Posted on 07/25/2004 1:12:55 AM PDT by MadIvan
New super-strength marijuana readily available on US streets is prompting the White House to change direction in its war against drugs.
Research from the government-sponsored Marijuana Potency Project claims today's cannabis is more than twice as strong as in the mid-Eighties, leading to greater health risks for those smoking it at increasingly younger ages.
Now President George Bush, who had already promised a more aggressive campaign against substance abuse, has ordered that resources be allocated to fighting so-called 'soft' drugs instead of concentrating on harder forms, such as heroin and cocaine.
'We are working hard on education, but unfortunately a lot of today's parents are under the impression marijuana is harmless and that their kids trying it is some kind of rite of passage,' said Jennifer de Vallance, of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
'They might have had experience in their own teenage years with no problems, but this is not the same marijuana as in the Sixties, Seventies and Eighties. Today's forms are much stronger and potentially more harmful, especially to young people whose brains are not fully developed and are therefore more susceptible to adverse reactions.'
The Marijuana Potency Project, at the University of Mississippi, analysed more than 30,000 samples seized over the past 18 years by the authorities. It found that the average level of the active ingredient in marijuana, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), jumped from 3.5 per cent in 1985 to more than 7 per cent in 2003.
Of more concern to the analysts is that the upward trend appears to be continuing. The average potency of 20 marijuana samples seized and tested so far this year exceeds 9 per cent, with a peak of 27 per cent in one batch from a state in the North West.
'Today's marijuana is a much more serious problem than the vast majority of Americans understands,' said John Walters, the government's director of drug control policy who has promised a clampdown on producers.
Those who support the legalisation of cannabis are not convinced. 'Whenever government officials speak about drugs issues, a more detailed examination of the facts is a good idea,' said David Borden, executive director of the Washington-based Drug Reform Coordination Network.
'These projects are always government-funded and, without criticising the researchers, officials take what they want from it and send out their press releases. There has always been a wide range of potencies. It doesn't mean people are getting more intoxicated, because the higher the potency, the less they smoke.'
Figures suggest overall drug use in America's high schools has fallen by 11 per cent in two years but the National Centre on Addiction and Substance Abuse reports the number of children and teenagers receiving treatment for marijuana abuse jumped 142 per cent over the last decade, and that emergency hospital admissions of 12 to 17-year-olds in which marijuana was implicated rose 48 per cent in four years.
Borden acknowledges children must be steered away from drugs, but says: 'Their anti-drugs efforts have had a paradoxical effect in promoting the underground cultivation of marijuana. The number of users makes it an appealing target and there is no limit to the number of arrests that can be made, and the government uses those numbers to scare the public into thinking there is some big problem.
'All the government has been able to do is encourage people to experiment with stronger drugs than they would have before.'
robertpaulsen wrote:
I'm trying to find out the differences. If you can't tell me, then who should I ping? Seriously, I'd like to know.
______________________________________
BIG bumpkin.
Your nose grew an inch with that one paulsen.
Er, if you can get the same buzz by smoking half as much, that makes it less of a health risk.
Now President George Bush, who had already promised a more aggressive campaign against substance abuse, has ordered that resources be allocated to fighting so-called 'soft' drugs instead of concentrating on harder forms, such as heroin and cocaine.
Personally, I would have put the resources into fighting A BUNCH OF FREAKING WAHABIWACKJOB TROGLODYTE BARBARIANS WHO WANT TO KILL US.
But that's just me.
Whenever government officials speak about drugs issues, a more detailed examination of the facts is a good idea
A superfluous phrase got in there somehow.
*** DING DING DING *** No more calls; we have a winner!
Our rights to life, liberty, & property are not to be infringed upon without due process.
-- And the full scope of the liberty guaranteed by Due Process --; -- "is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints"
-- Millions of words, describing millions of incidents of constitutional violations commited in the name of our 'war on drugs' have been documented in the last 50 years or more.
For what purpose?
______________________________________
Millions? Whatever. The fact that the WOD is occassionaly implemented unconstitutionally has no bearing on the fact that the law itself is constitutional and meets the principle you described.
132 paulson
______________________________________
Shrugging off millions of violations of our most basic rights is typical of you, robbie.
The constitutional basics of the laws supporting 'drug' prohibitions are totally flawed, as has been proven to you many times. You shrug off that fact too, and cannot give a rational answer to my question.
What constitutional purpose is served by the WOD's?
Because people like me don't give a crap about who f@#ks who, who's playing poker, etc. In the specific case of gambling and porn, I would venture to guess that you disagree with about 97% of FReepers on those issues.
Also, why are you so confident that the RLC mission statement represents most small "l" libertarians?
My experience here on FR with self-described small-l's leads me to believe such.
You completely sidestepped the "sobriety" comment. When you find Biblical encouragement for getting high on anything, get back to me.
You made the claim that the Bible demands sobriety. This is false. The Bible excoriates drunkeness. That's way different from demanding sobriety. Jesus' first miracle was to turn water into wine. It's obvious that it was really wine, containing alcohol, from the context.
The Bible says nothing about use of cannabis as a means to "get high". It also is obvious that the use of alcohol to "get high" was NOT prohibited, otherwise Jesus would not have performed the said miracle.
When you can find Biblical prohibition to support your false statement, and contravene Jesus' miracle, get back to me.
"When you can find Biblical prohibition to support your false statement, and contravene Jesus' miracle, get back to me."
I cherish how you now have me standing against Jesus' miracle (which I never mentioned, nor disputed). I'll let you keep the argument that Jesus--since he turned water into wine, at a wedding--is fine with you (or anyone else) smoking marijuana.
Using your own standard of proof--"the Bible says nothing about use of cannabis as a means to "get high"--you have no reason to believe smoking marijuana is okay either, since it is not mentioned. I guess you're stuck with alcohol, then (no drunkenness though, according to you!!! LOL!)
Your line of reasoning leaves me wondering: There are many variations of wickedness NOT mentioned in the Bible. I guess whatever's not mentioned using legal jargon is okey dokey, eh?
It is a myth! Though, it is true that high potency herb is hitting the market as a greater percentage of total consumption. However, the plant can produce a specific scale of potency which has not changed over time. Growing skills have simply improved at the same time that market factors make the high potency, high price make sense.
The Bible does not just say God created herb!
Learn how to read!
Genesis 1:12
And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Then he gave it to man and beast alike!
Genesis 1:29
And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.
Who are you to go against the word of God?
Let's talk specifics about sobriety.
Where are your quotes? I will debate each in turn.
But, you will lose that argument because you haven't
any ground to stand on here. There is a meaning to
remaining "sober." And, it is not the one you
puritans seek to sell.
Romans 14:2 contrasts two states of mind
1. "one believeth that he may eat all things:"
This is the fool because some things will kill you.
2. "another, who is weak, eateth herbs."
WEAK as in ill health needing assistance (research better)
with certain knowledge attained from herbs.
Ro 14:22 Hast thou faith? Have it to thyself before God. Blessed is he that condemneth not himself in that which he alloweth
If you are a Christian Scientist than I understand your viewpoint. Otherwise, don't take that aspirin next time you have a head ache.
Matthew 15:11
Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
You seem to believe that the word is the word in its entirety. Then follow it. Don't support a falsely puritannical and unconstitutional war against our own citizenry.
Ephesians 6:11 Put on the whole armour of God,
that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
May Peace be with you.
One-hit wonder.... vag has nothing else to add, and probably wouldn't recognize truth, if he saw it.
But, ha... ha... ha... for these puerile attempts at humor!
(I think I'll fire up the bong, and try to verify those results!)
The Believer's Freedom
1 Corinthians 10
23 "Everything is permissible"--but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"--but not everything is constructive.
Seeing as you can come up with no justification whatsoever for "It covers all intoxicants (including Cannabis Sativa) by demanding sobriety", we'll leave it at that.
Your attempt to condemn marijuana, and any other intoxicant from the Bible fails utterly.
Or is it that all that is not mandatory is forbidden ?
Good thing they're too stoned to vote.
Genesis 1:29 And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.
'oklah (ok-law'); Noun Feminine, Strong #: 402
I suggest you begin reading the Bible again. You seem to have missed atleast the first page.
Galatians 6 6 Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things.
7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
How do you defend the attacks against citizens protecting, possessing, and propagating this seed, gifted from God, which they sow?
"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?" --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia, 1782.
Again, read on!
1cor 10:26 The earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof.
1cor 10:27 If any of them that believe not, invite you, and you will be willing to go; eat of any thing that is set before you, asking no question for conscience' sake.
And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Please explain how an herb given by God to man and beast alike at the beginning of time and which has grown freely almost everywhere,
including here long before our nation was formed, is permissibly eradicable or controllable by the federal government through powers granted by the
interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. You know it is an impossible task to devise a logical explanation of how this could be true. In light of
the rest of the Constitution any such perceived mandate dissolves.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Preamble: ...secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...
Amendment V: nor shall (anyone) be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the PEOPLE.
Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the PEOPLE.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Nowhere in the Constitution is it enumerated what one may put into ones body. Therefore, that right is reserved for the states or the people. However,
since God has already specified in the Bible what one may consume, it is, in fact, the People’s God given right.
I've read the first page, and love it. I don't dispute that God created all things and said they were "Good."
You need to move past the first page and read about the event that changed everything, that resulted in Adam and Eve being ejected from the good garden. Sin changed the relationship with God, and the relationship with nature (Apostle Paul would later speak of nature one day being liberated from its "bondage to decay").
Your exegisis of Genesis 1:29 fails to convince that firing up a bong was what our Creator was referring to.
"Your attempt to condemn marijuana, and any other intoxicant from the Bible fails utterly."
Fails who? Unorthodox folks such as yourself? I never even made a serious attempt to condemn marijuana, nor would I once I discovered it would become a labor of Sisyphus.
Still, I stand by what I wrote. I believe there are others out there that "get" what I was saying.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.