Scientific journals are not grocery stores where one can
gather findings for a policy like ingredients for a soup.
Two or three letters show up in medical journals describing
cases where doctors suspect a possible connection between
marijuana use and tongue cancer. (36) Tongue cancer then pops
up in prevention literature as an additional danger research
has indicated may be associated with marijuana use. (37) This
is not the way the validity of scientific assertions is established.
One study indicates a correlation between maternal marijuana
use and lymphoblastic leukemia in new borns. (38) Marijuana
is well-known as an anti-emetic. Other anti-emetic drugs were
shown in the same study to correlate just as highly as marijuana.
Some prevention literature now indicates that marijuana has
been linked with leukemia. (39)
These warnings are consistent with policy, but do they
reflect accurate science? Is there any evidence to predict
that marijuana use will produce statistically significant
incidence of tongue cancer and/or leukemia in children? The
research data in these instances support hypotheses and further
research, but they are not singularly persuasive and have
been subject to critically negative review. (40)
The discovery of the cannabinoid receptor system occurred
in 1990. (41) Despite the invalidation of most of the biochemical
research on marijuana in the 1980's, this didn't prevent the
DEA from declaring in 1991 that marijuana was a dangerous
drug because of its effects of cellular activities.
"Cannabinoids . . .wreak havoc with the chemical process
of cell division . . .cellular activity decreases. This interference
can eventually stop cellular activity causing the cells to
die . . .every function in the body is depressed."(42)
This is apparently yet another incorrect use of Billy
Martin's 1986 article in the Pharmacological Reviews.