Cannabis Facts

NIDA's 9% Cannabis Addiction Rate is 98% BS , Source: http://tokesignals.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Dependence-Rates.jpgI’m not sure how this story slipped by me, but I want to be sure this information gets out there.

Nearly every cohort of anti-pot activists/lobbyists love to cite the NIDA figure which declares that 9% (1 in 11) people who use cannabis will become addicted. It has been bandied about for far too long and has likely negatively influenced the national view on cannabis. 9%, even if true, is still a very low addiction rate for a controlled substance. It turns out, however, that these figures are quite a bit higher than the probable reality.

CNN’s Anderson Cooper was jointly interviewing addiction expert and celebrity rehab specialist, Dr. Drew Pinksy alongside respected Columbia psychopharmacologist, Dr. Carl Hart. When asked about this figure, Dr. Drew stated that he thinks true cannabis addiction is exceptionally rare and comes nowhere close to that 9% figure.

Digging deeper, we learn that the original NIDA figures that caused so much fracas are based off some pretty shitty science.

“The origin of this figure is indeed NIDA research first published in a 1994 article in the journal Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology…The survey was based on diagnostic definitions for cannabis dependence that were published in 1987 in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (3rd edition, revised) put out by the American Psychiatric Association. This manual has an inherent bias against non-problematic cannabis use and privileges the normalcy of alcohol use.

In its introduction to the section ‘Psychoactive Substance Use Disorders,’ it notes: These conditions are here conceptualized as mental disorders, and are therefore to be distinguished from nonpathological psychoactive substance use, such as the moderate imbibing of alcohol…For example, social drinking frequently causes loquacity, euphoria, and slurred speech; but this should not be considered Intoxication unless maladaptive behavior, such as fighting, impaired judgment, or impaired social or occupational functioning, results.”

So this 9% addiction rate that has been an aggravating specter haunting our reality is based off nearly 30 year old data that goes out of it’s way to indicate that slurring your speech is “normal drinking” and is not to be seen as “intoxication” unless something worse happens. Even today we still exist in a world that “privileges the normalcy of alcohol use.” On an apples to apples comparison, booze should be illegal, not cannabis. I don’t think booze should be illegal, but if we are going to call cannabis names and attribute it with crime, addiction, and ruined lives, we have to (at the very least) give similar attribution to booze.

Furthermore, the details around the source data are as follows: “One hundred fifty-eight professional field staff of the Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan, after seven days of training in how to conduct structured interviews, carried out the surveys between Sept. 14, 1990, and Feb. 6, 1992. The sample consisted of 8,098 subjects between the ages of 15 and 54, residing across the lower 48 states.”

We are to believe that 158 surveyors, after a whole week of training and a roughly 1½ year journey across the lower 48 were able to capture accurate data that generalizes an entire population in just over 8,000 samples?

It is vindicating to learn all of this, I just hope it propagates throughout the media and we can finally put this to bed. This just melts a little more of the bullshit iceberg upon which Project SAM and the like are standing. The HuffPost article goes deeper and points out some pretty interesting things about this NIDA figure, it’s worth a read if you’re curious.