New poll finds increasing support for regulated MJ

ok ive read most of the posts in this thread and one thing i keep seeing is how available drugs are to children these days. when i was a kid i never came into contact with drugs nor knew how to get any if i did. it wasnt until my senior year in highschool that i found out most everyone did em. maybe i was "lucky" if you want to look at it that way. the only time drugs were for the most part available was while i was in college and still soemtimes that was a huge hassel.

you guys make it sound like there is joe drug dealer hanging outside of every classroom waiting to sell dope to 6th graders. maybe there is and im just out of touch with kids these days?

im 25 living in a major city and maybe i just dont know that many people who have connections or kids in middle school that could get me some cause ive been dry for about 4 months now!

 

Do you think that the "We Card" program has had an adverse effect on children/teens? The program seems to be a prohibition that works. What kind of differences do you see between the prohibition in kids vs. the prohibition in adults that makes one work and one fail?

How many people out that went to high school in the last 5 years think that mar1juana was easier to get a hold of than alcohol? I think it would've been possible to get drugs at my high school, but it was ten times easier to get alcohol.

 

During my entire time in school (I graduated high school during the "war on drug" phase) I can honestly say that I never saw any drugs, either at school, school functions or parties. I can honestly say that I don't know of one person in high school (~600 students in Houston Texas) that used drugs. I am not naive enough to think that no one did, but if I were in a court of law and swearing on a stack of bibles, I would have to say I didn't factually know of any. There was alcohol use, misuse and abuse. This was in the mid-70s so times do change but as a parent, I know that kids aren't destined to enter a life of drugs.

My kids are both adults. My son (21) rarely, if ever, was exposed to drugs. On the other hand, my daughter (26) was. As a parent, there is only so much you can do. My experience has been the kids your kids hang around with. My son hung around with kids of high character, my daughter didn't.

 

The data I am looking at is from a chart of murder rates from 1900 to 2000.



This clearly shows elevated homicide rates.



Actually, that chart shows that homicide rates were in a huge upward spiral before both prohibition started and before the drug was started. It's not like they started skyrocketed with those policies.

Second, it also shows that the homicide rate today is lower than when the drug war started. How does that fit with your claim that homicide increased due to the drug war?

The only part of that chart that helps support your argument is the immediate downward spike at the end of prohibition. However, a one-time correlation does not show a pattern. What else happened around 1933 that may have caused a drop in crime?

 

The difference is that we have regulated tobacco and alcohol to the point that it is difficult for teens to get them.

Really? From your source:

Specifically, teens were asked which was easier to obtain among cigarettes, beer and mar1juana. While the overwhelming majority of teens listed cigarettes as the easiest, mar1juana was a clear second.

That's worked well.

 

In addition, according to the chart graphic it is only through 1997 (not 2000 as andymoon wrote). According to the web site that andymoon got the chart from it is through 1998. Regardless, there has been a steady decline from 1993-2001. The drug war must be working since the statistics are going down!

 

Great idea Andy...let's make it EVEN EASIER.

Whatever dude...broken record....

From John Heath's thread...


Regular cannabis users 'at greater risk of mental illness'

Regular cannabis users are at greater risk of developing mental illness later in life, according to research.

One study found that the risk was seven times higher for heavy users, said Professor Robin Murray of the Institute of Psychiatry in London.

Speaking at the Royal College of Psychiatrists' annual conference in Edinburgh, he said: "In the last 18 months a number of studies have confirmed that cannabis consumption acts to increase later risk of schizophrenia. This research must not be ignored."

The findings come as the Government prepares to downgrade cannabis from a Class B to Class C drug next year.

Most people caught in possession of a small amount will have the drugs confiscated and receive a reprimand or warning, the Home Office has said.

According to a Government fact sheet, cannabis "can cause psychotic reactions amongst individuals with mental health problems", but it does not suggest use of the drug can prompt those problems.

For his study, Professor Murray reviewed research in Sweden, Holland and New Zealand.

A recent Dutch study of 4,000 people in the general population showed that those taking large amounts of cannabis were almost seven times more likely to have psychotic symptoms three years later.

Another study, in 1987, of 50,000 Swedish Army conscripts, found that those who admitted at age 18 to having taken cannabis on more than 50 occasions, were six times more likely to develop schizophrenia in the following 15 years.

Professor Murray said these findings had been largely ignored.


Story filed: 08:45 Wednesday 2nd July 2003



DDLink

 

More

mar1juana Bad For Mental Health

Your mental health may suffer if you're a regular pot smoker, a British toxicology expert warns.

Professor John Henry from St. Mary's Hospital in London says there's growing evidence that mar1juana causes mental health problems. He notes that a number of studies point to an increase in schizophrenia and depression among people who are regular pot users, BBC News Online reports.

At a Royal Society of Medicine conference on Monday, Henry said the strength of mar1juana sold today is far stronger than what was available in the 1960s and 1970s.

"People who want to smoke cannabis ought to be aware that it has equal effects to cigarettes on the body and worse effects on the mind," Henry told BBC News Online.

There is disagreement about the impact that smoking mar1juana has on mental health. Some experts say there is no clear-cut evidence of harm.

DD

 

The point is that we HAVE reduced levels of teen tobacco and alcohol use over the past decade so much that teens report that they can acquire mar1juana more easily than alcohol. Of course they will be able to get tobacco more easily as there is a perception that tobacco is less harmful than alcohol and the illegal drugs.

That's interesting logic. Alcohol and tobacco are looked at pretty interchangably in terms of their "dangers". Drunk driving vs. Cancer.

Nice how the fact that mar1juana was easier to obtain according to that survey vs alcohol clearly shows that regulation works, but that fact that tobacco is far easier to obtain than mar1juana is, conveniently, irrelevent and doesn't show that regulation doesn't work.

 

Even More

mar1juana: Bad Medicine


Efforts to legalize mar1juana (cannabis) for medical purposes are gaining momentum across the United States. Since 1996, referenda or laws have passed in several states legalizing the possession and use of mar1juana for medical purposes. These states include Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Maine, Oregon, Colorado, Nevada and Washington.

There's no shortage of misinformation and unsubstantiated claims involving the medical uses of mar1juana. So, it's important to focus our attention on the most reliable sources--medical professionals. Let's consider five of the most frequent pro-mar1juana claims and the response from the medical community:

Claim I: Smoking mar1juana is the only way to relieve symptoms for some patients.

Some medical patients do experience relief of symptoms from the active ingredient in mar1juana--tetrahydrocannabinol--commonly referred to as THC. The symptoms often relieved include nausea, vomiting, and loss of appetite.1 However, patients can receive a synthetically created version of THC through prescription drugs such as Marinol, available since 1985.2 After extensive testing, Marinol was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and must be distributed in a purified form. By contrast, mar1juana varies wildly in THC content, making it impossible to prescribe dosage and potency. Smoking mar1juana also creates a distinct spike of THC in blood levels. Marinol, however, is a pill, which time-releases THC--a more effective and medically accepted procedure.

Claim II: The medical benefits of mar1juana outweigh any side effects.

If this were true, the FDA would most likely have approved mar1juana for medical purposes. Instead, the FDA has repeatedly refused to do so. In fact, no FDA-approved drug is smoked, and in the case of mar1juana, smoking it increases chances of lung cancer, as does smoking tobacco. In fact, according to one study, smoking mar1juana burdens the respiratory system four times more than an equivalent amount of tobacco smoking.3

Claim III: mar1juana is not a "gateway" drug, leading to the use of harder drugs, like cocaine and heroin.

A study by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) found that children who use mar1juana are 85 times more likely to use cocaine than are children who do not use mar1juana.4

Based on these findings, it seems likely that the increased availability and use of mar1juana nationwide (even for medical purposes) will cause a corresponding increase in hard drug use. General Barry R. McCaffrey, director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, believes mar1juana's influence as a "gateway" drug will only increase, as young people perceive mar1juana to be a safe substance. According to McCaffrey, "Referenda that tell our children that mar1juana is a 'medicine' send them the wrong signal about the dangers of illegal drugs--increasing the likelihood that more children will turn to drugs."5

Claim IV: Legalization will only give patients with a demonstrated need access to mar1juana.

Perhaps the most troubling loophole in medical-mar1juana proposals, such as California's Proposition 215 in 1996, is the fact that a patient can use mar1juana with merely an oral recommendation by a doctor.6 Similarly, an ordinance passed in 1998 by the Oakland City Council allows those with only a doctor's oral recommendation to possess 1.5 pounds of mar1juana and to grow 144 plants at a time.7

Claim V: The legalization of "medicinal" mar1juana is not a first step toward legalizing mar1juana for recreational drug use.

An examination of state ballot initiatives proposed after voters approved mar1juana for medical purposes challenges this claim. After legalizing medical mar1juana in Alaska, Arizona, Oregon, and Washington state, mar1juana advocates openly moved toward their other goals for the 2000 election. In Arizona and Washington, signatures were gathered to decriminalize mar1juana for the general public. In Oregon, the goal was to regulate the sale of mar1juana to adults through liquor stores. In Alaska, the "2000 Hemp Initiative" asked voters to approve complete legalization of mar1juana for those 18 years of age or older. Only Alaska's proponents successfully placed their initiative on the 2000 ballot (where it was defeated). The other three efforts failed to qualify for the ballot.

Legalizing mar1juana for medical purposes is unnecessary, poses an additional physical threat to patients, may lead to increased illegal drug use, and is a move toward legalization for use by all adults. mar1juana is bad medicine.

ENDNOTES:

1. J.E. Joy, S.J. Watson, J.A. Bensen, editors, mar1juana AND MEDICINE: ASSESSING THE SCIENCE BASE (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 00-00-98), p. 207.

2. Ibid.

3. T.C. Wu, D.P. Tashkin, B. Djahed, J.E. Rose, "Pulmonary Hazards of Smoking mar1juana as Compared with Tobacco," New England Journal of Medicine (1988): 318, pp. 347-351.

4. "Cigarettes, Alcohol, mar1juana: Gateways to Illicit Drug Use," Study conducted by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, 10-00-94. Summary: http://www.casacolumbia.org/newsletter1457/newsletter_show.htm?doc_id=6995.

5. Testimony of General Barry R. McCaffrey, director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, submitted for the record to the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime, Medical mar1juana Referenda in America, 10-01-97. Online: http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/news/testimony/medical.html.

6. D. Satzman, "Officials Denounce mar1juana Initiative," Los Angeles Times, 10-30-96, p. B3.

7. T. Elias, "California Struggles with Issue of Medical mar1juana," Washington Times, 07-21-98, p. A12.

 

Just wanted to highlight this part of the story.

I will be interested to see the whole study once it's published to see how long they tested folks to prove there is no long term damage.