1 posted on
05/05/2004 2:30:08 PM PDT by
qam1
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-25 next last
To: qam1; ItsOurTimeNow; PresbyRev; tortoise; Fraulein; StoneColdGOP; Clemenza; malakhi; m18436572; ...
Xer Ping Ping list for the discussion of the politics and social aspects that directly effects Generation-X (Those born from 1965-1981) including all the spending previous generations (i.e. The Baby Boomers) are doing that Gen-X and Y will end up paying for.
Freep mail me to be added or dropped. See my home page for details.
2 posted on
05/05/2004 2:31:30 PM PDT by
qam1
(Tommy Thompson is a Fat-tubby, Fascist)
To: qam1
Increases in dependence among young minorities may reflect their growing assimilation into sectors of white society where marijuana use is more accepted, Compton said. Sure. I know down here in Texas all the blacks and Latino's get all their pot from whitey. ROFLMAO!!!
6 posted on
05/05/2004 2:40:09 PM PDT by
stands2reason
( During the cola wars, France was occupied by Pepsi for six months.)
To: qam1
The researchers said adults were considered marijuana abusers if repeated use of the drug hurt their ability to function at work, in school or in social situations, or created drug-related legal problems.
So one of the ways they consider someone an abuser is if they get into some drug-related legal problem. So every single person that the police bust, by definition, are marijuana abusers. So the more people the police bust, the more marijuana abusers they find. The more money they put into arresting marijuana users, the bigger the problem they find that they have with "marijuana abusers" and the more money they need for the future. Sounds like a nice little system they have set up...
Oddly enough, using this definition, the best way the government could discourage marijuana abuse would be to stop arresting users!
To: qam1
The prevalence of marijuana abuse or dependence... Objective journalism.
8 posted on
05/05/2004 2:46:00 PM PDT by
eno_
(Freedom Lite - it's almost worth defending)
To: onedoug
ping
9 posted on
05/05/2004 2:51:35 PM PDT by
windcliff
To: qam1
Habitual marijuana use increased among U.S. adults over the past decade, particularly among young minorities and baby boomers, government figures show. The prevalence of marijuana abuse or dependence climbed from 1.2 percent of adults in 1991-92 to 1.5 percent in 2001-02, or an estimated 3 million adults 18 and over.
So which is it: habitual use, or abuse or dependence?
Also, the figures may indicate that baby boomers "bring their bad habits with them into old age," he said.
The number of baby boomers is increasing?
10 posted on
05/05/2004 2:53:50 PM PDT by
The kings dead
(O.C.-Old Cracker:"It's time for some of our freedoms to get curtailed for the sake of the Republic.")
To: qam1
Execute these deviant scum.
/sarcasm
13 posted on
05/05/2004 3:00:24 PM PDT by
JmyBryan
To: qam1
Increases in dependence among young minorities may reflect their growing assimilation into sectors of white society where marijuana use is more accepted, Compton said.A pox on those white people.
The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism contributed to the report.
Stick to drinking. It's a more socially acceptable habit.
To: qam1
The conclusions expressed in this report are depressing and disgusting. It is obvious that the drive to legalize pot for medical reasons is but a sham. Supporters of legalization want to use pot for recreational not medical purposes.
20 posted on
05/05/2004 3:33:27 PM PDT by
quadrant
To: qam1
My standard pot reply...
Smoking pot makes ya stupid and argumentative. Prolly has someting to do with the sugar peaks and drops that occur. I have done no scientific research on this.
Thank you.
...and don't drink the bongwater.
22 posted on
05/05/2004 3:37:25 PM PDT by
Khurkris
(Ranger On...Rest with the Lord Ranger Tillman.)
To: qam1
This chart would seem to indicate that the major growth in use & dependence occured among blacks and latinos. The white group use looks to be less than the average % of increase during the years specified.
Damn white man be holdin' 'em down again!
23 posted on
05/05/2004 3:41:56 PM PDT by
Khurkris
(Ranger On...Rest with the Lord Ranger Tillman.)
To: qam1
Wow, great reason to increase the law enforcement against all things related to illegal drugs. I can imagine the hell hole the country would be if this ever was legal.
I heard other how past countries that tried legalization are having to go back to enforcement since they are killing their civilization.
Well, duh! Hart to figure legalizing it would grow addicts.
27 posted on
05/05/2004 4:27:13 PM PDT by
A CA Guy
(God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
To: qam1
$400 billion a year. Big industry for something that grows wild along the railroad tracks.
31 posted on
05/05/2004 4:31:47 PM PDT by
RightWhale
(Destroy the dark; restore the light)
To: qam1; All
Just out of curiosity, is there anything such as marijuana
use?
Why is it always called abuse?
32 posted on
05/05/2004 4:33:14 PM PDT by
expatguy
(Fallujah Delenda Est!!)
To: qam1
*Wonders how long this thread will keep out of the Smokey Backroom... marvels at the politeness of the thread so far*
37 posted on
05/05/2004 4:55:00 PM PDT by
KangarooJacqui
(Hamas: Things that make you go "BANG"....)
To: qam1
Is this like a really old story or something?
47 posted on
05/05/2004 5:21:21 PM PDT by
BJungNan
To: qam1
There are
far more people that smoke cannabis than cited in the article.
54 posted on
05/05/2004 7:42:24 PM PDT by
William Terrell
(Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
To: qam1
"Among all adults ages 45 to 64, the rate increased by 355 percent, to about 0.4 percent of that population. The report, published in today's Journal of the American Medical Association, was led by Wilson Compton of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, who said the rise in dependence was probably due at least partly to increases in the potency of pot over the past decade."
This is really misleading. I've seen a couple of versions of this article and others are worse. They are trying to make it look like older people are smoking more pot these days. That probably isn't the case. What's happening is that those who started smoking pot when pot first became popular in the 1960's and 1970's are getting older and now comprise a much greater percentage of the 45 to 64 age bracket. People who were 45 to 64 in 1991 were born between 1927 and 1946. Most of them came of age long before pot use became popular in this country. Few of them ever even tried pot, so there were hardly any to be still smoking by 1991. In contrast, those who were 45 to 64 in 2001 were born between 1937 and 1955. A much higher percentage of them came of age in the sixties and seventies when marijuana became popular. The overwhelming majority grew up and stopped smoking pot, but as had been the case with the group from ten years before, a tiny few of those who tried marijuana kept on smoking. The 355% increase in use by persons 45 to 64 can be explained by the historical fact that marijuana use didn't become popular in this country until the 1960's and 1970's, and now those who were coming of age in that era are getting older. Give it another ten years and you'll see another big jump in this number, not because people are starting to smoke more pot, but because more people in that age group will be people who have smoked pot and a tiny minority of those who smoke pot when they are young continue to smoke it when they are older.
55 posted on
05/05/2004 8:19:31 PM PDT by
TKDietz
To: qam1; *Wod_list; jmc813; headsonpikes; The kings dead; Hemingway's Ghost; bassmaner; philman_36; ...
That's strange. Just yesterday, the AMA published this:
"Despite the seriousness of DSM-IV marijuana abuse and dependence, no long-term trend information is available about whether the prevalence of these disorders is increasing, decreasing, or remaining stable in the United States."
60 posted on
05/06/2004 5:13:33 AM PDT by
Wolfie
To: qam1
"Baby boomers fuel jump in pot use"
Duh.
I could have told them that. Hope they didn't spend too much money figuring this out.
73 posted on
05/06/2004 7:37:01 AM PDT by
Skooz
(My Biography: Psalm 40:1-3)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-25 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson