FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Psychiatrist’s Bible: Defining ‘Marijuana Use Disorder’

In a case called US v. Schweider, attorney Zenia Gilg, whose client had been growing marijuana for a California collective, filed a motion challenging the plant’s Schedule 1 designation as a dangerous drug with no medical use. At an evidentiary hearing the government’s position was stated by Bertha Madras, a professor of Psychobiology in the Psychiatry department at Harvard Medical School. Madras cited the fact that many adolescents are in treatment for a “marijuana use disorder” as proof that there is such a disorder. To quote her declaration:

“Marijuana is the most widely used illicit substance in the United States, and more Americans (4.3 million) harbor a medical (DSM-IV) diagnosis of marijuana abuse/addiction than any other illicit drug. Many more youth are DSM-IV positive for a marijuana use disorder than for an alcohol use disorder, as a percentage of those in treatment. Treatment admissions for youth aged 15 to 17 most frequently reported marijuana (71.9 %) or alcohol (17.7%) as their primary substance of abuse…

“Marijuana treatment may require billions of dollars in treatment needs nationally. (Sic the garbled sentence. The prospect apparently got Madras overexcited.) Although treatment admissions for alcoholism and cocaine addiction declined between 1992 and 2007, marijuana use disorder admissions climbed significantly during the same period. Similarly, emergency department mentions have also increased significantly between 2004 and 2008.”

The definition of “marijuana use disorder” is set forth in a book called The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), published by the American Psychiatric Association. It is often called “The Bible” of the profession. It assigns a definition and a number to every ailment of the mind and spirit for which psychotherapists provide treatment, MDs prescribe medication, and insurance companies reimburse. The double purpose of the DSM is to endow the field of Psychiatry with a facade of rigor while facilitating billing.

The first DSM, published in 1952, listed 106 disorders. By increasing the number of disorders and the broadness of the definitions over the years, the DSM authors —establishment psychiatrists with drug-company funding— have increased the number of Americans who qualify for prescription drugs (and, fortuitously, for medical marijuana).

The revised third edition. published in 1987, listed 292 conditions. The DSM-IV made more inclusive the definition for Clinical Depression, just as Eli Lilly and Pfizer were preparing Prozac and Zoloft for the market. DSM-IV also created a handy checklist of symptoms for each disorder, enabling the harried practitioner to make a quick, easy diagnosis.

“Cannabis Abuse” is one of many conditions defined by the DSM under “Substance Use Disorder.” Gilg elicited testimony from Drs. Philip Denney and Carl Hart that based on the DSM-V exempted medical users from an “abuse” diagnosis. These are the words that gave them hope: “Symptoms of tolerance and withdrawal occuring during appropriate medical treatment with prescribed medication (e.g., opioid analgesic, sedative, stimulants) are specifically not counted when diagnosing a substance use disorder.”

Unfortunately, tolerance and withdrawal are not the only responses to marijuana that condemn the herb to Schedule I status. “Prescription medications can be used inappropriately, and a substance use disorder can be correctly diagnosed when there are other symptoms of compulsive, drug-seeking behavior,” states the Bible.

So how do doctors distinguish a Substance Use Disorder from medical use of a drug? DSM-V says, “The diagnosis of a substance use disorder is based on a pathological pattern of behaviors related to use of the substance.” Nine such behaviors are listed:

Criterion 1: “The individual may take the substance in larger amounts or over a longer period than was originally intended.”

If you try marijuana and find that it agrees with you, you’re likely to use it more frequently than originally intended. How is that evidence of pathology?

Criterion 2: “The individual may express a persistent desire to cut down or regulate substance use and may report multiple unsuccessful efforts to decrease or discontinue use.”

If a parent (or boss, counselor, or other authority figure) says marijuana is dangerous and you must stop using it, you may promise to stop. But then you’re with your friends and you’re re-convinced that it’s harmless (and even helpful), so you resume. That is evidence of pathology, according to the psychiatrists’ Bible. An unslanted definition would be disobedience.

Criterion 3: “The individual may spend a great deal of time obtaining the substance…”

That is clearly a result of prohibition.

Criterion 4: ‘Craving is manifested by an intense desire or urge for the drug… more likely when in an environment where the drug previously was obtained or used.”

The DSM authors sneak “intense” into the sentence like a virus. Craving (according to the English language) can be intense or mild. The craving for cannabinoids is very mild compared to the craving for, say, opiates. For many people it’s milder than the craving for coffee. And of course you’ll be “craving” more when you’re around people who are indulging. Duh.

Criterion 5: “Recurrent substance use may result in a failure to fulfill major role obligations at work, school, or home.”

This makes sense if the failure to fuilfill is due to impairment, but almost invariably it’s due to punishment.

Criterion 6: The individual may continue substance use despite having persistent or recurrent social or interpersonal problems caused or exacerbated by the effects of the substance.”

Meaning: if people who disapprove of your cannabis use decide to distance from you, it’s your fault and evidence of pathology.

Criterion 7: “Important social, occupational, or recreational activities may be given up or reduced because of substance use.”

Who decides that a given extra-curricular is “important?” Not the patient, obviously. Some people are like Ferdinand the Bull, they’d rather smell the flowers than play football.

Criterion 8 is “recurrent substance use in situations in which it is physically hazardous.”

Definitely a sign of stupidity.

Criterion 9: “The individual may continue substance use despite knowledge of having a persistent or recurrent physical or psychological problem that is likely to have been caused or exacerbated by the substance.”

A drug can simultaneously exacerbate a problem and produce benefit. Let’s say you have chronic bronchitis, PTSD, and insomnia. You have a nightmare and wake up in a sweat. You smoke some marijuana, which makes you cough —but restores equanimity and makes sleep possible. Reasonable choice or evidence of pathology?

More articles by:

Fred Gardner is the managing editor of O’Shaughnessy’s. He can be reached at fred@plebesite.com

December 11, 2018
Eric Draitser
AFRICOM: A Neocolonial Occupation Force?
Sheldon Richman
War Over Ukraine?
Louis Proyect
Why World War II, Not the New Deal, Ended the Great Depression
Howard Lisnoff
Police Violence and Mass Policing in the U.S.
Mark Ashwill
A “Patriotic” Education Study Abroad Program in Viet Nam: God Bless America, Right or Wrong!
Laura Flanders
HUD Official to Move into Public Housing?
Nino Pagliccia
Resistance is Not Terrorism
Matthew Johnson
See No Evil, See No Good: The Truth Is Not Black and White
Maria Paez Victor
How Reuters Slandered Venezuela’s Social Benefits Card
December 10, 2018
Jacques R. Pauwels
Foreign Interventions in Revolutionary Russia
Richard Klin
The Disasters of War
Katie Fite
Rebranding Bundy
Gary Olson
A Few Thoughts on Politics and Personal Identity
Patrick Cockburn
Brexit Britain’s Crisis of Self-Confidence Will Only End in Tears and Rising Nationalism
Andrew Moss
Undocumented Citizen
Dean Baker
Trump and China: Going With Patent Holders Against Workers
Lawrence Wittner
Reviving the Nuclear Disarmament Movement: a Practical Proposal
Dan Siegel
Thoughts on the 2018 Elections and Beyond
Thomas Knapp
Election 2020: I Can Smell the Dumpster Fires Already
Weekend Edition
December 07, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Steve Hendricks
What If We Just Buy Off Big Fossil Fuel? A Novel Plan to Mitigate the Climate Calamity
Jeffrey St. Clair
Cancer as Weapon: Poppy Bush’s Radioactive War on Iraq
Paul Street
The McCain and Bush Death Tours: Establishment Rituals in How to be a Proper Ruler
Jason Hirthler
Laws of the Jungle: The Free Market and the Continuity of Change
Ajamu Baraka
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights at 70: Time to De-Colonize Human Rights!
Andrew Levine
Thoughts on Strategy for a Left Opposition
Jennifer Matsui
Dead of Night Redux: A Zombie Rises, A Spook Falls
Rob Urie
Degrowth: Toward a Green Revolution
Binoy Kampmark
The Bomb that Did Not Detonate: Julian Assange, Manafort and The Guardian
Robert Hunziker
The Deathly Insect Dilemma
Robert Fisk
Spare Me the American Tears for the Murder of Jamal Khashoggi
Joseph Natoli
Tribal Justice
Ron Jacobs
Getting Pushed Off the Capitalist Cliff
Macdonald Stainsby
Unist’ot’en Camp is Under Threat in Northern Canada
Senator Tom Harkin
Questions for Vice-President Bush on Posada Carriles
W. T. Whitney
Two Years and Colombia’s Peace Agreement is in Shreds
Ron Jacobs
Getting Pushed Off the Capitalist Cliff
Ramzy Baroud
The Conspiracy Against Refugees
David Rosen
The Swamp Stinks: Trump & Washington’s Rot
Raouf Halaby
Wall-to-Wall Whitewashing
Daniel Falcone
Noam Chomsky Turns 90
Dean Baker
An Inverted Bond Yield Curve: Is a Recession Coming?
Nick Pemberton
The Case For Chuck Mertz (Not Noam Chomsky) as America’s Leading Intellectual
Ralph Nader
New Book about Ethics and Whistleblowing for Engineers Affects Us All!
Dan Kovalik
The Return of the Nicaraguan Contras, and the Rise of the Pro-Contra Left
Jeremy Kuzmarov
Exposing the Crimes of the CIAs Fair-Haired Boy, Paul Kagame, and the Rwandan Patriotic Front
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail