Yep, this nonsense came from the very mother lode of BS:
I find that hard to believe. In fact I would like to know which hospital's emergency room(s) this study is referring to.
In many parts of the country, more people are admitted to treatment for marijuana dependence than for heroin. Clearly, we can take from this that marijuana is, in fact, a dependence-fostering drug, a dependence that an increasing number of people are seeking help to address.
Not so fast, there. There are a lot of reasons why more people would "cite themselves" for marijuana use by entering such a program than admit to heroin use -- and not the least of these is that admitted heroin users will get a whole lot more attention from law enforcement.
Also, there are monetary considerations whose importance is difficult to estimate. The available funds for these programs, their use in prolonging one's employment (if one is under suspicion of having used drugs in the workplace), their treatment by health insurance plans, must all be factored in. No assertion about the current situation can be honestly prefixed with the debate-foreclosing adverb "clearly."
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com
I'm not saying that marijuana is harmless, but I wonder if "admitted for treatment" really means court-ordered "treatment" for someone who blew a drug test.
I guess the fact that Potheads are in the minority might make it harder to get Marijuana legalized. This is good news!
The country is filled with marijuana users leading normal, productive lives. Haven't you noticed? Don't you know any? If your answer to either of the above is no then you should focus your attention on other subjects about which you are better informed (if any such exists).
I would like to know how many of the people admitted to treatment for marijuana were court ordered (because they were found in possession) and how many were there due to a true addiction.
Back in my high school drug classes in the 70's we were taught that marijuana was not a physically addictive drug, that it may be psychologically addictive, but not physically...like say alcohol, heroin or coke is.
I stopped reading here, as this association also claims that homophobia is a disease and homosexuality is a life style choice. Pass the bong, nothing to see here. BTW you would be surprised to find out that most pot smokers are not flaming liberals.
demonstrates the remarkable success the drug war is having! Meanwhile in Holland, where marijuana has been de facto legal for 40 years, 1/3 as many people smoke marijuana as here, and the marijuana/coffee shops are filled largely with American tourists. And for this we are spending tens of billions a year and arresting 700,000 people?
In many parts of the country, more people are admitted to treatment for marijuana dependence than for heroin.
If you are arrested for marijuana, they give you a choice: jail or treatment. People aren't exactly seeking help. Since so many people are being arrested for marijuana, because so many people use it, naturally you see some admissions.
Yep, this nonsense came from the very mother lode of BS:
And must want to keep a job
And alcohol plus marijuana had been used by 33.5%?
This article is full of highly implicating yet incomplete stats and information.
A 1988 study in the Archives of Surgery found that among 1,023 trauma victims, marijuana had been used by 34.7 percent, alcohol by 33.5.
THC remains in the body for at least thirty days after use. Alcohol remains in the body for less than 24 hours. The author either did shoddy research or is being intentionally deceptive.
The danger of marijuana can be measured in trends found in hospital emergency rooms. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration reported earlier this year that emergency room admissions where marijuana use preceded injury rose 141 percent between 1994 and 2000.
See above comment. Also, when the hospital emergency rooms began testing for marijuana needs to be accounted for. I suspect that between 1994 and 2000 that there was a steady increase of emergency rooms testing for THC. Thus, of course there would be an increase. The author wants to imply that the increase is due to increased marijuana use and or increased potency but wants to avoid implying that the increase is due to more testing for THC.
Today, by contrast, the Drug Enforcement Administration reports THC concentration in Sinsemilla (the female version of the cannabis plant) as high as 30 percent. This fact alone leads one to question long standing beliefs about marijuana that were formulated a long time ago relative to a much weaker, less concentrated substance.
What long standing beliefs is the author suggesting should be questioned? The author is intentionally ambiguous. All I see is that because the potency is higher pot smokers need to smoke less to get high. Less smoke in the lungs, I would think, is a good thing. BTW, Sinsemilla is not just the female plant it is the female plant that has not been pollinated and thus has no seeds. The normal seed production process being eliminated causes the plant to produce more THC.
There is abundant research that defines a negative impact on the functioning of the brain related to the use of marijuana, especially on tasks like coordination, perception, judgment and memory.
Impaired perception, judgment and memory negatively effects almost all politicians and bureaucrats -- it's how the corrupt system came to be so corrupt. Those negative effects have been spread like a disease well beyond just politicians and bureaucrats and can measured by the number of unconstitutional laws they have created and laws that violate individual life-and-property rights. That negative impact is several magnitudes more harmful/destructive to individuals and society than all drug abuse combined.
One of the most interesting of these studies, published in 1991, involved a group of airline pilots who were given one marijuana cigarette, then tested for their ability to land a plane in a flight simulator.
What study was that? Pilots shouldn't be flying while impaired by any drug -- prescription or non-prescription. I recall reading about an issue wherein female pilots with PMS was called into question. I don't recall what became of it.
What's significant is that the pilots were still demonstrably impaired 24 hours after their use of that marijuana cigarette.
"Demonstrably" means that an effect was demonstrated. What was the effect? It impaired what ability? Did it impair the pilots ability to sleep, such as caffeine does? Did it impair the ability to focus, such as an alcohol hangover does?
Marijuana is fat-soluble (whereas alcohol, cocaine, heroin, and amphetamines are water soluble -- they dissolve easily in water) which means it stays in a person's body much longer than other drugs and its effects are more insidious.
So the author does know that THC remains in the system for several weeks. The author proclaims that the effects of marijuana are more insidious than other drugs. What other drugs? Yes, the negative effects of marijuana are more insidious than aspirin. But it seems clear that the author is implying that the negative effects of marijuana use are more insidious than alcohol, cocaine, heroin, and amphetamines. The author expects the reader to believe that!? Yeah right; and Clinton didn't inhale.
The facts at hand call us to put the mystique of marijuana as a docile substance of no consequence behind us and to take up a better informed conversation in light of the real truth. Marijuana need no longer stay under the radar of serious discussion.
In one breath the author makes the call to, "take up a better informed conversation in light of the real truth" and immediately says that there is no longer a need for "serious discussion". What planet is the author from? ;^)
So much intentional ambiguity and deception by the author is her banner she chooses to identify herself by.