Posted on 03/04/2005 10:44:14 AM PST by MisterRepublican
WASHINGTON - The admission rate for those who seek treatment for marijuana use nearly tripled between 1992 and 2002, according to the latest data compiled by the federal government.
The numbers released Friday reflect a growing use of marijuana in the 1990s and an increase in the potency of marijuana, said Tom Riley, a spokesman for the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy.
"This report makes clear what people in the public health community have known for years, which is marijuana is a much more dangerous drug than many Americans realize," Riley said. "This report is a wake up call for parents that marijuana is not a soft drug. It's a much bigger part of the addiction problem than is generally understood."
The study on treatment rates was conducted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, which estimated that 41 states experienced an increase in the number of people who sought treatment for marijuana use during the decade studied.
(Excerpt) Read more at fortwayne.com ...
maybe,JUST maybe,they do not want to.
Alcohol was regulated by the states. At the time of Prohibition, 26 states had already passed some form of prohibition.
But alcohol was crossing state lines from "wet" states into the "dry" states, and those states sought help from the federal government. The Webb-Kenyon Act of 1913 was enacted, authorizing the federal government to intervene.
So, imagine the same with drugs, with only some states making it legal. Think that would work? Are recreational drugs any different than alcohol when it comes to interstate smuggling from "wet" state into "dry" states? Do you think the DEA will increase or decrease in size if we had the states regulate?
It works today with alcohol because every state allows alcohol. But even then there was a problem. States had different legal ages, and teens were driving from a "21" state to a neighboring "18" state to get drunk, drive home, and kill themselves in an accident.
Once again, the federal government was asked to intervene, and in 1984 (under Reagan, btw) passed Uniform Drinking Age Act which set the age at 21.
Now, perhaps you want the states to regulate drugs and you don't care what the results would be. Hey, fine. But then get a constitutional amendment, similar in wording to the 21st amendment, and allow each state to vote on whether they think this is a good idea. After all, the states have to live with the decision. It's only fair to let them have a say.
Statement #2: Personally I am happy for the booze, tobacco and pot to be carefully kept legal. I support drug laws for anything harder than these.
Excuse me, but do you see a conflict between statements #'s 1 & 2?
What I am saying is that I respect a persons position if they are not hypocritical by saying that cannabis should be illegal but alcohol should not.
This is not my opinion but I respect it more than someone who says cannabis is harmful and should be illegal while ignoring the effects of alcohol and tobacco.
Do you support total prohibition or just prohibtion of things that are stigmatised?
I understand. But aren't you being hypocritical when you say, "Hard drugs should be illegal but cannabis should not"?
"Do you support total prohibition or just prohibtion of things that are stigmatised?"
I support a system whereby some drugs are legal, some are legal for adults only, some are legal only by prescription, and some are illegal.
I am not comfortable with your simplistic "all or nothing" approach to drug legalization.
No I am drawing a line between cannabis, alcohol and tobacco and far more harmful hard drugs such as Cocaine, Heroin.
As you, I support a system where some drugs are legal for adults. I think Cannabis should be one of them, eventually. I am not foolhardy enough to recommend a Amsterdam sytle policy. It is often quoted as the only example of a drugs policy but this is false. The Swiss policy is excellent and restricts drug sales of anything other than a small amount personal use and it is banned for sale for foreigners so to dissuade drug tourism. People simply grow their own plants and smoke what they want. To me this is no different than making your own wine and beer (which I have done in the past albeit wihtout much success)
Making marijuana legal won't solve any of those problems but it would make us look less hypocritical and it would free up resources for other more important federal activities. I am more worried about someone crossing the border with a dirty bomb than adults smoking a joint at a party. I would prefer my tax dollars be spent looking for bombs rather than bongs. As to the Constitution and not needing an amendment to claim certain powers...if majority vote of Senators is A-OK with you, I'd ask again where does it stop? Maybe they should have just voted for taxpayer paid abortion on the federal level instead of relying a legal case in the courts. With different state law involved, one could reason that the federal gov't was needed to straighten things out. Maybe the House/Senate should just vote national gay marriage for anyone... who needs the States and all these confusing laws. And how about that electoral college, surely some would love to just "vote that away" and then there's "gun control". We know what has happened there. With all our conservative concerns about the tyranny of the courts, we shouldn't be too ready to wrap ourselves up in another potential tyranny of the legislature... just because we might win. How you play the game should be important to those conservatives who wish to CONSERVE the Constitution. The pendulum WILL swing again and liberals will gain the majorities again. After reading some of the comments on this board, I think it will happen sooner rather than later as the theocrats overplay their recently winning hands. Then we'll hear some real whining about the Constitution - we know that liberals do not respect it! I suggest we pick more important battles to tear ourselves apart over rather than marijuana.
I do not care what the circumstances were back in the 30's regarding marijuana. We are no longer operating under those rules. That's history. Let it go.
In 1970, Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act. If you want to read it, I can give you a link. Contained within it are findings by Congress as to why it was necessary, the method by which drugs are evaluated, and a description of the drug Schedules. Our current laws are governed by this Act. Not by what happened in the 30's.
"Making marijuana legal won't solve any of those problems but it would make us look less hypocritical and it would free up resources for other more important federal activities."
You cannot believe that. Nothing would change. The DEA would remain the same. The money spent on enforcement would remain the same. Hell, I can make an argument that government involvement and expenditures would increase to implement, control and enforce marijuana licensing and taxation. (Dopey me -- like you would care if it doubled.)
Actually, decriminalization, nationwide, would give you 90% of what you're after. We don't have to legalize marijuana to get these things.
The bottom line is this. You cannot give me one good reason to vote for the legalization of marijuana. I frankly cannot see the benefits of adding yet another legal drug. All I see are negatives.
"Nobody check themself in for pot "addiction". Nearly all of the patients are there as a result of a court order or their parents forcing them. The ONDCP are asses."
What you are saying, then, is that pot smokers are unable to conform their behavior to the requirements of the law; or are behaving unacceptably at home; but do not have any insight into the effect their use has had on their behavior as assessed by responsible adults.
And, when the chickens come home to roost, sympathizers blame the responsible people instead of the miscreants.
Works for me. Your assessment of the situation fits reality quite well. Congratulations, son.
Yes, I believe I characterized your perceptions accurately and I believe that many "good reasons" were provided - you just disagree. I would ask you to try and understand that many, many good men can disagree about the definition of a "good reason". And these "good men" who disagree are not just "pot-heads", "drug-addicts", "pushers" or a threat to "decent" society. They are our fellow citizens, they are all arounds us and there are bigger "fish to fry".
"But pot itself is NOT generally addictive."
This is what my old philosophy professor used to call "true but trivial."
The reason is, "addictiveness" is not an attribute of a substance. There is NO quality of a chemical compound, any compound, that can be identified as the "addictive" component. That is medieval, prescientific thinking, and is a major flaw in the history of official responses to the problems which uncontrolled drug use has caused.
"Addictiveness" is a risk factor in the behavior and history of the individual, just as abstinence is an attribute of the behavior of the individual.
Yes, those were good reasons. However, unfortunately, they were not true.
If I said you could lose weight by going to church, isn't that a good reason to go to church? Of course it is.
See ya Sunday.
"... the withdrawal symptoms or psychological crises that, for example, a cigarette smoker goes through."
I ran a smoking cessation program for a couple years, and the facts were a real lesson on how people change their behavior. Mostly, the psychological stuff had little effect. On followup, though, which most programs don't really do, far enough down the road, we found this as the modal story for quitters: "I was driving down the road one day and lit up, and coughed, and the smoke got in my eyes and I finally said F* it, why do I want to waste my money on this sh*t for, so I threw the rest of the pack out the window and haven't smoked since."(Composite of numerous self-reports)
Addiction is not a chemical property, and "withdrawal" is not biologically or chemically independent of psychology.
Now there you go again.
hehehe. It's probably not fair, but when someone throws me a hanging curve in the wheelhouse I just can't resist.
Attention! Same argument in aisle 3. Those who get a high from this kind of thread... head on over.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1356680/posts
A) it would make us look less hypocritical.
First of all, that's a lousy reason to do anything. Second, I don't believe it -- in the eyes of the world, we'd be even more hypocritical, especially after slapping Canada around for what they're doing with marijuana up there. Third, so we're less hypocritical if we legalize marijuana but not peyote? Nitrous? Shrooms? Club drugs? Other soft drugs? I don't think so.
B) it would free up resources for other more important federal activities
Again, I believe you can free up resources with decriminalization without resorting to legalization. Second, with all other drugs remaining illegal, I cannot envision a smaller law enforcement organization, especially if the justification for marijuana legalization is to now go after the "real" criminals. Third, I believe the size of law enforcement would actually increase with marijuana legalization (plus, what's preventing marijuana illegal exports from the U.S. to countries where it remains illegal?).
Those were the only two "good reasons" I found. If you have more, I'd like to hear them.
Nice try - NOT! You're back on the same merry-go-round reasoning. Go get your high off someone else for awhile, I have other interests and I've said what I'm going to say. There's another thread going now, you can pick up some fresh fish over there. Enjoy.
Hey. Thanks for playing. We have some nice consolation prizes for you backstage.
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.