or in contlauiry of use dtsriag the course of in the continuing marijuana smokers who we followed contrasts
fallow-up, do not appar w aceauru for tbs discrepant rcsu)ts with our own oburvstions that the proportion of these smokers
of the two stadia, dDCa one would not expect the more intense who reported symptoms of chronic bronchitis was comparable
I, • end prolonged use among the Loa Angela marijuana smokers with that of the tobacco smokers in the acme cohort (IS), and
' to have resulted In the much Iowa rate of dalinc in FEV, rela• that many of the continuing marijuana smokers have shown
v i live to nonsmoking (and even tobacco smoklna) tMn that whidr aA eatemtve hiuopathologic altentiotsa on bronchial mucosal
was observed in the 7bcaon study. biopaita u the tobatto-only smoker (17, 1g). However, these
Spedfieally excluded from the psaeat study was individuals simllaritib bdween the efftxtt of habitwl smoking of mariju•
wfthprealtehtgchronieebatdfsase,Incltrdfagasthmaceahit- anaandtobaaoonehronicrespintorytymptomsandproxima!
tort' of lntravenOUS drug abuse tx of amoklag substance other Monchlal hlstopathologY do col necesarily imply similar con-
lhantobaeootutd/ormarljttana.Masova,onlyaaatallminority sequences with rapes to bronchiolar and alveolar injury that
of the follow-upsample from tbisctihort (12.64.) Initiated cock might lead to smoking•rclated obstructive small airways diuase
r 1
- Tashlun, Simmons, Sherill, d al.: +derljwrv and Mnwl GMnge , ~ lI7 ~
/ i
mdyor emphysema. Althwgh sp ms of chmnic tmenettitia marijtwn smoke t. rhry were aceuatomed r0. which would
are believed to be reLled hirtopaths,.ogically to hypertrophy of not have progressed at the same ate with much more Drokon6ed
submucosal bronchial mttootuglands, alteratioru in dliated bran- exposure in rho fan of emerging adaptive mechanisms.
chin! epithelial Delia, sad hyperplasia of mucus•seeretingg~blet In conclusion, findings from the present long-term, follow-up '
cells (29), these symptoms of mucus hypenecrtion sro not study of hav)S habitual marijuana smokers afgtle agairut the
thought to be neceaarily linked to the progfpslve damage to concept that Mntinuing heavy use of marijuana is a significant
and narrowing of peripheral airwsys that accompany the evolu- risk factor for the development of COPD. These negative llnd-
tion of smoking-rehtted chronk obstructive airways disease (30). ingt, however, do not imply that regular tnarijusna smoking is
~ It is possible that the wntraslina effects of marlluana and free of harmful pulmonary eflecu. Habf[ual marijuana smok-
tobxcca smoking is the present study an progresvtve changes in ing is essodued with a higher than expected prevalence of aymp•
lung function m(ghl be due to the trarked dlapauity in the quan- toms of chronic bronchitis p5, l6), as well as a higher incidence -
tlty orthe two subtrortce that were smoked: an avenge of 4.1 of acute broncbiW (!3). Moreover, other evidrna suggests that
joints/d in the mar(jwna•onty smokaa vertu 2Y.3 dgatatea/d marijwna troy be an important risk tacror for the development
In the tobacco-onlY smoken. Although the precise amount of of respiratory infection (9, 33), altd possibly [esDlratory malig-
marijuarusmoked cannot be accurakly determined because of narlcy (36), Further studies are required to document the real re-
the uncertain reUability of wl(reported usage and the common spiatory risks of this commonly smoked substance.
practice of tharittg joints, it is highly likely that the amount of 7Mauthors thankMr. hrodt t.te torMs tecMkaleastnatxe
actual usage of marijuana was fat less than that of to(maa f)n area Mr. n Dermend for Ms aswrann u, rncafny and wuuny partlc~wnu.
the other hand, dllaaenaa in Ohration of smoke thrrwgh the
mote aenwty paebed tobacco dgarata (In which txllulwe IUIm
were generally itteorpOreted) and the rnoro lonely packed, filar- ,
less mariJuana }alto, whkh ate usually stroked to a slnaUer butt 0.eUrNKts
length, apptnximatelydouble the Lv ykld of the ntarliuana joint I, Johettone, L. D., P. M.O'Mallsy, and 1. G. gasman. t99a. National
(Ig). Moreover, differences In smoking topography (larger tv- survey resulu en drug use ham The Monitoring tht Future Study,
mutative pull volume andisthaledvolumeofmarijuanasmoke 197f-97,vomml t.SaoondarySehaolStuderds.Nu;onallnanrute
and a a fourfold longer smoke rMmtlon time for toari;taaoa thaw on Drug Abuse. NIH ArbOcatipn No. 9s-)s09. V S. Oevernmtnt
for tobaao), added to the differetltw in smoke Gltntion, may Primint Olflcc, WaaMngtoo, DC.
resWt in a fourfold gta:ata retention of tar In the lung[ of nsarlju- t. lohnxone, L. D., P. M. OTaatley, and O. aachmaa. 1991. Nattonal
area smokers compared with smoken of a trompanble quandtY su^'~' "s"ka drag nee trpn 71u< Monnwlna tree Future Study,
of whole tobacco (7 q. This ampllflelion of the aposun of the 1975-9g. Volume II. Cogege Stuaeau and Yomg Aduha. National
Imtilutt oa ~ Alxua, NIH Poblintlan No.943g10. U.S tJpvvn.
lungs to the smoke of nurijtraoa starrows the gap bdweas a > tut- enrol Pnonoa OJAm. WWtington, DC.
told greater quantity Of repo[ted swage of tobaooo to perhapr 3. Hoffmann, D., D. X. 9runonnann. G. B. God. and 6. L. Wynder.
art only approximately twofold greater exposure of the lungs to 1971.Os tee eareinogwkity of marijuana smoke. Res. Adv. Phyro- i
the smoke from tobacco eomparad with maclJwtw. Thus, quan• altar. 9:67-d1. I
titative ditferentxs dOM may oOt enll[ely e7tDla{n lh! disparity a. Nowrm., M., F. MaU, D. w~ialu, M. Fwl, and T. SxM.19s2. Fnc-
inlon ltudinalrataofdectiminlun functfonbetwanthetao uoaaUoasM°pWryguW°wapaphbmassspcerromnrkcbar-
E g aaerkatioa aJtheneranl cemppatma k INrljaaM and tobaoeeaaW ka
typo of smokers. 8vidmce that qua111atlve diKetence between ceadawta. Chroarerop. YI8:141-ISO.
the two types Ol smOke may be m0[e important than QU0.ntiU- S. Roy, P. E., F. Magaan•La9oiam, N. A. Hvy, end al. Bouts. 1976.
rive difference with respect to tM development of COPD de• Chrome Inhalaeba of snarijuw and tobtao in doss: pulmoeuy '
rives from animal s[udka In which morphologkand physlologle pslbolep. Rtes. Co+nnrvn. Chem. Farhat. Phnmacd. 14:705-Jt7.
evidence of emphysema wan found in nu upaed for 6 mo to 6. ~b"'an' R• W ^ D. W, Haydaa, M. C. 8nude, artd H. Roscnkrarur- r
tobax0 BmOke, but ntN in ret3 ex for Ibe lam! period m n77. Chronic manbvana inhalauon toxicity In rob. Toakol. Appr.
smoke from a rnmppreble quantity
of marijuana (32). 7. Fklacsn
maR 3w„ 1, R. Baktt, W H. Rotrnkrantr. 1979, Pulmo•
Peripheral depoatllon of Inhaled partcle in the lung depends nary gthobgie chango to nb exposed to mar{juaM smoke for one
largely on particle size If partkulates In marijuana smoke were yen. Toasrol. App!. Phermdeol. 47;SS7-J66.
aubitantiagY larger than lhOU In tobacco smoke, it could be ar- 6. Fllgkl, S. E. G., T. F. &ab, D, P. TasNM, M. O. Peak. A. C. kalln,
S. F. AU, J. R. Ssiky, and W. Skkker, Jr. 1991. Marrjwns exposure
good that these partltvlates do not reach the small airways and sae n~~, akttatimnro
alveoli as efficiently as the submkroNe panlele t» tobacco primasa. Phoraracpl. 8ksrhan. 8ehav,
10:6)T•d12.
smoke, and are therefore less Ukely to cause tluus injury n those 9. Hobo, G. L.. v. e. Pab+r, w. Ptreva, t. w. Ssea, W. C. Hines,
sites pllrnarllY affa~cted in COPD. thJ the sorbet hand, ANOdy- M. W. F4u, and d. C. Sorabergtr. 1980. Msrijvana, tarasYdragn• '
ramie measurements of partkles in marijtuna and tobacco Mbinol, and Wlmoeay amtMCtv41 defense. Char 1I:~t03-a10.
smoke, trade with laser Doppler veloclmet(y techniques, have 10. 0.ubin, V., and L. Comlut. 1975. 0.aplratory fvsctlon end semato4
confirmed that the lease median serodynatl»e diameta of use 08Y• !d Oanja ra ]arMla: A MNlal Mfluopological Study of
particles from the two types of amokearecomparebte (apprwtl- t t. CtCwp~ra~,
t7. S. n7wstum~etrwam~~ ~ Hasue. tt-to2.
peyeho-e8nipl rPaera o! bogderm swi-
matdy 0.3 µm) (33), thus relating this afttamWt• Arlene uw to n4 cases. rel. J. Addkr. 6:101!-!076.
The results of the present 8-yr study also contrast with find- 17. H+U, J. A. S. 1973. Testimoey in Marijuana-Huhlss Epidemic and to
ings from ashort-term prospaUve study (34) that demonstreted tmpaa oa Unhtd States StnWry. Jn HwrinBa of the Commiuet on
an accelereted daline in PPV, (approximately 314 of baseline) ten Jwkitry, United State Senates U.S. Croverameat Prinung Of-
i1n, Waahiogton, DC. 147-1St.
in 28 healthy male marlJwna smoken over ody 8 to 9 wk of 71. Heraardtt-adanps, 7•. t. w, Swatuon, tad W. 7. CaBglns. 197x. Pres. '
much heavier titan usual exptsstsre (mesa of S Jaints/s1, tompslred madon of patmoMry Nnotioa is «gular, heavy, tong-arm tnariiu-
whhtheir customary useotan averegeot 1 joirUtq. One month area smokers (alwtw:o• Arr. Rev. RaJrlr, D4. 113(Suppl.):100.
after eaaaatlon of tNs unuwaUy Aeavy was, the latter sub)cels r.. aouloveonr4, r. c., C. P. P.nayteaepwtss, II. AnIYMa, A. lr4o.,
exhibited a return op[~el~ FHYa [o baxllne, Ahhough It V dlffi- end C. Stefano. 1976. Eff~ssa orehronie tuuhlah was on medial aa-
cuh t0 explain the disctepanry between thew two prospective tun is M users eomperN with 18 coarrolr. Ann. MY. Acad. Srl.
782:166-c71. f
atUdte, it b paulbk that the parlklpanls In the short-tQmltudy l!. Tuhkia, D. P., A. H. Coulson, Y. A. Clark, M. Shnmons, L. B. Spur-
(3d) experienced a tempOrerily steep step-dactlne in their dung g, pyann.0. H. Bpivty, tnd H. OonB. n87. Rpdratory sYmp•
function. otter auy expaure or tJ,dr tlcways to much troy toeu and tuns nu?.loo to Uaeltvtl,h.vyanoksn or meriivana aba,
' Ue\1Ct, F.~.V http:~iwvw,dmneto~g,-ll.~fLE, Faq.hm~i
DRC/Vet
~.v,
A Different Look at DARE
Drug Abuse Resistance Education
(DARE) Fact Sheet
DARE is a school-based anti-drug curriculum from the Los Angeles Police Department and
Unified School District. DARE was originated by ex-Chief Daryl Gates in order to place
police officers in our schools. With the support of local law enforcement, DARE has grown
into an expensive program that consumes upwards of $700 million federal, state, and local
tax dollars each year.
Dces DARE keep child~rn off of drugs? What trends an shown by nationwide ,surveys of adolescent drug
usel
Researcher Lloyd Johnston of the University of Michigan conducts the nationwide
"Monitoring the Ruture" Survey each year for drug use trends. A third ofeight-graders,
mostly 13-year olds, report using illegal drugs. Marijuana use more than doubled anion g
eight-graders between 1991 and 1994. Two-thirds of eight-graders have tried alcohol. A
quarter say they still drink. Twenty-eight percent say they have been drunk at least once.
Smoking among eight-graders rose 30% between 1991 and 1994. If DARE is effective on a
national basis, should not these trends be in the opposite direction? Lloyd Johnston said, "I
have to conclude that DARE has had little or no effect except to give police officers
something to do." [Las Vegas Sun, 5/1-2/94] An editorial in the Worcester, Mass. Telegram
lamented: "Chie disturbing fact: While DARE has expanded, drug abuse and cigarette
smoking among young people have increased nationwide." [Sunday Telegram, 1/28/96].
What do scientific evaluations of the DARE program indicate? Is the research valid?
Although DARE supporters aze quick to claim "popularity saving only one child
positive relations with the police valid evaluations of DARE consistently show no
program effectiveness in the primary objective of "keeping kids off drugs.' Numer ous
studies show that some DARE students [males and suburban children) are more likely to use
drugs as compared to non-DARE students. These disturbing findings document the dreaded
"boomerang effect", or an outcome exactly opposite that desired. The Res eazch Triangle
Institute [RTI -Durham, NC 919-541-6000] was commissioned by the Department of
' Justice to evaluate DARE. Although passing extensive peer review for validity, the RTI study
was rejected by both Justice and DARE [USA Today, 10/4/94, p2A]. T he RTI findings
were published in the American Journal of Public Health [9/94 p 1399], and showed that
° hc~://wwm.dmn<[o~ll~UZEifnq.hunl
DARE students used mor. narijuana.. "DARE'S effects were lu~uted to essentially
non-existent." - RTI researcher Dr. Susan Ennett. "An important implica tion is that DARE
could be taking the place of other, more beneficial drug use curricula that adolescents could
be receiving."
Are police o~cers suited to lead a program of behavioral
psychology to adolescents? Should all students
receive DARE d How does the image of the o~cer
fare if the central message of DARE is rrjected?
The following excerpts are from "Truth and DARE: Tracking Drug Education to
Graduation and as Symbolic Politics" E. Wysong and R. Aniskiewicz [Indiana University], D.
Wright [Wichita State University] Social Problems, Vo1.41 No. 3, August, 1994. Pp 448-472.
(with extensive references):
"As a result of attempting to prevent all drug experimentation and/or use, Dare's
objectives are not only unrealistic but also possibly counter-productive because they are
obviously unattainable The finding of significantly higher hallucinogen us a among the
DARE group raises the possibility that drug education programs may increase student
curiosity about drugs and lead to earlier and greater drug experimentation [On
comparison of DARE vs. Non-DARE students]: there was a sharp declin a in positive
attitudes toward police, and a growing unwillingness to condemn peer's consumption of
alcohol Imposing DARE upon divided studies confirm this prospect and demonstrate
that when `socially-deviant youths are required to participate in the school setting in
peer-led denunciation of activities they value, they are more likely to become alienated
than converted"'
Is DARE harmful to children? Are indications of trouble that a parent should be laoksng out
for?
The slightly revised 1994 DARE curriculum has been implemented as an untested
experimental program, lead by police officers who have insufficient qualifications to teach
behavioral psychology. The core of the DARE curriculum are "refusal skills" or eight ways to
"Say No." These include techniques such as "Repeated refusal, walking away, or giving the
'cold shoulder'." Role playing with the ultimate authority figure [a police officer in uniform]
instills these responses which will be used against other legitimate authority figures. DARE'S
instructions to "Just ignore the person." May inadvertently be re-directed toward parents and
teachers. Worse, empowering children to decide for themselves on whether or not to use
drugs can boomerang" A DARE studen t may "Just say OK" when they themselves decide it
is time to experiment with drugs. Parents should a aware of these trends among fight
through eight-graders. Please copy and share this sheet with parents, teachers, the media,
school, government and pol ice officials.
Written by Steve Wallace
http:~,.7 mgLb[ary.o[g/xhal[eylibcury; dammenuhvn
Schafferfl,ibrary
'`f." `Th'ug policy
An Analysis of DARE
A series of articles about the Drug Abuse Resistance Education program in schools
Links to Other DARE Pages
The following two links are highly recommended for additional information on DARE.
DRCNet DARE Pare
The Other Side of DARE
Does DARE work?
No. All the major research on the effectiveness of DARE shows that it has no impact on
the rate of drug use by children who go through DARE training. These reports include:
1991 Kentucky study -National Institute on Drug Abuse - "No statistically significant
differences"
1990 Canadian Government study "DARE had no significant effect on the use
of...marijuana, acid, heroin, crack, glue and PCP"
1993 Research Triangle Institute -National Institute of Justice -Statistical analysis of all
DARE research, which says DARE has "a limited to essentially non-existent effect" on
drug use.
The #-anal edition of the largest evaluation of the DARE program has concluded that the
Anti-Drug program does not reduce drug use, and in at least category of pot, the DARE
graduates smoked more frequently than the control. The report concluded: "The DARE
program's limited effect on adolescent drug use contrasts with the program's popularity
and prevalence. An important implication is that DARE could be taking the place of
other, more beneficial drug education programs that kids could be receiving"How
Effective is DARE, American Journal of Public Health Sept 1994 p1399
Among the notable quotations from researchers: * "Its well established that DARE doesn't
work" 'Gilbert Botvin - Cornell Medical Center * "Research shows that, no, DARE hasn't
been effective in reducing drug use" William Modzeleski, Top Drug education official at the
+.y an,~ub[ary.o[~ sciialkc, ;ibraryi darem<nuhvn
Department of Educatioi
* "I think the program should be entirely scrapped and redeveloped anew." Dr. William
Hansen, who helped design the original DARE
And the DARE defenders -
Glenn Levant, executive director of DARE, called studies flawed, and suggested that we
need to study the problem for the next seven years. He then said "We're like apple pie".
"..surveys across the nation show kids who take the DARE course are much less likely to
use drugs". Mike Muiller, police officer and DARE instructor, who may have unwittingly
shown why DARE is failing.
Michael Milken, famous junk bond king found guilty of securities fraud, was among the
"noted" volunteers who show young kids how to live.
o Past and Future Directions of t_hP D A RF Program• A_n Evaluation Revieg; (380K -big
file) Draft Final Report by Research Triangle Institute September 1994
This is the study done by the Research Triangle Institute to evaluate the effectiveness of the
DARE drug-education program in the schools. The basic conclusion was that DARE was
highly popular with both police and the school officials, but had no real effect on long-term
drug use.
A Personal Experience wi h D RF _
D RF car • T ~m'ngGhidren Into Informan ?
US Rejec s ~nfavorahlP DARE ti,dT STUDIES FIND DR PRO RAM NOT
EFFECTIVE Yet high-level supporters argue "it's better to have it than not have it"
Cliff Schaffer's Home Pam