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.'
I take it that you find that party to your liking?
I believe the question is to you, cinFLA. You certianly wouldn't want to create the impression that you don't want to answer ANB's question.
"inherent design" sounds like God...thus the way God designed it, it does not get you high...thus, God doesn't want you to get high from it! Game, set, match to L2L!!
The way God designed it is as he did most others too. Plant any garden variety vegetable roadside and get squat. You must be a city boy. Ever grown anything or planted a seed? Any good gardener knows it takes real effort to coax a useful product from the earth.
Galatians 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap
So, once again, your attempt to twist the Bible to your own purposes was at best lame and, at worst, well, um, er LAME!
Who are "you guys"? I'm me. I'm not "you guys" and I just related my personal experience with pot, that's all.
Why don't you take your "I'm gonna force you to live my way" fascist attitude and stuff it.
Who let you in here anyway? I thought this was a gathering place of people working to roll back years of government abuse of power?
Oh yeah, I forgot. That died about the time of the law suits.
Absolutely. It was getting me nowhere fast, and I have too large an ego to end up nowhere. lol
You posted from their site, so you must be helping advance their agenda.
If you agree with any part of their platform, you must agree with all of it.
If you don't agree, they you must want unwarranted searches and seizures, and want to see the Constitution subverted.
If you don't answer at all, you're a coward.
If you don't answer directly, then you're trying to weasel out.
You're damned if you do, and damned if you don't. But that was the whole point wasn't it? Next time you load a question be careful it doesn't blow up in your face.
I think we all know his stance on the Constitution. I just wanted to hear him admit it.
Just so there's no misunderstanding, that last post is to you.
I've never heard him express an opinion on the Constitution. I've seen him work at not expressing one on several occasions.
Why should I answer his question. Y'all never answer mine.
Since you agree with it, then you must agree with it all, right?
Why not tell the truth when it is so easy to go back and see what you really posted.
No.
Unlike y'all, I have a life outside of these drug threads.
No. Do you agree with the stated platform?
Oh, so you think you can read my mind. Boy, are you a loser.
Yours don't get answered because you keep lacing them with perjoratives and guilt by association implications, or asking loaded questions. Or you lump everyone or everything together in absolute generalities that basically make it meaningless - like how "y'all" "never" answer your questions.
No, that's your take on how to frame an argument. By your own standard if you agree with that you must agree with all of it.
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.