Time for truth in cannabis science
The other night, I attended a lecture at Mount Holyoke College by Dr. Jodi Gilman, neuroscientist and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School. Her talk was advertised as a broad overview of the science of marijuana, focusing on the evidence of risks associated with cannabis use, as well as the changing legal status of marijuana in the U.S. I am an educator/counselor who has been working with teens who use drugs for over 30 years. I didn’t know what I would learn, but I went with my mind open even though these talks, more often than not, are biased and propaganda-based.
Jodi’s lecture proved no different. Most of the studies that she referred to — including her own — have grossly inadequate sample sizes and are still far from asserting conclusions about causality.
I agree with Jodi that we need to learn a lot still about marijuana and that the hype around legalization can — at times — overlook issues that concern me as a parent of two teens and as a professional who works with teens. But why do we keep trying to scare our kids? We know that fear-arousing messages accompanied by incorrect or exaggerated information are not effective, and can generate skepticism, disrespect and resistance toward any advice on substance use or other risk behavior.
Parents want their children to be healthy — I am one of them. But the question isn’t do we want our kids to do drugs; it is what is the best method to prevent and/or minimize harm when they are going through a life stage that, for most kids, necessitates pushing the boundaries? When are we going to stop believing and proliferating half-truths? What is the appeal of simple and misleading information when it comes to the topic of drugs and substance use?
Albert Einstein said that real science raises new questions, new possibilities, regards old problems from new angles, requires creative imagination and marks real advance. Fear mongering and inaccurate information is not true science and it ends up hurting the very people the (so-called) experts are trying to help. It is irresponsible and harmful to continue to stay on a path that has already led so many young people to not trust a single thing we tell them and put themselves in harm’s way. We need to talk about benefits if we are going to talk about harms. We need to accept that the appeal that marijuana has is not going away. And we need to take responsibility for the number of young people becoming more cynical.
— Rosie McMahan,
Amherst
Alternatives to suicide
While I commend you for bringing to light the too-often avoided topic of suicide, your column (“Between the Lines: Suicide’s Shameful Stigma, March 31-April 6, 2016) seems like a missed opportunity to spread the word about an amazing resource, developed in Western Mass Recovery Learning Community in 2008: “Alternatives to Suicide” mutual support groups.
Not only do alternatives to suicide groups de-criminalize suicidal thoughts, they de-pathologize this deeply human experience, as well. Instead of risk assessment or diagnosis, the group’s intention is exploring the context in which a person’s suicidal thoughts occur and the unique strategies that keep them going despite their pain. Alternatives to suicide groups are facilitated by those who openly identify with having their own thoughts or experiences with suicide. The group focuses on creating authentic communities of support where everyone is looked at as having wisdom to offer. It is amazing the conversations and connections that can develop when we are able to bring our whole selves to the table, including our darkness, and speak without fear of judgment or coercion.
Alternatives to suicide groups meet weekly in Northampton, Greenfield, Pittsfield, and Springfield. Get a schedule of meetings as well as other suicide prevention resources at westernmassrlc.org/alternatives-to-suicide.
— Caroline Mazel White,
Holyoke
