Tobacco Documents Online

NATIONAL REViaw Btna.tTlN ]dW. 24, 1978 ; T HERE IS NO 2EAL like that of the convert, and In that sense the anti-smoking crusade of HEW Sec- retary Joseph Califano Is fully understandable. A former 6eavy smoker himself (three packs a day). Califano wants to persuade and/or coerce the rest of us into going along with his new-found aversion to tobacco. He has announced a=23-million HEW pro- rram to put a balt to smoking, replete with anti- tobacco federal "education,^ suggested anti-amuking At Home taxes, and encouragement to the states to adopt tough swi-smokins laws. As Califano acknowledges, there are limits to what the Feds can do, given the political strength of the tobacco states and the fact that tobacco is indigenous to our culture. He seems to feel the proper role for HEW is that of an opinion-molder. It will take a while to find out, but it seems likely this crusade will have some impact. The signaling power of the Federal Government on matters of this type is potentially quite great.'With spokesmen harping on the issue, lota of lurid descriptions of the health hazards of tobacco, and constant harassment of smokers, It seems probable that the use of •tobacco products will be affected. I ' All this beini so, one has to wonder why the federal signaling power is being used In just the opposite fash- iion with respect to marijuana. This is a substance that, vn the recent scientific evidence, ia far more dangerous than tobacco in many ways (though the pot promoters have tried for years to tell us otherwise). Yet for some mysterious reason, the self-same HEW that Is sound- ins every possible alarm concerning tobacco Is reluc- tant to say anything disparaging about marijuana. The evidence on mari juana suggests, for instance, that it can cause extensive brain damage, which to- bacco of course does not. It has been known for some time that marijuana causes mental disorientation in the user; it now appears the reason for this effect is the impact of the drug on the physical structure of the brain. Such have been the findings of Dr. Robert Heath, chairman of the Department of Psychiatry and Neurology at Tulane, Professor A. M. G. Campbell of Bristol Royal United Hospitala, and other researchers in Great Britain. Oxford Professor William D. Paton, 6 r and that later Irreversible changes occur with loss of brain substance, due either to interference with the capacity of brain cells to synthesize their requirements or to interference with cell diviaion:" - In addition, we now have evidence that marijuana e.an aifect the structure of the chromosomes, eell re- production, the immune response. and sexual funetion- ing, among other thinys. In a remarkable series of hearings four years ago, the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee heard a parade of scientific witnesses testifying to all these things. Among the experts who spelled out the serious consequences of marijuana use were Dr. Gabriel Nahaq of Columbia Universlty, Dr. Cecile Leuchtenberger of the Swiss Institute for Ex- perimental Cancer Reseanh, Dr. Morton Stenchever of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Utah, and Dr. Hardin B. Jones, profes- sar of Medical Physics at the University of California. As the committee summarized the evidence presented by these authorities: "Marijuana, even when, used In moderate amounts, causes massive damage to the entire cellular process. . . . There is also a growing body of evidence that marijuana adversely affects the reproduc- tive process in a number of ways, and that it poses a serious danger of genetic damage and even of genetic mutation." Needless to rsmark, there Is no sach evi- dence available concerning tobacco. f1lEN 1N TERMS OF BRONCHIAL and pulmonary disorder, the eftects of marijuana are more severe than those of tobacco. Heath, Paton, and Leuchtenberger all pro- vided comparisons between tobacco and marijuana, and discovered that, in virtually every respect, marijuana was the worse offender. Dr. Heath, for instance, testi- lied concerning the effects of marijuana on animal sub- jecta: "We have used tobacco as control in other studies we have reported, and it does not induce these changes (in brain function]. ... Marijuana is much more harsh and Irritating than tobacco and produces considerable irritation in the respiratory tract of these animals. ... We feel this was the reason ... two animals developed pneumonia and subsequently died ^ - This negative verdict was confirmed in studia, con- ducted by the U.S. Army, of soldiers In West Germany who began as casual marijuana smokers and worked their way up to more potent cannabis preparations such as hashish. According to the Army analysis, one year of heavy cannabis smoking-twenty cigarettes a day- produces as much pharynyitis, bronchitis, emphysema, and other respiratory ailments as would be expected from smoking twenty to forty tobacco cigarettes a day who heads the British drug research program, sums for twenty years. O3'74509'7 up the data this way: 'I'hese findings converge to a 1By any measure, therefore, cannabis is a more seri- e remarkable extent in supporting a prima-facie view that f ous danger to health than Is tobacco. Yet the Federal repeated cannabis [marijuana] use acts on the deeper Government that is signaling people not to use tobacco part of the brain-where sensory information is pro- is simultaneously wip-wasgin5 the message th~t use cessed and mood controlled; that this Is at first reversi- ~ of marijuana is perfectly okay. Row oomei bie, but becomes more persistent as cumulation occurs; ' b(, gTaxTOi4rEvaNe