Baby boomers fuel jump in pot use

Salt Lake Tribune ^ | 5/5/04 | Lindsey Tanner

[CSM]

I thought it was rude to not cc another member of a thread when you make statements about them. Why would you expect other posters to understand what you meant if you are being cryptic?

[CSM]

How is anyone supposed to know the "context" of your statement when you do not put them in context? By failing to identify the "meth user" or cc'ing any other poster, it could very well have read that Robert used meth. You did not put your own words in context to be taken out of context.

[Betis70]

Great book. Nice rant. I agree with just about everything you said, except my parents are from the "Silent Generation" or something like that, the ones right before the Boomers--born at the tail-end of the depression, too young to fight in WWII.

My mom was a SAHM until I went to kindergarten. But even after that she worked as a RN at the local school, so her hours were similar to ours.

They just celebrated their 40th Anniversary a couple days ago. :)

[stands2reason]

Here in Texas, pot comes from Mexico. Average grade, and very cheap.

I'm sure in other states, it's homegrown and/or imported from BC --- but it ain't $50 an ounce, either. BC Bud's more like $400 an ounce. Or so I hear. :-)

[robertpaulsen]

Trust me, The kings dead is MrLeRoy. I'm not aware that JR, KR, or LR said otherwise.

What's not "becoming" are people who sneak back on the board after they've been banned. You're as bad as the reporters who wanted Bush to apologize for 9/11 instead of Al-Qaeda.

[tacticalogic]

How can they not understand how this burden is going to effect their children? How can they not care how this will suck into their own grand children's college?

I'm still trying to figure out how the "Greatest Generation" didn't seem to have a clue what their "New Deal" was going to do to every generation to come.

[pageonetoo]

Trust me,...

Why would anyone trust you? Your arrogance is second only to your self-righteousness. I do not think most of us care what you have to say, as you say the same things over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over, and never seem to contribute anything new.

Go back to DU! We know you don't like hemp users. Get over it!

[robertpaulsen]

Well, sounds like I'm pretty consistent.

[pageonetoo]

Well, sounds like I'm pretty consistent....

Consistency is not the same as truth!

You posit one truth, and and expect everyone to bow to you. Others have the truth.

It does not invalidate other peoples opinions, when you disagree with them. Yet, you insist on being the arbiter, and stoop to belittling and berating... Get over yourself!

[boxsmith13]

Bush is a baby boomer, but the rest are WW2 Babies.Boomers 1945-1964.

[tacticalogic]

Well, sounds like I'm pretty consistent.

By your own admission, your only interest in pot is making sure your kids never smoke it, and you don't have any particular scruples about what you'll do to make that happen. By your own rules of engagement, anything you post on the subject will be calculated to advance that agenda. Objectivity, veracity, or basis in fact are secondary considerations if they are considered at all.

[bc2]

$400? Here in NY it's $225 - $250.

Upstate NY has lots of high end growers. An old hippie guy told me once that the "nothern lights" strain was perfected in the Finger Lakes region. Rochester even has a cannabis cup style convention every so often.

I wouldn't want anything to do with anything that costs $50/oz... well maybe if I was a patient. I know guys that give away $350 stuff but their pretty well-off and it's only for cancer patients. The stuff is "medical strength". Seriously. (or so I hear)

[Wolfie]

This is a piece by Bruce Mirken, Communications Director for the Marijuana Policy Project. He sums it up nicely. There has been a huge policy shift in how the criminal justice system and statistics gathering are done. Now, any interaction with the criminal justice system that involves marijuana is reported as "abuse". Naturally, the numbers have gone up. Marijuana potency is but one hypothesis. But it certainly is the one that gets trumpeted. And a quick look at the data reveals that its a very unlikely one (see the article for details). A much more obvious explanation is the skewing of the numbers due to how they're now reported. When you get right down to it, the numbers of "abusers" has gone up because the government has chosen to dump a bunch of people into that category for the first time. As Mirken points out, it would be nice if at least one journalist did a little digging.

Lies and the Lazy Reporters Who Repeat Them

On May 5, newspapers and news broadcasts around the country carried alarming stories about a new study of marijuana, published in that day's issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. "Stronger marijuana makes more addicted," screamed the Los Angeles Daily News. "Abuse and dependence rise as pot becomes more potent," headlined the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Rising marijuana potency, the stories claimed, was leading more Americans to become addicted to the devil weed.

Small problem: The theory that pot that is more potent is getting people hooked is almost certainly wrong. But none of the newspaper stories gave the slightest hint that might be the case.

The government-funded study on which the stories were based, "Prevalence of Marijuana Use Disorders in the United States," was conducted by scientists from the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. It compared survey data from 1991-92 to 2001-02, indicating an increase in marijuana "abuse" or "dependence," as defined by the DSM-IV, the American Psychiatric Association's official diagnostic manual for mental disorders. The study's authors hypothesized that the most likely cause for this increase is "increased marijuana potency." As the Atlanta Journal-Constitution story, picked up by the Daily News, put it, "It's not your parents' marijuana." Wire stories used by most other papers took roughly the same line, though in less shrill language.

None of these stories chose to mention a salient fact: The "potent pot" hypothesis is pure speculation. As Mitch Earleywine, University of Southern California associate professor of psychology and author of "Understanding Marijuana" (Oxford University Press, 2002) notes, there is no scientific evidence that marijuana that is more potent leads to greater levels of dependence. Indeed the JAMA article makes no claim that any such evidence exists.

Second, as the JAMA article notes, under DSM-IV criteria, people can be classified as marijuana "abusers" if they experience "legal problems related to marijuana use." The FBI Uniform Crime Reports arrest tabulations show that marijuana arrests skyrocketed from about 300,000 in 1991 to well over 700,000 in 2001. What may be simply the results of shifting law enforcement priorities were presented in both the study and in news reports as the dire effects of "potent pot." Strikingly, the JAMA article fails to identify which abuse/dependence criteria increased, and by how much.

That alone should have led an inquisitive reporter or two to ask if there might be an alternative explanation to the "potent pot" theory. But the journalists covering the story failed to ask this most basic question even though the study contained a giant red flag: The increased "abuse" occurred almost entirely among young blacks and Hispanics. There was no similar increase among whites in the same age group.

Young blacks and Hispanics have no special access to high-potency marijuana, and there is no evidence that THC affects black and Hispanic brains differently than those of whites. But people of color are well documented to be at disproportionate risk for arrest for drug crimes.

None of this was discussed in the Journal-Constitution story, or in the AP, Reuters and Scripps-Howard wire stories that were reprinted across the country. Indeed, what is striking about all of these stories is their similarity to the National Institute on Drug Abuse's press release. None of these esteemed newspapers or wire services chose to quote even a single expert or advocate skeptical of the government line. None of them seems to have considered the possibility that our government might spin the data in order to match its Drug War policies.

For shame.

[bayourod]

I have no idea what you potheads are talking about. If you had any sense you'd smoke your coke instead of snorting it and then you wouldn't need any pot to qualm the jitters.

[pageonetoo]

I have no idea what you potheads are talking about....

Are you ignorant, or do you just play that on TV?

You are, apparently, the only one here, that is confused! This is not about Coke! (new or old!) The entire discussion is about hemp, and the idiots that persecute its users, for the chil'run's sake!!

[bc2]

Hey sorry about pinging you, I was just replying to stands2reason. Who was talking about coke? ugh!

sorry. take care,

[bayourod]

Just kidding. Y'all take pot much too seriously. It's only a weed used to treat Matabolite overdoses.

[tertiary01]

What's it to you? The person I posted to understood everything otherwise why isn't he asking me the same question? I didn't initially contact any of these other posters, they contacted me. I still think one is a troll.

[T.Smith]

"Meaning no disrespect to your father, I must say it's easier to stick to your principles when it doesn't cost you anything. There are a lot of "conservative-buts" on FR: for smaller government except when it comes to guns, or drugs, or job protection, or ...."

So true, so true.

[pageonetoo]

Y'all take pot much too seriously. It's only a weed...

...and a good one, indeed. But, at this time, I am content with a wee bit of Glenmorangie single malt, and a fairly decent Don Asa churchill, from cigarsint'l... it's still 68 here in WV, and pleasant in the garden! I's a good evening for a smoke...

I'll look for the bong tomorrow! ...there might still be some scrapins...