Original Content Archives - Genetic Literacy Project

With a growing number of US states legalizing marijuana use, scientists and policymakers are once again engaged in a pitched battle over the risks and benefits of THC, the primary psychoactive component of marijuana. Proponents argue that legalization offers important benefits, citing evidence that marijuana may help treat a variety of medical conditions ranging from chronic pain to epilepsy and nausea, while generating substantial revenue–as much as $60 billion according to one estimate–for state and local governments. Legalization, advocates add, also protects public health as safer, regulated sources of marijuana come online to replace black-market alternatives.

But the situation appears to be more complicated than many legalization proponents let on. Critics cite research showing that lax marijuana laws tend to significantly increase use, amplifying the drug’s harmful side effects. For example, some studies show that legalization boosts emergency room visits for psychosis and cannabis hyperemesis syndrome (CHS)—an unpleasant condition characterized by simultaneous screaming and vomiting, often called scromiting. “With the widespread use, increased potency and legalization of marijuana in multiple states in the U.S., CHS may be becoming increasingly common,” the Cleveland Clinic warns.

And while the direction of the association is uncertain (does THC cause mental health disorders or do people with those disorders gravitate toward marijuana) it’s clear the drug is linked to conditions like schizophrenia.

Although drug prohibition is usually the purview of social conservatives, former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson has emerged as perhaps the most forceful opponent of legalization in recent years, arguing in his 2020 book “Tell Your Children: The Truth About Marijuana, Mental Illness, and Violence” that cannabis is far more harmful than the public has been told.

To make sense of these competing claims, Cam and Liza speak with Reason Foundation health care policy analyst Jacob James Rich about his critique of Berenson’s work and the broader effects of drug legalization. Is it time to fully legalize marijuana, or has the public been sold a bill of goods by the drug’s defenders? Let’s take a look.

Jacob James Rich is a policy analyst at Reason Foundation, specializing in prescription and illegal drug regulations. He holds master’s degrees in mathematics and economics and is currently a Ph.D. student at Case Western Reserve School of Medicine. Follow him on X @jacobjamesrich.

Dr. Liza Dunn is a medical toxicologist and the medical affairs lead at Bayer Crop Science. Follow her on X @DrLizaMD

Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Visit his website and follow him on X @camjenglish

There’s a growing panic over per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), most recently targeting fluoropolymers used in medical devices. The issue is presented to the public as a grave health threat: “forever chemicals” lurking in medical devices and other seemingly innocuous products that could cause terrible harm. In reality, it’s another campaign by the “activist-tort-lawyer-media complex” that threatens lifesaving technology through fear-driven narratives rather than scientific evidence, says GLP founder Jon Entine. Rather than a danger to public health, fluoropolymers, a subset of PFAS, are critical tools that have saved millions of lives due to their unique properties such as chemical stability and durability.

These materials have proved their safety and efficacy in spades. Yet, activists and tort lawyers, often backed by ideological and gullible media outlets, have demonized all PFAS, leading to calls for blanket bans, as seen in the EU where countries like Germany and Sweden push for restrictions.

Like so many chemical risks, PFAS harms are wildly exaggerated, with recent research showing that low-level exposure primarily comes from water, not consumer products like medical devices. Entine chastises the Environmental Working Group (EWG) for needlessly scaring the public, a tactic echoed by the EPA’s 2019 action plan labeling all PFAS as hazardous despite the fact that this class of chemicals includes over 4,000 compounds varying widely in toxicity. This one-size-fits-all approach ignores toxicology’s bedrock principle of “the dose makes the poison.” In fact, fluoropolymers are not bioavailable due to their high molecular weight, making them perfectly safe when used as intended.

Bottom line: banning fluoropolymers could disrupt medical supply chains and hinder innovation, putting millions of lives in harm’s way. The smarter approach? Perform individual chemical risk assessments to balance safety and utility and reject simplistic activist-driven narratives that disregard sound science.

Podcast:

Join hosts Dr. Liza Dunn Cameron English and Jon Entine on episode 318 of Science Facts and Fallacies as they discuss:

Jon Entine is the founder and executive director of the Genetic Literacy Project. Follow him on X @jonentine.

Dr. Liza Dunn is a medical toxicologist and the medical affairs lead at Bayer Crop Science. Follow her on X @DrLizaMD

Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Visit his website and follow him on X @camjenglish

Starting around 2010 or 2011, events converged in ways that made prescription pills less widely available. Law enforcement cracked down on pill mills, the maker of Oxycontin made the pill harder to crush, physicians tightened their prescribing practices, and more states created prescription registries to help identify people who were obtaining prescriptions by “doctor shopping”—that is, by seeking prescriptions from multiple physicians at the same time.

While this initial response was necessary to clamp down on unethical prescribing, it metastasized into a broader campaign against medical opioid use more generally, in which legitimate patients who needed pain control were denied access to medicine and their physicians were prosecuted and often convicted for drug trafficking. It’s an approach that unfairly penalizes upstanding doctors, disrupts patient care, and raises concerns for public health: many people have been left to languish in pain so severe they take their own lives or overdose after turning to street drugs like heroin.

The ongoing anti-opioid campaign has blurred the line between responsible medical practice and illegal activity, with laws like the Controlled Substances Act, meant to combat drug trafficking, being punitively applied to clinicians. On this episode of facts and fallacies, author and medical malpractice attorney Ron Chapman joins Cameron English to discuss how we can restore the balance between accountability and compassion, protecting the public from bad actors while providing appropriate medical care to patients who need it.

Ron Chapman is a federal criminal defense attorney and author of the book Truth and Persuasion. Visit his Substack and follow him on X @RonChapmanAtty.

Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Follow him on X @camjenglish

Join hosts Dr. Liza Dunn and GLP contributor Cameron English on episode 313 of Science Facts and Fallacies as they break down these latest news stories:

Activists routinely blame modern agriculture, plant breeding, and pesticide use for reduced nutrient density in fruits and vegetables, but this assertion is oversimplified and exaggerated, ignoring the complexities of food production and consumption. Often overlooked is that modern breeding focuses on sensory appeal and post-harvest durability to increase consumption of nutrient-rich produce and reduce food waste, despite slightly lower nutrient density in some produce.

A growing body of science is fueling debate about the downsides of pornography consumption. Although studying porn use is ethically fraught – we can’t put people in a room and watch them watch it – some research indicates that porn alters brain function, hijacking the reward system and impeding impulse control, potentially leading to compulsive behavior. Still, the evidence is inconclusive, with conflicting research and a lack of consensus on whether these changes are harmful or significant over the long term.

A recent study comparing fraternal and identical twins, over 9,000 individuals in total, found that genetic factors partially influence how much people enjoy music, accounting for distinct and overlapping variations in musical appreciation. The study suggests that while environment and upbringing play a role, inherited traits contribute to a person’s affinity for music. The results could encourage further investigation into the evolutionary roots of music appreciation.

Dr. Liza Dunn is a medical toxicologist and the medical affairs lead at Bayer Crop Science. Follow her on X @DrLizaMD

Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Visit his website and follow him on X @camjenglish